iManage AMA
Neil Araujo & Paul Walker: MCP Is Not a Fancy API and Why Information Architecture Comes Before AI
iManage brought both the CEO and a solutions director who actually implements the product - a combination that gave substantive answers to both strategic and tactical questions. After 25 years and 4,000+ customers, they're not chasing AI hype but making a calculated bet on MCP as the bridge between document management and whatever AI tools firms choose. The surprise: Paul Walker admitting Claude Code has cost him 'way too much sleep' building prototypes.
My Take
This AMA revealed the tension at the heart of legal document management: iManage has been the reliable plumbing for decades, but the AI revolution threatens to make plumbing sexy - or obsolete. Their answer is to become the Switzerland of legal AI, opening up through MCP to let any orchestrator access the data while betting that security, governance, and scale still matter. The most honest moment? Paul's admission that 'IA before AI' - information architecture before artificial intelligence - has never been more relevant. All the frontier models in the world can't fix messy document metadata.
Key Insights
On why MCP matters more than skeptics think
"I know some in the market write it off as a 'fancy API', but it's more than that to me. It's the ability to bridge this gap between the reasoning capabilities of the LLM and the systems of record."
- Paul Walker
This is iManage's strategic bet. MCP isn't just another API - it's the standardized protocol that lets AI agents interact with document systems without custom integrations. By going all-in on MCP early, iManage is positioning as the neutral data layer regardless of which AI orchestrator wins. Smart hedge in an uncertain market.
On the AI silver bullet fallacy
"I think customers hoped that AI could bypass the need for highly structured, governed content the silver bullet, the hope that AI could determine the relevant v's the non-relevant, the current v's the legacy, the draft v's the final. We're finding it's back to basics – IA (information architecture) before AI has never been more relevant."
- Paul Walker
This is the uncomfortable truth no AI vendor wants to discuss. Firms hoped AI would magically clean up decades of document chaos. It won't. AI amplifies the quality of your data - garbage in, garbage out. Before deploying AI, firms need to fix their information architecture. Not sexy, but essential.
On agentic AI challenging 50 years of computing assumptions
"As we truly embark on Agentic AI becoming a reality it challenges so many assumptions that have been the bedrock of computing for 50+ years. The interfaces that we use every day are being challenged."
- Neil Araujo
Neil's not wrong - the click-and-navigate model is dying. His reference to Google's 'dynamic on-demand interface' research signals where document management is heading: AI-generated interfaces that adapt to the task at hand. The firm that's still using folder hierarchies in five years may look like the firm still using filing cabinets today.
On the real threat to iManage
"Not being close enough to the end user experience."
- Neil Araujo
The shortest and most revealing answer in the AMA. iManage knows the CIO, not the associate pulling all-nighters. When asked about threats, Neil didn't cite Harvey or Legora - he cited the gap between iManage and the lawyers who use it. They've hired lawyers into product roles, but the admission suggests they're playing catch-up on user experience.
On reducing hallucinations through context
"Reducing hallucinations is a fundamental challenge that we need to overcome as an industry to drive pervasive usage of AI technology. We believe that grounding AI tasks in well defined context windows and providing easy/fast ways to validate the response from AI is important."
- Neil Araujo
iManage's answer to hallucinations: constrain the context window to trusted documents and make verification fast. A lawyer told Neil 'getting it right is far more important than doing it fast.' That single sentence explains why iManage moves slower than AI-native startups - and why their customers might be okay with it. Speed without accuracy is malpractice waiting to happen.
On why they won't match startup speed
"We have prioritized security, performance, scale, maintainability for the types of workloads we manage... I think there's a happy middle ground where we partner with the AI natives and provide that secure, governed foundation our customers are asking for."
- Neil Araujo
When pressed on why iManage moves slower than Harvey (who ships features 'in hours with Claude Code'), Neil didn't apologize. His answer: incumbents carry the weight of enterprise-grade reliability. It's a reasonable position - but also a rationalization that competitors will exploit. The 'happy middle ground' of partnership is diplomatic, but it means ceding the AI innovation layer.
On open APIs and not blocking competitors
"The API is open and as a policy we don't block anyone, customers and technology partners can both leverage it today and do at scale. Both IntApp and DeepJudge are tech partners and some of the biggest users of our APIs."
- Paul Walker
A direct response to concerns about iManage creating a walled garden. The explicit naming of IntApp and DeepJudge - companies that could be seen as competitive - is reassuring for firms worried about vendor lock-in. But talk is cheap. Firms should ask: what happens when an AI partner starts eating iManage's lunch? The answer to that question will reveal whether 'open' is a philosophy or just a phase.
Controversial Moments
The innovation speed critique
u/TBP-LETFs directly asked why iManage can't match Harvey's pace of shipping features 'in hours with Claude Code.' Neil's answer - 'we have prioritized security, performance, scale' - is reasonable but didn't address whether this is a structural constraint or a cultural one. The follow-up framing of being 'okay being the slow and steady player' went unanswered.
Lawyers don't love iManage
u/Substantial-One3856 asked bluntly why AI companies hire ex-lawyers while 'iManage is still mostly not loved by lawyers.' Neil acknowledged the gap and said they've hired lawyers into product roles, but the question exposed the UX debt that comes with being enterprise infrastructure for 25 years.
API openness skepticism
u/Asleep-Translator496 raised concerns that iManage's API isn't 'completely open' and could block competitors with overlapping products. Paul's response that they certify partners to 'ensure platform best practices are respected' will either reassure or concern firms, depending on how much they trust that certification process.
Bottom Line
iManage is making a calculated bet: be the neutral, governed data layer while AI startups fight over the interface. Their MCP investment and open API posture support this strategy. But the AMA also revealed vulnerabilities: they're not close enough to end users, they move slower than AI-native competitors, and lawyers don't love the product. For firms already on iManage, the roadmap is coherent - especially if you're integrating with Harvey, Legora, or other AI tools. For firms evaluating from scratch, the question is whether 'secure and governed' is enough when competitors are building experiences lawyers actually enjoy using.