AI-native law firm founder says Anthropic's Claude has made his three-lawyer practice compete with much larger firms by automating grunt work
Zack Shapiro, founder and managing partner of boutique AI-native law firm Rains, has described how his three-lawyer venture capital and M&A-focused firm operates with the output of a much larger practice by using Anthropic's Claude to automate document drafting and other routine legal tasks. Speaking to Business Insider, Shapiro said AI has made him "dramatically more efficient" and that he has "automated away basically all of the unpleasant or grunt work" that previously consumed his working day. Shapiro, a Yale Law School graduate, said he uses Claude's voice mode to dictate legal analysis while walking, generating first drafts by the time he returns to his desk. He described the approach as shifting lawyers toward judgment and client-facing work and away from document production. He framed this as the model's core competitive advantage: "The real humans are focused on the more human part of the job." Shapiro said he is sceptical of purpose-built legal AI products such as Harvey and Legora, arguing that the better path is for lawyers to learn to use general-purpose AI tools directly through precise prompting. He has begun consulting with large law firms on integrating the same workflow. His viral post titled "The Claude-Native Law Firm" attracted millions of views earlier this year, indicating substantial market interest in the model.
Why this matters
The Shapiro story is significant not for the individual practice but for the model it represents and is now actively promoting to large law firms. If Big Law begins adopting Claude-native workflows at scale, the implication is a structural reduction in the volume of associate-level drafting work, which directly affects trainee and junior associate workloads and headcount decisions. The debate between general-purpose AI (Claude used directly) versus purpose-built legal AI (Harvey, Legora) is a live commercial question for firms investing in AI infrastructure: the former is cheaper and more flexible but requires more sophisticated prompt engineering from lawyers; the latter offers more controlled, auditable outputs but at higher cost. For students targeting City firms, understanding this distinction and being able to discuss it fluently is increasingly expected at interview.
On the Ground
A trainee in a firm adopting AI-native workflows would be involved in AI governance policy drafting, helping to establish internal guidelines on which tasks are permitted to use general-purpose AI tools and what review and verification obligations apply to AI-generated drafts. They might also assist with vendor due diligence questionnaires when the firm is evaluating legal AI products, and with data processing agreement markup to ensure AI tool use complies with client confidentiality obligations.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“If AI can automate the drafting work that trainees and junior associates traditionally do, what is the remaining value of a City training contract?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved