From Tech Company to Law Firm: The Naya Software Story
We've seen lots of law firms invest in building and adopting technology. Matt and the team at Naya Law are building the other way around.....
A few years ago, Matt Basile was in a meeting trying to sell his software to a law firm. The firm's CFO had a question.
"Wait - so we were trying to cut 10 hours off the drafting of the documents by an associate by using yourself. Why would we do that?"
Under an hourly model, buying software that removes ten billable hours from an associate's week is not an efficiency gain. It's a revenue reduction you paid a licence fee to receive. The CFO wasn't being obstructive, he was doing his job.
Matt's answer at the time was honest: "I can't solve your model."
So eventually he stopped trying to, and went and built one that didn't need solving.
The credential stack
Matt spent close to seven years as a software developer and technology consultant. Then he went to law school. Then fifteen years as a commercial real estate lawyer, latterly a partner at Kelley Drye & Warren in New York.
Developer first. Lawyer second. Then back again. We'll come back to that later...
In 2019, while still practising, he founded Naya - a transaction management platform that automates commercial mortgage loan transactions for lenders and their outside counsel. He couldn't get approval to keep building it inside the firm. So he left.
More than 45 law firms and hundreds of lawyers now use the platform. And inow he's launched Naya Law. The firm.
The $40,000 that broke it
The moment that started the second act is very specific.
Matt had a fee-sensitive client he could no longer serve himself, so he handed them to a junior partner at his old firm. Warned them about the sensitivity. Did it properly.
The first two deals came back at around $40,000 each. On $2m and $3m mortgage loans.
In his words: "it's not appropriate. It doesn't work."
Not because anyone overcharged. Nobody padded anything. That is simply what happens when a partner and an associate paper a deal and bill the time it takes. So he called the client and said: we have to figure something out.
The ladder nobody plans to climb
What happened next is the bit I'd point any legal tech founder at, because it's an escalation and every rung was forced by the one below it.
Rung one: software. Sell the tool to the firms. Runs into the CFO problem above.
Rung two: services. Naya Closing Services - an MSO doing the "quote unquote non-legal work", all the moving of stuff, hitting the buttons in the software, with the firm looped in at the end for final legal review. A model he's careful to say is well vetted in the market.
Rung three: the law firm. End-to-end. Fixed fee. His technology, his people, his margin.
Nobody sets out to start a law firm because a CFO asked them a good question. You get there one forced step at a time, because each rung is the only place the value you created can actually land.
That's what productisation looks like when you follow it all the way down. It doesn't stop at the product.
What it costs now
Here's what the other side of the ladder looks like.
On a loan under $20m, Naya Law charges $7,000 to $20,000.
Matt reckons a big firm quotes in the twenties to thirties on the same work - and he's seen $20m deals run to $60,000 or $70,000.
"There's no cap on it when it's being done on a billable model."
And then the line that will land with anyone who has ever been a partner:
"You don't have control over how long Jimmy the associate bills to draft 10 loan documents. You're going to pull up the pre-bill and you're going to see it, and that number is going to be there, and there's nothing you can do about that number other than write it off."
That's the thing people miss about the billable hour. It isn't only expensive for the client. It's uncontrollable for the partner. You find out what the job cost after it's finished, by reading it.
Matt's verdict on the model he left:
"The billable hour is a really, really cushy way to do business. It's no risk. You spend more time, the bill goes up. Even if it goes too high and you cut 20%, you still made a lot of money on everyone's time."
Cushy. No risk. That's a practitioner of fifteen years talking, not a vendor.
The number that decides whether it works
Fixed fees are easy to announce and hard to survive. The question is always what has to be true underneath.
For Matt it's leverage. One senior lawyer - "six, seven, eight years, senior enough that they know everything about what they're doing" - plus a couple of paralegal and non-lawyer types.
Traditional setup: that lawyer runs about 10 deals a month.
What he's building towards: 50.
Same seniority. Same judgement. Five times the throughput, because the process is consistent and the machinery underneath is his.
Smaller teams. Smarter tools. Bigger margins.
And the market's there - the Mortgage Bankers Association forecasts $805.5bn of US commercial mortgage originations in 2026, up 27% on 2025. Every one of those loans has to be papered, checked and closed. Almost all of it is still priced by the hour.
He won't say AI-native
This is my favourite part, because he pushed back on a term I use a lot.
"I kind of laugh at that term. It may work for really low-end commoditised work, but if you're doing a complicated commercial real estate deal, an agent's not going to run the deal end to end with no human oversight or judgment."
He'd rather say AI and tech first. Applied to every workflow, chipping them off one at a time. Summarisation. AI audit checks on documents. "Splattered around right now in our processes where it is working well for those specific things."
And he's sceptical of the general-purpose version entirely: "the general AI native firms, I think that's a tough proposition. You need a lot of lawyers and you're going to need a lot of tech people."
His bet is narrow boutiques. One practice area, gone deep.
I don't think we actually disagree. His objection isn't to the ambition - it's to the scope. And he's right that "we do everything with AI" is not a strategy, it's a slogan. The firms that make this work will be the ones who got uncomfortably narrow first and expand from a position of real advantage.
He picked commercial real estate lending, a market where every single transaction has to go through a law firm, and built the rails for it.
That's not less ambitious. It's more.
The awkward question
45 law firms use his platform. He's now launched a law firm.
He's competing with his own customers.
He's clear-eyed about it, and I don't think there was another option available to him - the CFO conversation proves the software alone was never going to change the economics. But it's a question every legal tech founder is now thinking about, even if they don't talk about it publicly.
If the value you built can only be captured by delivering the service, do you stay a vendor and watch someone else capture it? Or do you go and take it?
What I took from it
Developer first, lawyer second, then back again. He could see the workflow as a system because he'd built systems, and he could see which parts actually needed a lawyer because he'd been one for fifteen years. Neither half alone gets you where he has landed now. That combination is rare it has a key advantage in that you don't need to translate between lawyer and developer which equals speed of progress.
The CFO was right - you shouldn't buy software that destroys your revenue. But they'll only be right for so long, because Matt and companies like his will eventually displace the legacy model.
What's in the episode
00:00 - Introduction to Matt Basile and Naya
Matt is a software developer turned commercial real estate lawyer turned software founder. He opens on the standard question - AI bull or bear, on a scale of one to five - and goes straight to a five. His reasoning is architectural rather than evangelical: Naya's platform is essentially a database holding everything about a transaction and a system of action for its users, so anything they were never going to build themselves can be bolted on through MCP or whatever comes next. Every advance in the foundational models lands as a positive, and more so now the business has moved into services. He is careful about the claim, though. He is not saying AI is going to take everyone's job or replace lawyers, and does not see that as a near-term problem. What he does expect is that it greatly transforms the way the work gets done.
