Full disclosure: I work at UseJunior (https://usejunior.com), so weigh this accordingly. That said, I've used the tool myself and watched how customers interact with it, so I can speak to what I've observed. The email-based workflow is genuinely the differentiator. No portal to log into, no prompts to craft — just forward a document with plain-English instructions. I was skeptical this would work for complex legal documents, but it does. Lawyers who've been practicing for 30+ years pick it up immediately because it fits how they already work. What I've seen in real usage: - A 7-minute turnaround on a SPA markup that would typically take hours - One firm processed 22M tokens over their pilot (that's heavy, sustained usage) - The contract markup has been called "more accurate than Harvey" by a KM director at a top firm The cited outputs matter. Every finding links back to the exact clause, so lawyers can verify without hunting through pages. That's table stakes for legal work — if you can't check the source, you can't trust the output. I'm biased, obviously. But the best signal I can point to: busy lawyers keep using it. That only happens if it actually saves time. If you're evaluating contract AI tools, I'd encourage you to test it yourself. The email-based trial is low-friction — you'll know quickly if it fits your workflow.