More work, better quality: how a Zurich M&A attorney rebuilt her practice around Lexity

In our In Practice series we talk to the lawyers who actually use Lexity day-to-day. Not to demo features, but to ask what changed in their work, what they trust, and what's still missing.

Episode two: Karin Mülchi, CEO of Bridge Legal Group and a corporate M&A attorney based in Zurich. Karin is one of our earliest users, and one of the few who advises other law firms on adopting legal AI. Which means she has unusual standing to tell us where Lexity is working, and where it isn't.

Executive summary

• For a corporate M&A lawyer, the unspoken first step in 90% of work is finding the right template. Karin moved hers into Lexity. "I would not go back. It's absolutely priceless."
• She runs the Due Diligence Checklist Clickflow™ on full data rooms. What used to take hours now runs while she answers her email.
• A hostile-shareholder dispute, sorted only by emails and chat, became navigable in minutes via the Timeline Clickflow™.
• Lexity didn't just make her faster. She says the quality of her work has gone up, because she now has a sounding board that lets her stress-test her own thinking.
• Her honest critique: she wants more integration, not less surface. SharePoint and inbox, please.

Meet Karin

Karin is the CEO of Bridge Legal Group, a corporate M&A attorney by training, and the co-editor of Recht^KI (DIKE, 2026), a foundational Swiss volume on Legal AI. She still does M&A work daily, and she advises law firms and legal departments on how to actually implement AI in legal practice. Which means she has tested most of the tools in the market against the same question: does this earn its place in a real workflow?

She also has the calmest pre-AI take of any lawyer we've interviewed:

What changed her mind wasn't a demo. It was a translation.

First contact: the translation moment

The instinct shift was followed by an immediate next instinct: what about security? For non-Lexity tools, Karin still anonymizes everything before uploading. "Which then doesn't save me much more time, because I still have to blacken and delete names." The cost of distrust is paid in lost time. Lexity removes the cost, "because of the professional secrecy and data protection guardrails, I don't anonymize."

Before Lexity: hunting for templates

We asked Karin to walk us through what a specific M&A task used to look like. The answer surprised us in its simplicity:

The problem isn't the drafting. It's the search. "Sometimes search functions work very badly and don't find what I'm looking for." Comparing a known template against a freshly arrived live agreement could take 20 minutes for a simple NDA, "or one to two hours for a big agreement."

A day in the life: Focus Summarizer on a German NDA

When clients send a flurry of attachments, Karin files everything under a client or project folder, then opens one of two things first: Ask Docs to chat with the documents directly, or the Focused Summarizer Clickflow™ for a structured first pass.

She demoed it live on an anonymized NDA. Her question: does this contract contain a Konventionalstrafe, a contractual penalty? "I have a no-go policy. I don't accept penalties in NDAs."

Lexity returned the answer in German automatically (the document was in German), with a citation that snapped to the exact clause when clicked. "You can check it. The references mean I always know whether the AI understood correctly."

While the Clickflow™ was running, Karin replied to the client. "I let it run, and in the meantime I email back: 'thank you for the NDA, I'll review and revert.' The client knows I've received it. The Clickflow™ does the work."

The Clickflow™ that pays for itself: Due Diligence with a checklist

The one Karin keeps coming back to in M&A work is the Due Diligence Analysis with a Checklist. Upload the firm's DD checklist. Lexity now knows what to look for. Add the data room. The output extracts every relevant data point against every checklist item.

This is the moment most M&A teams realise the unit economics flip. The Clickflow™ runs in minutes. An associate doing the same review costs many hours of billable time. The math gets uncomfortable for the old workflow very quickly.

A case in focus: hostile shareholders, mapped from chat logs

The case Karin walked us through was a rare one. Two shareholders on bad terms, with the underlying events scattered across emails and chat threads, no clean record. Reconstructing the chronology was the matter.

The Timeline Clickflow™ is one of the most consistent feedback-loop wins we hear about across the user base, because the underlying problem (sorting unstructured human communication into a defensible chronology) is one of the most universally painful tasks in legal practice and one of the easiest to get materially right with the right Clickflow™.

The thing she'll never do manually again

We asked for the one task. Karin went to the same place every day-to-day user goes:

There's a reason this answer keeps coming up across our user interviews and it's not actually about the templates. It's about the semantic search underneath. "It can read between the lines. If something isn't clearly written, the search still finds it." That capability turns a lawyer's accumulated history of past work into a real, queryable asset.

More work, and better quality

The most counter-intuitive thing Karin said is also the one we think the rest of the industry is going to take a while to catch up on. We asked what's actually changed about how she works. Most lawyers answer "speed." Karin answered something different:

We pushed on this. Quality is the claim no one says openly, because it's harder to defend than speed. Karin's answer:

And the unexpected coda:

That last part is, we think, an underrated thing AI does for senior lawyers specifically. The cost of asking a basic question goes to zero. The cost of not asking it (getting something subtly wrong) has always been very high.

Where Lexity sits in the market

We asked Karin, as someone who actively advises firms across multiple legal-AI tools, where she'd place Lexity. Her answer is one we'll quote often:

She said the last part with a smile. We kept the line.

Honest critique

We asked what she'd change. The answer was the opposite of what we expected:

This is unusual. Most lawyers we talk to want more control over what enters the system, not less. Karin's view comes from running M&A. At her volume of attachments and matters, the marginal cost of moving documents into the right folder is the work she'd most like to delete. We hear her. Deeper SharePoint and inbox integration is on the roadmap.

What she'd tell a colleague

Three pieces of advice, lifted verbatim:

1. Don't start with too many Clickflows™. "It can be overwhelming. Think about your practice area and the specific tasks you want to make faster or better."
2. Play around. "My template-search use case wasn't on any list. I discovered it because I was once desperately looking for something. Use it as a tool, and you'll find your own."
3. Don't think of it as a replacement. "See it as something that enhances and makes your work better, faster, lighter."

That third point is the one we wish every lawyer encountering legal AI heard before they touched their first tool.