Deliverable two
The networking system
Not a separate product. One workflow running on the CRM above, with agents watching it.
The relationship is the record; LinkedIn is only where some of the contact happens.
The pipeline
Six stages, built for a referral practice rather than an intake queue. Nothing here counts
leads. It tracks whether a relationship is getting warmer or colder.
- 1 Identified Sourcing agent surfaces a second-degree connection matching the practice profile Sourcing
- 2 Requested Request drafted from the person’s profile, approved by me, then sent Drafting
- 3 Connected Acceptance detected; the opener is queued, not fired Drafting
- 4 In conversation A reply arrives and is classified as interested, not now, referral, or noise Triage
- 5 Warm We have met or spoken; the record carries what was actually said Triage
- 6 Referral source Has sent work, or is positioned to Decay
The agents
Four narrow agents rather than one broad one, so that each has a single thing to watch and
a single thing it is allowed to do. A fifth talks to people, and it is set out below.
Sourcing
Watches Second-degree connections
Proposes targets against the practice profile — founders, venture associates, accountants and bankers in Houston technology. Proposes only.
Drafting
Watches The approval queue
Writes each message from the person’s profile in the firm’s voice. Every draft waits for a human. It has no send capability.
Triage
Watches Inbound replies
Classifies intent, moves the contact to the right stage, and writes the exchange back to the record so the next message knows what the last one said.
Decay
Watches Time since last contact
Re-surfaces a relationship that has gone quiet past its threshold. A referral practice dies of silence, not of rejection.
The stop
No agent can send. Drafting writes into an approval queue and waits; I release every
message by hand. That is a design decision before it is a compliance one — automated
outreach that goes out unread is how a small firm burns a network it spent years building.
It also keeps this assignment where Professor Zadeh asked it to stay: designed, not
turned loose on real people.
The templates
Three messages and the conditions under which each one fires. Bracketed fields are filled
by the drafting agent from the contact record; a template that cannot fill them does not send.
Hi [First name] — I am a transactional lawyer in Houston working with technology and emerging companies. We share a connection in [Mutual]. I have been following what [Company] is building and would like to stay in touch.
Thanks for connecting, [First name]. No pitch attached. I run a small transactional practice in Houston — formation, financings, and commercial agreements for technology companies. If it is ever useful to have a lawyer read something before you sign it, I am glad to be that. What are you working on at the moment?
[First name] — it has been a few months. I saw [specific development]. Congratulations on that. Still glad to be a resource if anything comes up on the corporate side.
The conversation agent
The fifth agent, and the only one that talks to a person rather than about one. It runs in the
thread once a connection has warmed, and its job is not to close anything. Its job is to make
the meeting that follows shorter and better than it would otherwise have been.
It invites the person to describe what they are building and what is on their mind. Not a form
and not a questionnaire — a conversation, which is the only format anyone actually answers on
LinkedIn. What it gives back is three things, and none of them is advice.
-
What the firm would walk them through
The shape of an engagement, not its outcome. What the steps are, what order they come in, what usually goes wrong, and roughly how long it takes.
-
Where the firm has covered the same ground
Patterns from prior work — the kind of problem, how it was approached — with no client named and no facts of any matter attached to it.
-
What they have not asked about
The standard questions a transactional lawyer puts to a company at their stage. Did the contractors assign their IP. Do the SAFEs stack. Who actually signed the last amendment. This is the part people find most useful, because it surfaces the thing they did not know to worry about.
Where it stops
- No advice, no strategy, no “you should.”
- It does not ask for confidential facts, and it says so before the first question.
- It does not quote a fee.
- It does not predict an outcome or suggest the firm can win anything.
What the firm gets
When the meeting is booked, the agent writes a briefing to whoever is taking it. This is the
point of the whole exercise: nobody walks into that call cold, and the first ten minutes are
not spent on questions the person already answered.
- Contact
- Co-founder, seed-stage software company, Houston. Second-degree connection, warm since June.
- Raised
- Whether contractor agreements from 2024 assigned IP to the company. Two contractors predate any written agreement.
- Not raised
- Three SAFEs from 2025 carry different caps and may stack badly against the priced round described. No mention of 83(b) elections on founder stock.
- Opening
- Start with the contractor IP gap. It is the item that stops a diligence process cold, and it is the one they already know they have.
- Conflicts
- No adverse party named. Run the company and both named investors before the call.
- Transcript
- Full thread attached — eleven messages over six days.
Why it stops there
A person who describes their situation to the firm’s agent in good faith may be a prospective
client, and Texas wrote a rule for precisely that situation in 2024: Rule 1.18, Duties to
Prospective Client, effective October 1 of that year. It carries a duty not to reveal what
that person disclosed, and a bar on later representing someone materially adverse in a
substantially related matter without written informed consent. Rule 1.05 governs the
information itself. Rule 5.03 makes the lawyer answerable for the conduct of a nonlawyer
assistant, which is exactly what an agent is. And Opinion 705 — the subject of Assignment 1 —
already told Texas lawyers to look hard at what they feed a system like this one.
So the agent orients and never advises, and it asks for the shape of a problem rather than its
facts. That line started as a product decision: an outreach bot that dispenses strategy is
worth less than one that gets a good meeting on the calendar. The rule arrives at the same
place from the other direction, which is usually a sign the design is right.