02:51 - From Word Macros To A Platform Nobody Had Built
The origin is frustration rather than vision. As a junior lawyer closing commercial mortgage loans, Matt found the workflows maddening and assumed somebody must have solved it. Nobody had. After messing around with HotDocs and Word macros, he built a platform from scratch and licensed it back to Kelley Drye with himself as the first user. The plan was to build for lawyers, and he admits to being naive on two counts - how hard change management is inside a law firm, and, as a junior associate, how powerful the billable hour is at deterring innovation. He got the whole real estate group using it. Then the lenders redirected the company: shown the platform, their first reaction was that they did not much care how the firm did its work, and their second was that they loved it but could not have it tied to a single firm, because most lenders use ten or fifteen outside counsel. Naya shifted to selling to the law firm's clients instead.
05:55 - The $40,000 Fee That Broke The Model
Naya had been working on $50m and $100m-plus transactions. Then a smaller lender appeared, making a high volume of small loans but wanting all the same boxes ticked. Matt, by then phasing out of practice, handed them to a junior partner at Kelley Drye with an explicit warning that they were fee sensitive. Two deals in, the fees came back at around $40,000 each - on $2m and $3m mortgage loans. As he puts it: it is not appropriate, it does not work. So he called the client and said they had to figure something out, and spun up Naya Closing Services, an MSO doing the non-legal work with the firm looped in at the end for a full legal review. That model does work, and is well vetted in a market where MSOs are becoming more common. But by the second client the inefficiency of having both Naya and a law firm in the same deal was obvious.
08:42 - Launching Naya Law With No Billable Hours
This year the answer became Naya Law: everything under one roof, all fixed fee, no billable hours anywhere in the model. Pricing is value-based and set up front, largely by deal size, with specific collateral or deal features priced in as they arise. Matt's account of why goes to the heart of it - years of selling efficiency into firms whose economics punish it. The CFO who asked why they would want to cut ten hours off an associate's drafting when they were also paying for his software is the emblem of that whole period. Asked whether he considered building inside the firm instead, given Kirkland & Ellis's announced $500m technology investment, Matt says he never wanted to: he came from software and wanted to build a software company, and reckons the firm did not want to either. He notes the times have changed, and adds a sceptical aside - a lot of the conversation treats AI as the answer to everything when plenty of legacy technology does some jobs better.
11:52 - Software Developer, Then Lawyer, Then Back Again
A short, human detour. At twenty-five he was choosing between law school and an MBA, picked law as the more substantive degree, and never expected to spend fifteen years inside a firm. He is clear he does not write code now - they do not let him touch it, as he puts it - but he is heavily prompting and orchestrating how the agents talk to each other and what the vision is for how it should work. Asked what he carried back from law, his answer is attention to detail. Fifteen years in big law trained him not to make mistakes, and gave him a real appreciation for writing and precision - things he freely admits he was not particularly good at as a developer and consultant moving fast and breaking things.
14:33 - What A Fixed Fee Actually Changes About The Work
For a complex deal the client should feel almost no difference. There is still a good, smart lawyer in the loop. What changes is everything behind the fee. With no billable component driving behaviour, every single thing the firm does becomes an opportunity to get faster, more efficient and better - and because clients work inside the same shared platform, every efficiency Naya adds is one the client gets too. Matt contrasts this with the question he thinks is genuinely frightening for hourly firms: you are using AI, so how are you changing your pricing? They have no good answer, and no motivation to get faster. Why would you automate your own job away? He describes a call with a client about Naya's MCP roadmap where the client volunteered that they now use Claude for everything, and the two of them started planning where to apply it together. If the work automates down, he can lower the price. He is not trying to be the cheap option - he is trying to be the right way to do business as a lawyer.
19:14 - Why The Billable Hour Is Such A Cushy Model
Short and pointed. The billable hour, in Matt's words, is a really, really cushy way to do business. There is no risk: you spend more time, the bill goes up, and even if it goes too high and you cut twenty per cent, you have still made a lot of money on everyone's time. He is equally clear on why it is not changing - it is hard, and it is very well entrenched.
20:37 - One Shared Workspace With The Client
Naya runs a custom environment for each client and shares it with them completely. Client and firm log into the same deal, see the same drafts in real time, work the same closing checklist, and pull the closing binder from the same place. Matt notes that the big new players talk about multiplayer mode and shared spaces - Naya has been doing it for years, but the other way round, client to law firm, which he thinks is more appropriate. He is pointed about the status quo it replaces: different outside firms holding different versions of the lender's own forms, evolving them on the side, and historical deal documents sitting as Word files in a law firm's DMS. The client should not be chasing their own documents from their lawyers - and if they ever want to run an LLM or a vector database across their portfolio, they will need all of it in one place.
23:01 - Why Organised Data Decides Who Wins In Two Years
The platform, as Matt frames it, is the foundation for implementing AI later. The more organised your data, your documents and your metadata, the more powerful everything downstream becomes. Start now and you are in a good position in two years; start in two years and you are scrambling to catch up. He is clear it is not only a law firm problem - it is everybody's. Then he gives a concrete example of what a system of action means. A closing checklist today is a Word document with hundreds of items. One says order a survey of the property, with a due date three weeks out, and then everyone forgets about it. Hold that as structured data instead and you can build an agent that runs nightly across every deal, flags what needs chasing, finds the email chain and drafts the follow-up - so in the morning a person reviews, sends, and the system records that it was chased. He is candid that they have not built it yet.
27:00 - Why He Won't Call Naya AI-Native
Asked directly whether Naya Law is an AI-native firm, Matt laughs at the term. It might hold for really low-end commoditised work, but on a complicated commercial real estate deal no agent is going to run the transaction end to end with no human oversight or judgment. He would say AI and tech first - applied to every workflow and chipped off one at a time, with summarisation and AI audit checks of documents working well today, splattered around the process where they fit. What he is trying to prove is a margin claim: use enough AI plus traditional technology and one senior lawyer, six to eight years in and not necessarily a partner, plus a couple of paralegals and non-lawyers, can run fifty deals a month where a traditional lawyer runs ten. He expects narrow boutiques specialising in one area rather than general AI-native firms, which he sees as a tough proposition needing a lot of lawyers and a lot of tech people. On Kirkland's $500m he wonders aloud who inside a law firm is really controlling what gets built, given the committees and the day jobs paid by the hour.
