In an industry where precision, speed, and judgement decide outcomes, Qap Legal’s M&A practice is leaning into technology not as a replacement for legal expertise but as a force multiplier. Few understand this balance better than Dennis Lundquist, Lawyer and Managing Partner at Qap Legal, who has been at the forefront of integrating advanced AI tools into high-stakes transactional work.

In this interview, Dennis shares how his team uses platforms like Qura, Legora, and ChatGPT to sharpen analysis, accelerate deal processes, and elevate the final advice clients receive, while also drawing clear boundaries around where AI enhances value and where only human experience can lead. From real deal examples to the role of judgement in an AI-heavy workflow, he offers a candid look at what modern legal practice actually looks like when technology is treated as a strategic asset rather than a shortcut.

How do you use technology to deliver a better legal end product?

‍

We use technology to give our lawyers superpowers. AI tools like Qura, Legora, and ChatGPT help us cut through noise, test ideas faster, and validate our reasoning. In a fast-moving M&A environment, that means we can focus on the high-impact work — the strategy, the negotiation, the judgement call — while tech handles the heavy lifting in the background. It makes our final advice sharper and our turnaround faster.

Do you have a concrete example of when AI has helped you?‍

AI helps us every day — preparing for meetings faster, summarizing long document chains, turning messy notes into something usable, and giving us quick first drafts or step plans etc. It’s like having an always-on assistant that makes us sharper. A more concrete example: in a recent growth-stage investment, we needed to quickly understand how a couple of unusual founder-protection clauses would play out in practice. AI helped us break down the mechanics, compare them to market practice, and highlight the actual pressure points. Instead of spending half a day searching, we could spend half a day advising. It didn’t replace our judgement — it simply boosted it.

Do you have a concrete example of when AI has not succeeded in helping you?

AI falls short when the situation is too bespoke or commercially quirky as well as with complex legal questions spanning over several legal areas. We had a deal structure with a completely non-standard waterfall model. The AI outputs were confidently wrong — and that was a good reminder that our experience and creativity are irreplaceable. Some problems simply need a human lawyer who’s seen enough weird deal structures to know what actually works.

 
‍

Where can AI create the most value in legal work? Where does AI fall short within legal work?

 
‍

Most value: anywhere the task is repetitive, research-heavy or pattern-based — due diligence, drafting suggestions, legal research, document insights. It frees us to be better advisors.

‍

‍

Least value: in the greyzones — founder dynamics, negotiation strategy, bespoke deal architecture etc. That’s where human judgement, trust and experience matter most. AI can assist, but it can’t lead.

Why did you choose to move forward with Qura as your AI database? What stands out?

We chose Qura because it actually understands how lawyers think. It’s fast, legally grounded, transparent with sources, has what feels to be the most complete data set and knows how to use it properly, and fits into our workflow. What stands out is that Qura helps our M&A lawyers move quicker without sacrificing depth. It’s augmentation — not automation. And for us, that’s the whole point.

‍

‍

‍