Summary

• Pandektes has raised a €13.5 million Series A led by Alstin Capital.
• More than 500 law firms, companies and public institutions use its platform across Denmark, Germany and Switzerland.
• The company plans to expose more structured legal information through APIs, positioning itself as infrastructure for other legal AI products.

Pandektes has raised €13.5 million to expand a legal research platform built around one of artificial intelligence’s less glamorous constraints: before software can reason reliably about the law, somebody has to collect, structure and maintain the underlying legal information.

Copenhagen based Pandektes has closed a Series A led by Alstin Capital with participation from PROfounders, Scale Capital and existing investors. The new capital will support expansion across Europe and North America, recruitment and wider access to the company’s data infrastructure through APIs.

Pandektes currently serves more than 500 law firms, companies and public institutions across Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. Its platform brings together legislation, court decisions, administrative rulings and other legal sources and applies AI supported search and analysis while allowing users to trace results back to the underlying material.

Opening more of that structured information to developers moves the company beyond competing directly for legal researchers because other software providers can build applications on top of the same data layer.

Legal AI inherits a data collection problem

General purpose language models can produce fluent explanations of legal questions, but fluency does not establish that the correct authority has been found or that a source remains current. Law changes through legislation, court judgments, administrative decisions and other material distributed across many institutions and publishing systems.

The problem becomes harder across Europe because legal sources are divided between national jurisdictions, languages and institutions. A system serving multinational organisations may need to find authoritative material across several countries while preserving the relationship between a legal proposition and the source supporting it.

Traditional legal research publishers solved much of that problem through extensive editorial and data operations, creating markets where a small number of established providers became deeply embedded in law firms and legal departments.

Pandektes is trying to rebuild that collection layer with more modern software. Its infrastructure continuously gathers and structures legal material, allowing the application above it to search across sources instead of depending on a model’s internal memory.

That distinction becomes more important as legal AI moves towards agents capable of carrying out multi-step research. An agent can investigate a question reliably only if it has dependable access to the relevant legislation and judgments and can establish whether the material it finds is authoritative.

An API changes the company’s position

Pandektes already provides API access to millions of legal documents, legislation and case law, and the new funding will expand that infrastructure. Developers can use the service to build search, analysis and monitoring tools without collecting and maintaining every source independently.

That creates a different competitive position from selling another legal assistant because software providers can compete over workflow, interface and model choice while using Pandektes underneath for legal information.

The approach resembles other infrastructure markets in which one provider supplies data or payments capabilities to companies competing at the application layer. If legal AI fragments into specialised tools for litigation, compliance, contracts and in-house work, a common structured data layer could serve several of them.

It also creates concentration risk. Legal technology suppliers relying on the same external information provider inherit dependencies around coverage, accuracy, uptime and pricing. Pandektes would therefore need to convince developers that its dataset is sufficiently complete and stable to support products where missing an important authority can carry serious consequences.

Traceability becomes central to the proposition because AI generated legal output is easier to evaluate when users can follow a statement back to the original legislation or decision rather than treating the generated answer as the source itself.

Breaking local incumbency remains difficult

Pandektes says revenue has increased sixfold over the past year and that around two-thirds of organisations trialling its product become paying customers. Those remain company reported figures rather than independently audited measures, although they indicate that some legal organisations are willing to reconsider established research services.

Switching still carries friction because lawyers build workflows around familiar databases, citations and search conventions, while firms need confidence that an alternative service covers obscure material that may become decisive in a particular case.

International expansion therefore involves more than translating an interface. Each new jurisdiction requires source discovery, ingestion, normalisation and continuous updating alongside an understanding of how legal professionals in that market conduct research.

The funding round gives Pandektes more capital to undertake that work as generative AI increases demand for machine readable legal information, with models and agents needing data in forms that can be searched and connected automatically.

There is a commercial irony in that shift because AI has often been presented as a threat to traditional information businesses, yet better models can increase the value of carefully maintained specialist datasets when automated systems consume far more information than an individual researcher could search manually.

Pandektes is betting that the durable part of legal AI sits lower in the stack. Interfaces and models may change quickly, but legislation and case law still have to be collected correctly, kept current and connected to original sources.

If that infrastructure can be extended consistently across jurisdictions, supplying other legal technology companies may eventually become a larger opportunity than competing for every end user directly.