30:59 - The Full-Service Problem: Thirty Startups At Once
Alex picks up the thread with his own version of the argument: building a full-service AI-native firm is not building one proposition, it is attempting to build twenty, thirty, fifty startups at once, across a multitude of practice areas serving different clients in different ways. Matt agrees and goes further into his own patch - attacking the borrower side rather than the lender side would be close to a whole other law firm, and within commercial real estate law there are two or three areas that would each need their own workflows. He is not sure he wants to play in more than one of them. Alex's reinforcement is Amazon, which started as second-hand books on the internet and now sells cloud services, and the observation that founders tend to go too broad too fast and dilute their ability to deliver value in any of the segments they are trying to serve.
35:22 - The Numbers: $7,000 To $20,000 Versus $60,000
The commercial core of the conversation. On a loan under $20m, Naya Law prices between $7,000 and $20,000. Big firms, Matt reckons, land in the twenties to thirties - and he has seen plenty of $20m deals reach $60,000 or $70,000, because on a billable model there is no cap. Then the part only a former partner would say: you have no control over how long the associate bills to draft ten loan documents, you pull up the pre-bill, the number is there, and the only thing you can do about it is write it off, which lands on you. Pricing fixed fee simply feels better. When a deal goes sideways he does not think twice, because that risk is what he priced for - and equally he does not cut the fee when it goes quickly. He adds a practical point: the two law firms are always the last numbers to go onto a settlement statement of fifty, so on an hourly model you end up estimating your own fee anyway. On Naya's deals the number is paid by the borrower and reflects on the lender, so it has to be the right one.
43:26 - Competing With Your Own Customers
More than forty-five law firms and hundreds of lawyers use Naya's platform, and Naya now runs a law firm. Matt says there has not been much direct reaction. His read is that clients doing very large, complex deals do not see Naya Law as a real competitor - and he would not want that work anyway, preferring ten process-driven deals to one complicated one at the same fee. He has been trying to partner with the firms doing smaller deals for nearly a decade. He has also been asking lawyers, casually, whether anyone is genuinely changing the billable model. Nobody is - which from his side of the table is good news, though he says he is out there screaming that it should change. He would still rather partner with firms that want to do it properly, and had a good conversation the week before with a mid-size firm that does. His view is that boutique and mid-size firms leaning into technology can go toe to toe with bigger ones that are not - and a lot of it is not even AI, it is process.
45:59 - Where Naya Goes Next
The bet is that Naya's platform becomes the backbone for whatever the models do next. Not a wrapper - he is explicit about staying in his lane as the system of action for closing commercial real estate and corporate lending deals, and building skills or agents in Copilot or Claude that draw on their structured data and workflows. It is a position he says he was not thinking about six months ago. On learnings, the big one is blunt: he had no idea how hard selling technology into law firms would be, or how much power the billable model held inside them, because he arrived from tech knowing nothing about the business of law. He sees technology companies spinning out law firms now and suspects they do not know what they are getting into on delivery, citing a founder who gave up on an AI-native firm after discovering how much client communication was involved. His other learning is to trust the process and enjoy the building rather than panic at every press release. Three years ago there were no LLMs at anyone's disposal. Now there are.
More episodes of Releveraged
You can find more episodes of Releveraged here:
YouTube: youtube.com/@LegalTechCollective
Full transcript
Alex (00:03.022)
Okay, we're good. Just as a reminder, mate, at the end of the recording, just make sure that you hang on until the file is completely uploaded. That's just one thing to mention.
Matt Basile (00:11.654)
Yep. Yeah, remember that.
Alex (00:14.478)
All right, cool, let's get cracking. I'll a quick intro. So, hi everybody, welcome to Releveraged, where we're talking to those founders that are building interesting businesses in the legal sector. Today's guest is Matt Basile. Matt spent close to seven years as a software developer and technology consultant before he went to law school, and then 15 years as a commercial real estate lawyer, latter a partner at Kelly Dry and Warren in New York. But in 2019,
While still practicing, he founded NIA Software, a transaction management platform that automates commercial mortgage loan transactions for lenders and their outside council. And in late 2025, he launched the law firm to provide the end-to-end service delivery. Matt, welcomed to Releveraged. Great to have you here.
Matt Basile (01:01.744)
Yeah, thanks for having me, Alex.
Alex (01:04.098)
Pleasure. So Matt, before we get into it, I've got a question for you. Are you AI bull or AI bear? Scale of one to five, one being bear, five being bull.
Matt Basile (01:17.102)
I'd say AI bull at this point. five say five. we're I mean we're we're excited, honestly, about every new development that comes out. You know, the the recent like Claude release was really good for us. our platform that we built is really a database that stores all of the information about a transaction and the system of kind of action for our users.
So anything we weren't gonna build into our platform, we're happy to kind of bolt on with through MCP or through whatever, and we can get into that more later. but we're seeing like every development in the foundational models as like a big positive for us, especially now that we're getting into the services business. So yeah, we're really excited about it. I'm not, you know, I'm not
saying AI is gonna take everyone's job and replace all lawyers, I I think that's not a near term problem. but I do think, you know, it's greatly gonna transform the way jobs are done, you know, hopefully in a good way.
Alex (02:26.21)
Yeah, amazing. thank you. I I mean I've I've given a very brief introduction to you, your career and your business now. but maybe you can give me a little bit more about what is this business that you're building? What it what is NIA Software and the other entities that surround it?
Matt Basile (02:51.878)
Yeah, definitely. so I guess going kind of all the way back, you know, I was a a software developer before I became a lawyer, started out as a junior lawyer and was extremely frustrated by the the the kind of the workflows for closing commercial mortgage loan transactions. And I, you know, I had thought there had to be a better way for some of this stuff, but
You know, as I started to explore and this was, you know, a good solid ten, ten, fifteen years ago, but as I started to explore some of the software platforms that
Matt Basile (03:29.446)
building software, it was kind of crazy to me that nothing solved these problems like comprehensively. So after kind of like trying some trying some of the products out, like I remember messing around with hot docs and like Word macros. I decided just build a platform from scratch and license it back to Kelly Dry with me as the initial user. And you know the original plan was to build for lawyers, which I mean we still are.
but as we started to get, and maybe we were a bit naive at the time as to like how easy change management is within a law firm. And I will be completely honest with you, as a junior associate, I had no idea how powerful the Bill Power model was in deterring innovation. but so you know, we built it and we were just building like the best product we could, right, to solve everything we were doing.
