Generative AI Development for Legal Company
- Generative AI
- $50,000 to $199,999
- May - Dec. 2025
- Quality
- 0.5
- Schedule
- 0.5
- Cost
- 0.5
- Willing to Refer
- 0.5
"Their level of engagement and professionalism has dropped sharply in the second half of the project."
- Other industries
- A Coruna, Spain
- 11-50 Employees
- Online Review
- Verified
Abstracta Inc. has been hired by a legal company to develop a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system on Azure, integrated with ChatGPT-4. The team is responsible for QA testing and system optimization.
Abstracta Inc. has abandoned the project after charging the client €70,000 and delivering an incomplete product. The team has failed to deliver the project as per the scope, and the client is disappointed with the partnership. The team has used an Agile methodology during the project's first phase.
The client submitted this review online.
BACKGROUND
Please describe your company and position.
I am an executive of Iberley Informacion Legal SL
Describe what your company does in a single sentence.
Iberley provides up-to-date legal information and tools to help professionals stay informed and compliant with Spanish law.
OPPORTUNITY / CHALLENGE
What specific goals or objectives did you hire Abstracta Inc. to accomplish?
- We hired Abstracta Inc. to help us develop a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system on Azure, integrated with ChatGPT-4.
- Our goal was to process and retrieve information from a collection of 500,000 legal documents efficiently.
- We also expected support with testing, quality assurance, and overall system performance optimization.
SOLUTION
How did you find Abstracta Inc.?
Online Search
Why did you select Abstracta Inc. over others?
High ratings
How many teammates from Abstracta Inc. were assigned to this project?
1 Employee
Describe the scope of work in detail. Please include a summary of key deliverables.
Scope of Work
The scope of our engagement with Abstracta Inc. focused on the design, implementation, and quality assurance of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system hosted on Microsoft Azure, and integrated with ChatGPT-4. This system was the technical foundation for Iberley IA, a legal AI assistant designed to generate accurate, traceable answers from a repository of over 500,000 Spanish legal documents.
Key Deliverables
Architecture Design of the RAG System
Abstracta was responsible for designing a scalable and efficient RAG architecture, integrating Azure AI Search with GPT-4 for natural language response generation.
Data Ingestion and Indexing
They were expected to define and implement strategies for document ingestion, preprocessing, and indexing of the 500,000 legal documents in a format compatible with Azure Cognitive Search.
Testing Strategy and QA Implementation
Abstracta committed to developing an automated and manual testing strategy, including regression testing, load testing, and accuracy checks for AI-generated answers.
Performance Monitoring and Optimization
As part of the scope, they were to ensure acceptable system latency, efficient document retrieval, and stable integration with GPT-4 under high-demand usage.
Collaboration and Technical Guidance
Abstracta was also expected to work closely with our internal development team, providing technical recommendations, reviews, and support throughout the project lifecycle.
RESULTS & FEEDBACK
What were the measurable outcomes from the project that demonstrate progress or success?
In the first phase of the project, Abstracta followed a structured approach with clearly defined sprints and an agile methodology, which initially gave us confidence in their process and team.
However, during the second half of the engagement, the project completely lost its structure. There was no visible methodology, communication deteriorated significantly, and one of our team members was effectively left alone without any support to carry forward a highly complex system.
The product was unstable, testing was poorly managed, and quality assurance was inconsistent and unreliable. Despite raising multiple concerns, we received no actionable guidance or collaboration. In the end, we were forced to take over critical parts of the work ourselves just to keep the project moving.
Ultimately, Abstracta abandoned the project, stating they would provide no further support. We were charged €70,000 and left with an incomplete and unreliable product, requiring substantial internal effort to rebuild what should have been delivered.
There were no measurable outcomes that reflect the original scope or justify the investment made. What began as a promising partnership ended in deep disappointment.
Describe their project management. Did they deliver items on time? How did they respond to your needs?
During the first phase of the project, Abstracta demonstrated a solid approach to project management. They followed an Agile methodology with planned sprints, and communication was organized through scheduled meetings. They were responsive to our requests, worked collaboratively with our team, and showed professionalism in their approach. There was a dedicated project coordinator who managed the process efficiently and was particularly skilled and supportive. At that stage, the experience was positive and gave us confidence in their ability to deliver.
However, in the second phase, the situation changed radically. The structured methodology completely disappeared, and communication became erratic and reactive. Instead of a team, we were left with a single person handling the entire workload, with little coordination or support from Abstracta. Email communication became slow and ineffective, and our requests were often ignored or poorly addressed.
As a result, the product suffered from numerous bugs and critical failures, and we had to step in to fix major issues ourselves, without the support we were promised. The lack of resources, leadership, and ownership in the final stretch of the project led to a complete breakdown in project management.
What started with good planning and teamwork ended in disorganization, poor delivery, and abandonment.
What was your primary form of communication with Abstracta Inc.?
Virtual Meeting
What did you find most impressive or unique about this company?
What stood out to us the most—though not in a positive sense—was their ability to create a false sense of professionalism and structure at the beginning of the project. Abstracta gave the impression of being a strong, well-organized team with a clear methodology, which led us to trust them and commit significant resources to the collaboration.
However, this initial image turned out to be deeply misleading. As the project progressed, it became clear that their focus was not on delivering value or ensuring the success of the system, but rather on securing further payments. Their level of engagement and professionalism has dropped sharply in the second half of the project, and they showed no real concern for the project’s outcome or for our team’s challenges.
Ultimately, what was most "impressive"—if it can be called that—was their ability to present a polished front that concealed serious deficiencies in ethics, consistency, and accountability.
Are there any areas for improvement or something Abstracta Inc. could have done differently?
There are several areas where Abstracta Inc. could have significantly improved their performance:
Consistency and Follow-Through: The level of professionalism and engagement seen at the beginning of the project was not maintained. They should have ensured consistent quality and involvement throughout the entire project lifecycle, not just the initial phase.
Project Ownership and Accountability: Abstracta failed to take true ownership of the deliverables. Once challenges arose, they withdrew support rather than collaborating to solve problems. A more accountable and committed approach was needed, especially in the final and most critical stages.
Resource Allocation and Team Stability: Reducing the team to a single person without support or proper backup was unacceptable for a project of this scale. Maintaining a stable, well-supported team throughout the engagement would have been essential.
Transparency and Communication: Communication became sporadic and unstructured in the second half of the project. Open, honest, and proactive communication should have continued until the end, especially when problems emerged.
Ethical Commitment: Most importantly, Abstracta should reflect on its ethical responsibilities. A service provider must remain engaged and supportive, not disengage once payment is secured. The project felt abandoned, and that is not acceptable in any professional partnership.
If these areas were addressed, our experience could have been completely different.
RATINGS
-
Quality
0.5Service & Deliverables
-
Schedule
0.5On time / deadlines
-
Cost
0.5Value / within estimates
-
Willing to Refer
0.5NPS
