Why Litmas AI chose to build for litigation alone
Jason Weber is CEO and Co-Founder of Litmas AI, an AI platform built exclusively for litigation, with tools for drafting, research and fact management. Weber explains how feedback from litigators shaped the product, why the company stayed focused on one field, and what an early capacity crunch taught the team.
Build around a problem you know firsthand, put the product in front of real users early, and resist expanding before you do one job well. Weber also argues that trust in legal AI depends on verifiable sources and attorney review, not speed alone.
What’s the short story of how your business started, and what makes it genuinely different from the other options your customers have?
I always wanted to be a lawyer. I’m the first one in my family, and I’ve always been drawn to advocating for people who can’t do it themselves. I moved down to Miami from New Jersey, passed the bar, and the first job I could get was document review, in a room with a hundred other licensed attorneys moving emails from one folder to another. So I started looking for clients on Craigslist from the desk next to mine. I found some, and that marked the beginning of my own firm, which I ran and grew for more than ten years.
Litmas AI started with my co-founder, Sriram Sekhar. Sriram is a technology and product leader who spent years at Amazon, and he’s the opposite of me in the best way. I know what a litigator needs at 11 p.m. before a filing, and he knows how to build it. We were talking over a beer in Hamburg, and we kept coming back to the same thing. Litigators spend most of their time on everything around the argument, and very little on the argument itself. So in 2025 we started building. I’d hear something from a lawyer, and Sriram would build it in days. Litmas AI does litigation and nothing else, on purpose. A case changes every time a judge rules, and most tools weren’t built to keep up with that. We were.
How did you win your first customers, and where does most of your new business come from today?
We didn’t launch with a big announcement. We put the product in front of litigators and listened. When a lawyer told me something was missing, Sriram built it in days, and that’s how the product got good. That loop between what lawyers tell me and what Sriram ships is the whole company. Once we knew the product was ready, we launched a campaign on Meta and it instantly connected and led to rapid adoption by solo practitioners and smaller law firms.
Today it’s a mix. A good share comes from paid social, mostly Instagram, where talking about motion drafting gets attorneys’ attention. A lot comes from referrals, because litigators talk to each other, and if one of them tells a colleague "this found misapplied case law in my opponent’s brief." That’s worth more than any ad. And some of it is organic, from reviews and people finding us.
What’s one decision that changed the direction of your business, and one mistake that taught you the most?
The decision was saying no. Everyone told us to add contracts, due diligence, real estate, because that’s where the market is. But I’d lived litigation, and I knew a case isn’t a contract. A contract sits still after it’s signed. A case changes every time a judge rules or someone files something new. So we picked one thing and went all the way, from a demand letter through an appeal.
The mistake was an early launch where demand ran ahead of what the platform could handle. It was a good problem to have – but still an embarrassing one. Attorneys were asking for more than we were ready to give them, and I had to stop and fix the foundation while people were waiting. It taught me to build for scale before you need it, because you won’t get time to once the demand shows up.
What has changed in your industry or in what your customers expect over the last couple of years, and how have you adapted?
Two years ago the question was "Will lawyers use AI?" Now it’s “Which one can I trust?" Courts have addressed AI-generated fabrications in more than 1,500 decisions, and lawyers have been sanctioned for them. So speed isn’t the selling point anymore. The point is whether it holds up in front of a judge.
That’s why we built the product the way we did. Every case and statute is checked against verified court opinions before the lawyer sees a draft, and every fact links to its exact source, down to page and line. You click a citation and the deposition or medical record opens next to it. To date, no fabricated citations have been reported. The attorney still reviews every section in an automated verification workflow, because that’s how it should work. A motion for summary judgment used to take weeks of drafting and assembly. Now it can be drafted to a near-final state in as little as 90 minutes, and drafting time drops 60 to 80 percent
If you were advising someone starting out in your industry today, what would you tell them to do first, and what would you tell them to ignore?
Start with a problem you’ve lived. I didn’t read about litigation as a market. I was in it, missing things I cared about because an emergency motion was filed. If you’ve felt the problem, you’ll know when your product gets it wrong. Then put it in front of real users early and keep soliciting their feedback. Our best features came from lawyers telling us what was missing.
Ignore the pressure to be everything. You’ll be told to become a platform before you’ve become the best at one job. Our motto is "never settle," and that includes not settling for being okay at a lot of things.
Thank you to Jason Weber and the team at Litmas AI for sharing what actually worked with Leaders Perception readers.
Want to tell the story behind your business?
Leaders Perception publishes interviews with business owners and leaders every week. Five questions, about ten minutes, no calls. It is free and every completed interview gets published.