And you know, that was a great strategy. We used it. I got everyone in the real estate group at Kelly Dry using it. We then a couple of years into it realized maybe lawyers aren't, you know, the highest and best user of our our product. Like most real estate lenders have five, 10, 15 outside counsel that close loans for them. And when we started showing them the platform, because we were really proud of how efficient we were being and how we were doing the work.
You know, the initial reaction was like, one, almost like, we don't really care how you do your work. if you stay up all night, not my problem. and then two was like, we love that we can share this platform with you, but like we can't share it just with your firm. We need to be able to share the same platform with all of our outside council. So we then shifted the product. We became kind of exclusively for the most part focused on selling to
The clients of the law firm. So in in our case, the commercial mortgage lenders. And that's been, you know, kind of our path for the last five or so years. And we we love that path from a selling software standpoint. about two years ago, you know, rolling down that path, we started interacting with some lenders that make like, I would call them small loans compared to like where we were typically playing. I mean, we were
Matt Basile (05:55.259)
For better or worse, started with like the $100 million plus, $50 million plus transactions, which are kind of like all the big top firms and a different economic model from a fee standpoint. So we came across, you know, a smaller lender that you know was trying to make a high volume of smaller mortgage loans, but really like checking all the boxes that the big lenders were checking.
Alex (06:08.248)
Yeah.
Matt Basile (06:22.954)
And I was at that point kind of like phasing out of practicing law altogether and running the software business, but I wanted to like make this client happy. So I I recommended them to someone at Kelly Dry, like a junior partner. I'm like, here, take this business. You know, it's fee sensitive, so you need to be aware of that. And, you know, two deals in, the fees were like forty thousand dollars on each of the first two deals.
For which were like $2 million mortgage loans or $3 million mortgage loans, which is not, it's not appropriate, right? It doesn't work. So I called up the client and was like, hey, like we gotta figure something out here. Like I love working with you guys, but like this model with like big law closing these deals, it just doesn't work with like a billable construct and you know an associate and a partner. So
I suggested that we do some services. We Naya, at that point we had no services arm, right? I I just we spun off Naya Closing Services, which is our right now, it's like our MSO entity, our managed service organization entity. and we started doing the quote unquote non-legal work. So all the moving around of stuff like hitting the buttons in our software.
And then we would loop in Cali Dry, the law firm at the end, to kind of like do a final full legal review of the deal, which that model does work well. Like it's it's pretty well vetted in the market, and especially in this MSO market that's becoming more and more popular. but what we found was, and then as we got on to like client two, why are we we were creating inefficiencies by
having to have us and a law firm, right? So this year we just launched Nya Law on the premise that we're gonna do everything. on a fixed fee, so absolutely no billable hours anywhere in our model. It's all value-based pricing. We set the price up front. A lot of it is like deal size based and then some of it is you know collateral or you know
Matt Basile (08:42.83)
Specific deal features that come up, which are we price appropriately. and now we're kind of just rolling down that road with the law firm, which we love because you know, one of the things we found in years of working with lawyers, right? Like all different shapes and sizes. And I was a big firm lawyer, right? So I get all of the economic pressures of the billable hour, is like we were fighting a big battle with.
you know, the model of the law firm and we're selling efficiency. Like I had a CFO one point be like, wait, so we're we were trying to cut 10 hours off the drafting of the the documents by an associate by using yourself. Like why would we do that? And we pay you. And I'm like, I I don't know, I can't solve if you're your model, but like in theory you should be doing more work or be able to do different work. I mean that's not my problem to figure out. But
Like I still think now AI is kind of highlighting it, but efficiency should not be taken out of the equation. So now we've kind of changed the playing field and you know, super excited about about where this will go.
Alex (09:57.598)
And I really want to ask you about this like end-to-end service delivery piece in more detail. But something you were saying there about how this all got started, you you you mentioned that you decided to build a piece of software and then license it back to the firm. Did you explore the option of building something internally financed by the firm? Because I know there's a lot of conversation at the moment in the market about you know, build versus buy on tech. You've got
K and E that have just announced they're gonna invest five hundred million into building their own technology stack. So did you it go down that path or was it one that you thought, you know what, it's not worth the hassle because I know the answer that I'm gonna get.
Matt Basile (10:42.224)
Yeah, I mean we were I mean, I was not wanting it all to go on that path because like I come from a software background and I wanted to build a software company. And I think equally, you know, the firm didn't want to go down that path either. Like I think it was a different time. Like I think if you if if this were the conversation right now, it's probably a different answer. Like I think law firms are scrambling right now to like own a technology company or control a technology company.
So yeah, I think the times have changed a lot in even the last couple months, maybe, right? But I I still think it's a little, I think it's crazy how AI is the whole piece of the conversation where, you know, there's a whole bunch of legacy technology out there that fits with AI, which is where we, you know, we kind of fit that I feel like people.
wanna use AI to solve everything and it's just I don't see it as the most efficient way to do some things. Like, you know, doc automation is great. You're gonna like use a gazillion tokens to draft twenty documents. I don't know. but yeah, no that's it's yeah, it's different times.
Alex (11:52.556)
Yeah, yeah, no, I hear you. I hear you. the other question that I had for you, based on what you you said, you you you you obviously started life out as a software engineer and then became a lawyer, which seems to be like the inflection of what's happening more at the moment. what was it that inspired you to become a lawyer?
Matt Basile (12:22.446)
I don't know. I mean, I was like twenty-five years old and I was I was just debating between going to law school or getting an MBA and I don't know, I think I decided law school was more of a substantive degree and you know, I don't think I ever would have envisioned, to be honest, that I would have stayed at a law firm for fifteen years.
Because I I always viewed it as like a good education. And then I was really interested in getting into commercial real estate. And I don't know. It's one of those things where it's like you wake up and 15 later's 15 years later, you're still in, you know, still practicing law. It's kind of crazy that I don't know how I went from software to lawyer, but I'm like super excited to be back in software and building and this current like
where we are with AI and letting, you know, they don't let me touch code now, like just to be clear. but I am heavily prompting and like orchestrating how we're gonna have the Asians talk to each other and like what the vision is for how it's gonna work. So I I think it's all like amazing how the journey has evolved and how I've ended up where I am really excited about it.
Alex (13:35.232)
Nice, amazing. Is there anything that you think you've taken with you from your from your legal background that's standing you well today beyond just, you know, having a knowledge of how the product needs to function?
