Company profile · 3 min read
Concorda: an operating system for litigation
Concorda helps litigation teams draft, research and manage case work from the full matter record.
Cofounder of Lazyweb (a16z Speedrun). Previously grew subscriptions and built native ads at Duolingo. Writes First1000 (90,000+ subscribers).
Published · Updated
Concorda is an AI operating system for litigation. It fits trial lawyers and legal teams that want help with drafting, discovery and research without handing the whole case to a black box.
What it does
The product is built around the full matter record. Concorda’s homepage describes workflows for complaints, answers, interrogatories, discovery responses, deposition outlines, case-law research and citation-checked drafting. Its public pages show separate paths for IP litigation, plaintiff-side work, commercial litigation and legal departments. The useful distinction is that the system is trying to keep facts, parties, exhibits and testimony connected while the work moves through the case.
Why I’d look closer
The pricing page is unusually direct for legal software: Team is listed at $350 per user per month with the first two weeks free. The plan includes unlimited matters and document uploads, research across case law and statutes, and SOC 2 Type II audited infrastructure with zero data retention. Enterprise is custom and includes procurement/security support. Those are company-stated terms, not an independent security review.
The founders’ backgrounds are part of the product thesis. The about page describes Sam Oh as a Harvard computer science and University of Chicago law graduate who litigated at Latham & Watkins and Fish & Richardson. Ke Ma is described as a Northwestern law graduate and former Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office litigator. The company LinkedIn search result repeats the “on-demand litigation associate” framing; a separate company post claims large time savings, but that is marketing evidence, not a customer review.
What I’d ask
Legal drafting is not a place to accept uncited confidence. A buyer should test citation coverage, jurisdiction support, privilege boundaries, document retention, exportability and the exact human-review step before using the product on live matters. Public material does not establish how the system performs across unusual procedural postures.
My editorial take
Concorda is interesting because it starts from the case record instead of the chat box. I would shortlist it for a litigation team willing to run a bounded matter through the workflow and inspect every citation. The useful question is not whether it can write a brief. It is whether it reduces routine work while leaving the lawyer with a better view of the case.
Quick facts
| Field | Sourced detail |
|---|---|
| Accelerator | a16z Speedrun, SR006 |
| Industry | Legal Tech; AI Agents |
| Public website | concordahq.com |
| Pricing | Team at $350/user/month; first two weeks free; Enterprise custom |
| Security claim | Company says SOC 2 Type II audited with zero data retention |
| Buyer gate | Test citations, privilege, jurisdiction coverage and human review on a real matter |
Sources checked
| Volatile field | Source | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Membership/founders | Speedrun profile and about page | 2026-09-19 |
| Pricing/security | Concorda plans | 2026-09-19 |
| Public company search | Concorda LinkedIn | 2026-09-19 |
About the author
Cofounder of Lazyweb (a16z Speedrun). Previously grew subscriptions and built native ads at Duolingo. Writes First1000 (90,000+ subscribers).
I cofound Lazyweb and publish Mudpie. This is an owner-written publication, not an independent testing organization. Research notes distinguish observations, sourced reporting and editorial judgment.
First1000 ↗ · X ↗