Question 1: Vision & Market Perspective 

How does JUNE define the long-term role of AI in legal process automation – Is the main objective to increaseefficiency in high-volume matters, or does JUNE aim to fundamentally restructure legal work and, thus shape new role and competency profiles within legal departments? 

Answer: I would like to start by turning our attention to the manufacturing industry. There, one thing quickly becomes clear: manual craftsmanship, if encountered at all, is largely confined to the luxury segment. Wherever products need to be manufactured in larger quantities at market-competitive costs, automated production processes are essential. Industrialisation has been a key driver of development, growth and progress. Our modern world would quite simply be inconceivable without automated production. 

In the legal profession, there is sometimes a belief that intellectual craftsmanship is the ultimate ideal. Wherever legal high-wire artistry is required, that is undoubtedly true – and for several years now, several providers have been supporting this work by refining well-known language models for legal use. 

But law is not only about individual disputes, transactions or customised contracts. In many legal departments and law firms, in banks and insurance companies, in trade unions and associations, as well as in the judiciary and public administration, legal work is a volume-driven business. When an organisation must handle hundreds or thousands of cases, this is not a marginal issue – it is core business. And in this context, improving efficiency alone is not enough. Efficiency means doing the same thing faster. What we are observing is a different kind of problem. 

Well-trained and hard-working lawyers are overwhelmed – by deadlines, by case status, by communication with external parties. Beyond a certain volume, a legal chain reaction sets in: a missed deadline escalates into three further proceedings, an unresolved case triggers the next one, and suddenly the entire team loses track of the overall situation. Organisations therefore do not need a faster form of craftsmanship. They need a fundamentally different way of working. And it is precisely out of this experience that JUNE was born. 

What emerges from this in the long term genuinely changes which tasks people take on – and which skills are required. We are already seeing the emergence of new roles: legal operations managers who design processes instead of managing files; lawyers who work with data and steer workflows rather than drafting routine correspondence. This is not a threat to existing professional profiles – it is an elevation of them. It is evident that the strongest legal teams take an active role in shaping this development, rather than merely waiting for it to unfold.* 

What is adopted today by the major players in the market will become part of the legal mainstream – because the complexity and volume of legal work simply leave no alternative. 

Question 2: Technological Core You describe JUNE as orchestrating legal processes end-to-end, autonomously structuring knowledge and ensuring scalability. Which core components of the platform enable this deep, integrated automation? 

Answer: What distinguishes JUNE from other approaches is the consistency with which we map the entire process – from the initial receipt of a document through to the final decision and the reporting that follows. Many solutions address individual steps. JUNE  presents a clear overview of the whole process. 

In practical terms, this means that cases enter the system via various channels – email, APIs, forms – which are then immediately structured. AI-supported extraction and document classification ensure that relevant data is automatically identified and assigned, without any need for manual intervention. On this basis, an adaptive workflow system manages case processing with dynamic task and deadline control that adjusts to the actual progression of a case/process. Documents are generated and dispatched automatically. Overarching all of this is a comprehensive transparency layer: every case, every deadline and every activity is traceable and reportable in real time. 

What is often underestimated is the knowledge component. Every processed case produces structured data on how it was classified, which arguments were used, which decisions were made and with what outcome. JUNE enables the systematic and effective use of this knowledge. – not as a static archive, but as an active component of ongoing case handling. Over time, organisations build a genuine knowledge advantage that translates into better decisions, shorter processing times and more consistent quality. 

And because we know that no legal department starts with a blank slate, JUNE is built to integrate into existing system landscapes – whether document management systems, ERP environments or communication infrastructures. Data security and compliance are not afterthoughts, but integral to architectural decisions from the outset. For large organisations in particular, this is often the decisive prerequisite for even considering a solution. 

Question 3: Differentiation 

What is the difference between JUNE’s technology and those from other AI‑supported contract or workflow tools on the market? 

Answer: Most of the solutions I see on the market address a specific step within the legal process – contract analysis, document generation or research. These are useful tools that make individual tasks faster. The real question only arises at a different scale: how do I manage hundreds or thousands of parallel cases in a way that ensures no case falls through the cracks, no deadline is missed and I am constantly aware of my current status? 

That requires a different architectural decision. At JUNE, AI is not a layer applied retrospectively to existing processes – it is built in as an operational component from the very beginning. A multi‑agent system runs continuously in the background, coordinating parallel proceedings, identifying deviations and intervening on a rule-based basis, without requiring a human to initiate every single step. The classification and extraction of incoming documents is based on models trained on legal content and tailored to the specific requirements of our clients. This is not a generic language model with a legal prompt layered on top. 

The third differentiator is enterprise readiness. JUNE is hosted in Europe, compliant with the GDPR and the DSA, and has passed the full IT security processes required large organisations. This may sound like an operational detail – but anyone who has ever tried to roll out new software in an organisation like Lufthansa, or a comparable enterprise, knows that this is precisely what determines success or failure. Technological superiority is of little value if security requirements are not met. 

Question 4: Scaling & Implementation Experience. You refer to working with large organisations and to JUNE’s ability to manage hundreds of cases simultaneously. What lessons have you learned from previous implementations – particularly with regard to change management, process design and the path from initial use cases to true end‑to‑end transformation? 

Answer: What we observe time and again during implementations is that organisations come to us with a technical issue and then discover other new problems: it often transpires that they don’t understand their own processes as well as they thought. How does a case actually enter the organisation? Who decides what, and on what basis? Where do delays really arise? This clarification process is uncomfortable, but it is the most valuable part of the implementation – and a prerequisite for everything that follows. 

The second lesson genuinely surprised us: technology is rarely the real obstacle. It is actually the people and the structures which slows us down or derails implementations. Lawyers who have long relied on personal experience and informal networks may initially perceive a platform that  Lawyers who have long relied on personal experience and informal networks may initially perceive a platform that brings transparency and structure to processes as a loss of control, rather than a benefit..Change management at JUNE therefore primarily means identifying the right internal champions early on, making success visible and showing teams that the platform does not make them replaceable – it makes them more effective. 

In terms of process design, we have learned that one should never start with the ideal state. Those who attempt to map the perfect process from the outset become lost in endless coordination loops. What works is a different approach: start with a concrete, painful problem that everyone recognises, build a functioning process for it and then repeat. Good process design does not emerge on the drawing board – it reveals itself in practice. 

As for the journey from initial use cases to true transformation, what we see is a legal chain reaction – this time in a positive sense. When the first process truly works, it does more than improve the handling of high case volumes. It changes the team’s confidence, their willingness to change and their perspective on other processes. We see this across  a wiede variety of organisations. The fact that a company like META is among our clients demonstrates that the requirements for legal process automation are no longer industry-specific. At a certain point, we are no longer the ones asking which processes can be automated – instead, the legal department comes to us with new ideas. The decisive moment is when they stop thinking of JUNE as a tool for a specific type of proceeding and begin to view it as operational infrastructure. We actively accompany thismethod because we know that the difference between a successful and a non-successful implementationis usually not dependent on  technology, but whether clients take this journey seriously.