Matt Basile (13:52.817)
Yeah, I mean, I think I was like bra brainwashed to not make any mistakes for like 15 years being in big law. And you know, I don't think I had that attention to detail when I was a developer slash software consultant slash salesperson, right? Like I was kind of in a startup moving fast, you know, breaking things and trying to advance the product.
And I think I gained a real good appreciation for like writing skills, attention to detail. I mean all the things like lawyers are really, really good at. but I wasn't like I wouldn't say I was particularly good at it when I started.
Alex (14:33.806)
Okay, cool. Let's let's let's shift gears. Let's talk a little about your business. so what is it that you see as the main problem that you're solving with with Naia? And and I'm thinking about that in the context of your new end to end delivery model that you you you now have with the law firm being part of the the the the wider business. Like
How does this compare and contrast if if if a client is working with you, like how does this compare and contrast to doing it the old way?
Matt Basile (15:10.15)
Yeah, I mean I think there's two ends of it. Like for the complex commercial real estate transactions, it it it should feel to them almost identical from a service standpoint. You still have a really good smart lawyer in the loop. but how the service is being delivered and the pricing of it are totally different, right? We're pricing on a fixed fee, which kind of lets you lets the client know up front what the fee is gonna be. And and that's that's nothing like particularly new.
I think what's really different is behind that fixed fee, we don't have any billable component anywhere driving, you know, how we're behaving and you know, approaching our workflows. So, what the result of that is, is that literally every single thing we do is an opportunity to get faster, more efficient, and better. And since we also leverage our software platform, which
Our clients access alongside with us. It's a shared portal, a shared workspace that they can do all of their loan transactions in. They then, whenever we add efficiencies, they get the same efficiencies, right? Or things they're doing get improved as well. So we are really like sitting alongside them, joining them in this kind of like journey down the evolution of using AI and your workflows.
So I think that's really unique. And I think it's like how it needs to be. I think right now, on on the flip side, in in big law or in any law right now, which is pricing by the bill of hour, there's there's this like really scary question, I think, for the lawyers of like, you're using AI, how are you changing your pricing? Right. and they don't have a good answer. In addition, they don't have any.
motivation to get faster. So there's kind of that like, why am I going to automate my job away? Right. Every new advance or new new thing that comes out, they're not thinking like, awesome, that's gonna like make us be able to do this better. Whereas like on the flip side, everything we see that comes out or that can improve the way we work or can improve our workflows, we're super excited about that. And then we also want to share it with our clients, right? Like
Matt Basile (17:32.367)
I was just on the phone with a client yesterday talking about our vision for MCP. And they were telling me about how they're using Claude for everything. And I was like, that's awesome. Because once we have MCP fully up and you know, we're using it and we see the good workflows for it, you can we'll tell you, you you apply it to like, I know you're you need it for like half the your due diligence underwriting items.
And then we're kind of collaborating, we're excited about it together as these things happen. And you know, the pricing just evolves however it evolves. Like if we can automate things down to zero, we can lower our price eventually, right? We're not necessarily trying to be like a cheap option. We we're trying to be the like the right way to do business as a lawyer. in this kind of
you know, new world that's being created around us very, very quickly. So I don't know that there's like one path either. So it it's kind of exciting for us, but I think, you know, we're totally different than in a lot of ways we're the same, right? As a as a big law delivery of how you close a commercial mortgage loan. Like you won't feel a huge difference if you're on the other side of the transaction other than maybe
the transaction velocity is faster. Like we do things faster because we're leveraging so much technology. So I think there that there is that. I mean, the clients will feel speed. But the biggest thing is we're their partner and we are like fully in on wanting to do this. The our business model aligns us with the client as opposed to like,
Alex (19:01.987)
Yeah.
Matt Basile (19:14.118)
You know, lawyers, I I would you know, I sat within a law firm for a long time. I mean, the billable hour is a really, really cushy way to do bus business, right? It's no risk. You know, you spend more time, the bill goes up. Even then, if it goes too high and you cut twenty percent, you still made a p a lot of money on everyone's time. So and I know why it's not changing I know it why it's not changing either. I mean, it's a hard and very well entrenched everywhere.
Alex (19:36.494)
And it will still
Matt Basile (19:43.398)
Kind of construct. So
Alex (19:45.612)
Yeah, but it's people doing things like what you're doing that then presents potentially a better way of being able to work with a client and deliver the outcome that the client's looking for in the most efficient and effective way possible. I I I want to just come back to this bit about like the the client experience. And you said that you know they'll feel this greater velocity, but
Is there anything else that you've done within the business that materially improves the client experience in the way that they interact with your service versus the service of operating with a a a law firm in the traditional sense?
Matt Basile (20:37.03)
Yeah, I mean, well, we so when we flipped to a kind of lender first model where we have one kind of custom platform for each client, with that with that like kind of technical architecture, we share the same environment with the client on all of the work. So like if they at any point in time, you know, they log into the deal, we're logging into the same thing they're seeing.
They can see the current drafts real time. We're sharing a closing checklist real time. if they want to download the closing binder when it's done, they go to the same place we would go to to send it to them. So it really is like this, you know, you hear some of the big, you know, the new big players talk about like multiplayer mode and having shared spaces. I mean, we we've been doing it, but we're doing it the opposite way. Like we're doing it client to law firms.
which which honestly I think is more appropriate. Like we it's kind of funny when you start digging into all the relationships with all the law firms as you set up a new lending client, right? Sometimes different law firms have different forms, which is crazy because the lender should have one set of forms, like the lawyers are evolving the forms on the side. You go back to get historical deal documents and you know data.
It's Word doc sitting in a law firm DMS, which, you know, that's not the way it should be, right? The client shouldn't be tracking down their documents from their lawyers, right? Which in this new world becomes even more of an issue for the client, right? Because if they start to adopt, you know, an LLM solution or a vector database solution that lets them kind of
pull insights out of their documents, they need to have all the documents to to do that and not be chasing them down. So I think them being able to build this found you know, like I I like to think of our platform almost as the foundation for implementing AI in the future, right? We're at like a very early stage, I think, with AI, but I think where it's going to come out is
Matt Basile (23:01.798)
The more organized your data is and the more organized your documents are and the more metadata you have, I think the more powerful all this is gonna be. So, you know, you could start now and you're gonna set yourself up to be in a really good position in two years. whereas I think if in two years you start, you're gonna be like scrambling to catch up. but it's not it's a law firm problem too. I mean, it's it's everybody problem, I think.
Alex (23:30.678)
I would agree with that. I would agree with that without a doubt. I mean, even even from a personal standpoint, right? Of like keeping your personal affairs in order, f housing, I don't know, whatever personal contracts that you might happen to have. if you're constantly trying to search back for bank statements or whatever it happens to be, you know, it's a laborious task. But that's just one person. You know, when when you when you've got a business that's made up of
Matt Basile (23:45.202)
Mm-hmm.
Alex (24:00.61)
hundreds of people and they have hundreds and hundreds of clients, if not thousands, getting your affairs in order in in in that way, yeah. I mean, it's only gonna slow you down if you haven't already got those pieces structured. and that
Matt Basile (24:19.408)
Yeah, or or get you the wrong answer, like right.
Alex (24:22.382)
Well exactly. Exactly. And I mean, you mentioned about the data there. Is that something that you're excited about in terms of what your platform then enables you to extract on behalf of your clients?
Matt Basile (24:37.04)
Yeah, and and also to what it allows you to do is like a system of action. Like one of the like most recent things we've been digging into, you know, over the last month, two months, right, is the concept of how do we get more granular in figuring out like what needs to be done.
In a deal, right? And how can we automate that with agents, right? So if we have, for example, this is a really kind of basic example, but hopefully it illustrates like what we're trying to do. If you have right now you have a word version of a closing checklist in most cases, right? And there are hundreds of items on it. You know, one of those items might be order a survey of the property, right? That gets ordered, right?
And then you probably like sit there and forget about it, right? And it has a due date in three weeks, right? Three weeks later, it either comes in or it doesn't come in. You know, if you have that structured data more than just a Word document, we'll build an agent that's every night goes through and says, you know, check all my deals, check and see what needs to be followed up on. It's gonna flag the survey.
It's gonna create me a draft email. And then in the morning, a you know, a person, me or a paralegal or a closer or whatever, right? They'll say, I gotta follow up on these two items. Here are the emails. It found the email chain. All right, boom, send, boom, send. Okay, that will then talk back to the system and update it to say, I've followed up on May 29th, right? So
That's where I think this stuff becomes very powerful. It takes a little bit of vision, I think, but I think it's all possible. I mean, I don't know, we we don't done it yet, but that yeah, that's where we get really excited about this stuff. And I think our clients do too.
Alex (26:36.13)
Yeah. When you say you haven't done it yet, like what what what is in place so far? I mean, would you call yourself an AI native law firm now that you've got the the service delivery end to end in place? And of that, like what is automated and what is still the responsibility of a lawyer within your team?
Matt Basile (27:00.752)
Yeah, I mean I I wouldn't call it AI native. I mean, I I kind of laugh at that term because like it it may work for like really low-end commoditized work, but like if you're doing a complicated commercial real estate deal, I mean an agent's not gonna run the deal end to end, like with no human oversight or judgment. So I would say we're AI and tech first.
Right, where we are looking to apply it to like every single workflow and kind of chip those off. Like we're doing a lot of summarization, we're doing a lot of AI audit checks of documents. it's it's it's splattered around right now in our processes where it is working well for those specific things.
So I would, yeah, I mean, I would classify us as AI and tech first. I'm not sure we would ever call ourselves AI. I don't even know what AI. I mean, I guess AI native means you're, you know, that's where you're primarily try trying to live, I think, like and interact. But like there are firms I think that are trying to sell that they are, you know, 90% of the work is being done by AI automatically.
With a human kind of overseeing it, which I you know, maybe in five years you'll get to the point where like sixty percent of a real estate deal can be, you know, automated with a person. I I still think you want a person kind of like a a really high level person, but I think
I think what what what we're trying to prove out is that you can use enough AI plus traditional tech to get the margins high enough that one lawyer like me, right, who's you know, it doesn't have to be a partner level, but it's gotta be six, seventeen, eighth, you know, senior enough that they know everything about what they're doing, with a couple of, you know, paralegal n non lawyer types, right? Can you run
Matt Basile (29:12.55)
50 deals a month, right? Something like that. Whereas like the traditional lawyer would run 10 deals a month. So then you really are like, you know, you can scale that, I think. And you all of your processes are now, you know, consistent because you've built agents for them. you know, I think it's like gonna it's a lot of work. I mean, think it's a lot of vision and a lot of work, but I think that's where.
That's where the AI first, AI native, whatever you want to label them. I think AI native is is a good term that everyone knows right now or starting to know. So just call it that. I think you're gonna see more boutique, you know, very narrow fur firms c come up where they're specializing in one area, like in our case, we're we're specializing in commercial real estate, right? I think the
general AI native firms, I think that's a tough proposition. Like we do everything with AI. I I don't know. I mean, you need a lot of lawyers and you're gonna need a lot of tech people. And you see the Kirkland thing with five hundred million million dollar investment in building their platform. I mean, I still think that's gonna be hard given the size of the firm. And and you know, like how are they distilling down what they're building and who's controlling what they're building?
innovation inside a law firm. It's it's a lot of committees and a lot of meetings with people who have day jobs that get paid by the hour. So every hour taken away from that is not I mean, maybe the five hundred million is just taking time off the clock. I mean, I have no idea.
Alex (30:44.142)
Yeah.
Alex (30:59.79)
Well, I think I the way I think about that, and I I agree with you, but even putting the pace of innovation traditionally at law firms to one side, building an AI native full service law firm is is not building one proposition. You're you're building you're attempting to build twenty, thirty, fifty startups all at once because
You've got a multitude of practice areas that are delivering different services to different types of clients in different ways. and so I I think this premise of an AI native full service law firm, we're we're a long way away from that. And if anyone does end up building that, there's a long journey ahead.
I I think five years to get to that point is is is a long time, even with the latest developments that we're seeing with the technology itself and its ability to help produce technology off the back of the utilizing things like vibe coding, et cetera. but for me, like the idea of building twenty, thirty, fifty startups all at once, that sounds like a lot of hard work.
and very difficult to get right given the success rate of startups across the board generally. where I think you're doing things slightly differently is that you're tech first, but you're building in a very specific space. You're serving a specific type of clientele, and you're then able to evolve what your service delivery really looks like specifically within that.
space. You're solving a specific problem for a specific type of clientele, leveraging technology in a way that is befitting of twenty twenty six, right? And I think that's very different to full service AI native law firm.
Matt Basile (33:06.577)
Yeah, and I mean I think like I was just talking about this yesterday with
Matt Basile (33:14.823)
You know, even if we you want to attack the borrower side versus, you know, we're focused on the lender side, that's almost a whole nother law firm, right? Like it's a different type of work. It needs attention for sure. And it affects our delivery too, because you know, you're closing a deal, there are two sides working together. And I do have a I do have a vision where we can kind of sit in the middle with an MSO there.
It's a little bit of a a pipe dream. I think it's gonna require a lot of kind of cooperation among parties, but even if you wanted to go into other areas of real estate law, commercial real estate law, there's two or three right in there that need their own workflows. And I'm not even sure we wanna play in more than one of those because it's you know, we wanna be that focused.
Alex (34:07.448)
Yeah, yeah. And I agree with that. Like focus is I've said this to a few people in the past, right? But like businesses like Amazon, Uber, any big tech company, they didn't start out offering this multitude of services. You look at Amazon, they started out as secondhand books on the internet. You know, what do they do today? It's cloud services, you name it.
Matt Basile (34:28.635)
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
Alex (34:35.424)
So I think focus initially is certainly the right the the right move. and often one that founders tend to get wrong. They do too broad, too fast, and they end up diluting their ability to deliver value in the respective segments that they're trying to serve. So again, I think that focus is a is is a good thing. coming back to like the end-to-end delivery, like what does this look like now for
a commercial mortgage manager, for example, that's your client, like what what do they actually pay to you? And how does that stack up against what they might pay on the billable hour model that I know you're so enthused by?
Matt Basile (35:22.897)
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think they you know, our pricing fruits is to give a range, right? On a typical I'll take small loans because they're easier to kind of put in a box. There's less variation and you know, there's more expectation on where fees should end up. You know, we're between, you know, seven thousand and twenty thousand for yeah, I call it an under twenty million dollar loan, which I think
You you may get some pricing on with big firms that ends up in the twenties, right? Like twenties to thirty. But you know, it could go. I've seen plenty of twenty million dollar ones that go up to sixty thousand dollars or seventy thousand dollars, right? I mean, there's no there's no cap on it when it's being done on a billable, you know, model. And you know, I've I've lived this myself.
i as a partner inside a you know big law firm, right? You don't have control over how long, you know, Jimmy the associate bills to draft 10 loan documents. You know, you're gonna pull a pre-bill and you're gonna see it. And that number is gonna be there. And, you know, there's nothing you can do about that number other than write it off. And that's gonna have an impact on you.
So, like the instinct is to never write things off. You're not happy sometimes when the number gets where it so far where it shouldn't be. But like there's not a lot of options. which is, you know, I I think that's the most dangerous part about the billable hour from like a you know a business standpoint as the lawyer. Like I I feel so much better, to be honest, pricing fixed fee because even when things go
you know nodding you know things go sideways and something comes up and we spend more time I don't even think two seconds about it right it's part of the like the risk that I've taken to price it as a fixed fee right it's the same reason why if I can get it faster in some cases I don't decrease my fee right so you you're sharing that risk with the client
Matt Basile (37:43.238)
And you're motivated to get it right. And you don't even, you know, I can't tell you how many times as a you know the dance is when you're closing a deal, right? There's stuff flying around right up until closing, inevitably, right? And oftentimes closing dates get pushed one day, two day, three day. Everybody wants to close tomorrow, right? But you gotta at some point you gotta give your number, right?
And the last number to go in on every settlement statement of 50 numbers are the two off firms. That's 100% every single time, right? So, like what happens there? You guess at the number, you you have to estimate your fees. You're either going to estimate right or wrong. so it's it's it's just a better experience for everyone, I think, to value base the billing and
You know, everyone owns their workflows. And if your workflow is messed up, you gotta fix it. If you can lean on technology to fix it, great. If you're if something comes up on the deal that is not within your assumptions, you communicate with the client, everyone comes up with the appropriate other number, and then you know everyone's everyone feels happy, you know. And and on our deals, the number is a reflection of our clients.
to their clients, right? Because their clients pay the bill. The borrower pays the bill in the US. I don't know how it is in the UK, but like that's a number where we've been engaged. Our number shows up, but their client has to pay it. So it's gotta be it's gotta be the right number and it's a reflection of how how they do business. So I I think it's the right way for things to go. I totally, totally understand why it's not changed in law firms.
because of the comp model and because it's a safe way to price things, especially on really complicated transactions. So I think there there's an argument for it, but I still argue on the really big stuff, you can fix VIA too. You know, you just gotta try little harder. Yeah.
Alex (39:51.146)
Yeah. The the one thing that really lands with me from what you just said there is the change from the motivation to get it right. You you you are now motivated and driven to get it right because you're sharing that risk. as opposed to on an on a on a billable alley model, you don't have that same motivation. you might implicitly
try to get it right, but now your business model is built on getting it right. So I think that for me is like the key the key the key distinction here between between the two. but your your your technology is used by law firms, right? Initially your your client base was law firms.
Matt Basile (40:46.737)
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. They're they're yeah and and they like every one of our lender clients has ten law firms on too. So yeah, we have over forty five law firms that use our platform and hunt you know, hundreds of lawyers at this point. and we know them all well, you know.
Alex (41:00.854)
Okay. Okay. Are they starting to move onto this new fixed fee model that you're demonstrating?
Matt Basile (41:12.763)
seen anyone do it. I mean I I've actually been asking it's it's funny because like I I've been asking folks inside of law firms now like just casually like hey what's is anything changing like are you guys starting to have conversations about changing buildable model because like from my standpoint I'm like this is great nobody's changing the model like because the the big guys could could change it if they really wanted to and they it would be
I think it would help them compete, but nah, nobody nobody's changing it. And you know, I'm out there screaming that it should be changed. Cause I mean, look, we we would love we we love and we do work with some law firms as as partners, right? Like we're not we we would love to continue to work with, you know, the right law firms as partners.
and build this out the same way we're building it out. But what the the the reality of where it's come is it's you know, we almost feel like it's easier to at this point build the platform of how it should be done. Go recruit the right lawyers eventually that want to do it the right way and then not fight with all the law firm politics and the economic model.
'Cause we've tried to, you know, expand out inside of law firms where you know, we've gone through all the IT stuff. We have people using it, they're happy using it, but it's I I get why you have to go convince, you know, Bill down the hall, who's making a couple of million bucks a year, to go add some efficiency to his practice that might might knock down the the fees inadvert you know in in you know inadvertently.
And he's like, you know, we've had I've had plenty of lawyers that just tell me like, look, I'm happy with my model. Like I don't really need to get more efficient and I make a lot of money and I've got a stable job and I don't know what else. I don't know how to convince them that this is a this new business model is better for them. But I believe in it.
Alex (43:26.09)
And how how has anyone or have you seen any reactions yet to the fact that you've now launched and have a law firm as part of your service offering? Because in effect, you're now competing with some of your existing clients for the technology part of the business. So how how have how has everyone reacted to that, if if at all?
Matt Basile (43:51.092)
I mean, we haven't had a lot of direct r reactions to it. I you know, I think a lot of our clients are doing really big, complicated deals that I I'm not sure we would even want to jump in and do because they're not as, you know, I I would prefer to do 10 deals that make me focus on the nitty-gritty process, you know, workflows for.
you know, the fee instead of one deal that got me the same fee as those 10 deals that was harder and more complicated and required a lot of like complex legal thought and negotiation. we're really trying to revolutionize the process and the business model. And you know, the hundred million dollar deal, like people are using our platform for those deals. Like I don't think they view us as a real competitor.
But and then the but the the people doing the smaller deals, maybe they they do, but like I've been trying to partner with them for you know almost 10 years now. So I don't know. I I I love you know and we we had a great conversation last week with this a mid-size law firm that wants to get more efficient and it's gonna be I think it's gonna be great partnership. So there there's
I mean, the reality is there's a really, really big world of, you know, real estate law that needs a lot of lawyers to do all this work. So it's a it's a it's a small world, but it's a big world. And you know, we're just looking for the right people to partner with and that want to do it the right way. And I do think, you know, I I do think that small boutique, mid sized firms are gonna be able to go kind of toe to toe with the
the b the bigger folks who are not leaning in on on technology. And AI is just highlighting that. I mean it's it's everything. It's not even just AI, it's process. I mean a lot of it's just process and and taking the time to think about your process and what can get better.
Alex (45:59.798)
Like it. Well, let's move on to that. Let's talk a little bit about where you're going. So what is what does this look like in five years' time? Is there a particular aspect of what you're building, where you're placing the most bets? Where where I I know it's very difficult to predict where this is all going to end up with everything changing so quickly, but where do you see Naya being in five years?
Matt Basile (46:28.795)
Yeah, I mean I think we're we're betting on the fact that our our call it operating system, our platform for closing lending transactions is the like the back will serve as the backbone or the driver for, you know, leveraging all of the AI developments that are gonna take place. So we're not trying to build a a wrapper on any of these tools. We are
trying to stay in our lane, which is, you know, a system of action for closing commercial real estate lending deals or corporate lending deals and focusing on, you know, maybe we're building more skills or agents in Copilot or Claude that superpower our structured data and all of our workflows.
That wasn't something we were thinking of probably six months ago, but now kind of seeing how this is all coming a little bit more into focus. And it's all very like, you know, immature, I think, at this point from a technology standpoint, with how fast the, you know, the model providers, if you want to call them that, are moving and you know, like things are changing daily. But I think
We're just trying to position ourselves that our platform is the system of action and we're building as much as we can to interact with it to make our workflows easier. And now that we're playing in the legal services delivery as well, we're super motivated to take advantage of all of that, not just the things that make our product better. So really excited about kind of where
MCP, external APIs, all the things that can take our data into these kind of really powerful and getting better.
Matt Basile (48:27.197)
Sure.
Alex (48:28.222)
I got a couple of final questions for you. the first is looking back, what what if any are the big learnings that you've had through this journey? What are the things that you've done that in hindsight weren't the right choice? Or if anyone's thinking about going on this journey, like what what what what do you think would be useful for you to share with them?
about your learnings from this experience.
Matt Basile (49:01.937)
Yeah, I mean the the the biggest one for me was like and you know I I get why I had no idea then but like how crazy selling technology into law firms is and getting lawyers to change their workflows like I had no idea because I was like a gung-ho, you know, former tech like I didn't know anything about the business of law. I didn't know how
much power the buildable model had inside the four walls of the law firms. I didn't know any of it. So I don't know. I I I I do see a of these tech companies spinning out law firms and I get kind of surprised. I don't think they know what they're getting into from even delivering. I saw one I saw one guy some post somewhere he was like
You know, I gave up the AI native law for me. He's like, I didn't realize how much communication I had to have with the client. Like, yeah. There's a lot of a human component to practicing law, right? I mean, that's not going away. You need to have people who want to do that, at least on the higher level services, right? I mean, you wanna like draft a lease or like NDA or something like that. I mean, that stuff's
Not a big deal. And I guess the other thing that you know I I've learned that I really, you know, I I've learned to kind of just trust the whole process and not like worry too much about where all of this stuff is gonna end up. Like enjoy the building, enjoy, get excited about the developments. I mean, you could very easily sit there and see every new press release from one of these big tech companies and be like, they're they they've just rebuilt our product.
They're gonna rebuild our pride tomorrow. Like, you gotta just take it. I think you take it all in stride. I mean, everything can move, everything can change. You know, three years ago there were no LLMs at our disposal. Now they are. So just enjoy, I guess enjoy the journey, enjoy the ride. Like you get to the end when you get to the end. but yeah, no, it's been, it's been fun though.
Alex (51:20.632)
There is no end, Matt. There's always more to be done.
Matt Basile (51:22.512)
Yeah. I like that. I like that. There is no end.
Alex (51:27.502)
take that as you will, positive or negative. but regardless, Matt, thank you. I have enjoyed this conversation immensely. Thanks for being so generous with everything that you've shared. I love what you're doing, not just for the industry, but for the lenders and the borrowers that you're serving. for anyone that's listening that want
Matt Basile (51:31.822)
Yeah.
Alex (51:54.456)
to find out a bit more about Naia, it's Naiasoftware.com, right? And
Matt Basile (51:58.704)
Yep. That that works. So get you to the other one. There's there'll be more than one there's NyaLog Group dot com too. So we'll have we'll have multiple. That's it's kinda c coming soon, but yeah, multiple websites.
Alex (52:05.664)
Okay, all right.
Alex (52:10.382)
Okay, well, either way, you're pretty easy to find on LinkedIn, Matt Basile. So, Matt, thank you again. Appreciate it. And for anyone that's enjoyed this episode, if this is the kind of conversation that you want to hear more of, subscribe on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. We've got a bunch more episodes lined up with some other really interesting people doing cool things in the legal space. So Matt, thanks again.
Matt Basile (52:15.953)
Yes.
Alex (52:39.352)
That's us, that's revered. Pleasure.
Matt Basile (52:41.638)
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Comments