A Boston personal injury law firm has dramatically accelerated its case processing using EvenUp's Pre-Lit as a Service (PLAAS™), turning a six-month-stalled case into a completed demand in 48 hours. Altman Nussbaum Shunnarah Trial Attorneys now handles 50 additional cases monthly without new hires. The service pairs firms with EvenUp case managers who run pre-litigation cases end-to-end using AI to track client treatment and flag missing records. Case managers work under firm standards and communicate from firm email addresses, with attorneys supervising major decisions. Since adopting PLAAS™, the firm has stopped hiring pre-litigation support staff. Supervising attorneys now oversee 250 cases with PLAAS™, compared to a 150-case cap with in-house paralegals, representing 67% more capacity per attorney.

What's the minimum budget to test the US market? A straight answer for early-stage AI and software companies. What's the smallest budget that gets you a real signal, not just a website-visit counter? A real test of the US market - enough contact with actual American buyers to learn whether they will pay for what you have built - starts well below the number most early-stage AI and software companies assume they need. Seed-stage startups already commit $50,000 to $250,000 a year to marketing, 10 to 20 percent of total funding, according to 2026 seed-stage benchmarks (Above A data, compiled by GTM 8020). Most of that spend buys traffic, content, and brand awareness in a market the company has not yet entered - not one qualified conversation with a US buyer. The question worth asking is not "how much budget do we have," it is "how much of what we already plan to spend could instead buy direct access to United States buyers who can actually say yes." For most early-stage AI and software companies outside North America, the honest answer is a fraction of the seed marketing line item above - if it is spent on the right route into the US market. Why the DIY version of a US market test almost never gets a real answer. The conventional playbook - hire a US-based rep, stand up a funnel, run outbound - is priced for validation the company has usually already passed. A single enterprise hire typically needs several quarters just to reach a reliable close rate, so most of a thin budget disappears into ramp time before the company has learned anything it did not already believe going in. And even once that hire is productive, one rep's pipeline is not a market test. It is one person's read on one segment, filtered through whichever accounts they happen to be able to reach on their own. That is the real cost of the DIY route for an early-stage AI or software company: not just the dollars, but the months spent buying a narrow, single-threaded answer to what should be a market-wide question. The partner-led alternative: buying a real signal instead of headcount. A referral partnership, or a placement inside a partner's existing US installed base, compresses that same test into weeks instead of quarters. Instead of paying to build reach from zero, the company borrows reach that already exists - the partner's US customer base becomes the test group, and the response is a live market signal rather than a projection built on assumptions. It is the same logic behind a much larger deal announced on September 1, 2026: LexisNexis Legal & Professional and EvenUp, a venture-backed legal AI software company, announced a strategic alliance wiring EvenUp's personal-injury case-intelligence platform into LexisNexis's Protégé AI, and Protégé into EvenUp's own product, so mutual customers get both without either company building the other's capability from scratch. EvenUp already has funding behind it. It still chose to plug into an established United States network rather than build a parallel one, because the fastest way for an AI or software company to reach a large, already-qualified US buyer base is to connect to one, not construct one. For an early-stage AI or software company outside North America, that is exactly the calculation a minimum-budget US test should make: who can help AI and software companies find and structure those partnerships, whether the destination is a straightforward referral relationship, a white-label placement inside a larger U.S. software vendor, or GTM support built specifically for reaching the USA without hiring a full team to do it. The comparison between that route and building a direct-sales motion from scratch is worth reading in full: strategic partnering vs. direct sales in North America. What North America entry does with that budget. This is the model North America Entry run with early-stage AI and software companies outside North America: strategic partnering as the destination - referral partnerships and, where it fits, a white-label deal with a larger U.S. vendor - with targeted direct sales run in parallel as a legitimate bridge, never as something to apologize for. Its team built this playbook inside Oracle, a Big Four consulting firm, and iCIMS, running global alliance organizations that delivered as much as 90 percent of a business's revenue through partners in a single year. Clients North America Entry has worked with have gone from $25,000 to $3 million in ARR with 90 percent of that revenue partner-sourced, closed eight white-label partnerships, and been through eight M&A cycles sourced from partner relationships. North America Entry charge $100 an hour plus commission on closed revenue only, so its success is tied to yours - which answers the second half of the minimum-budget question: what you spend with North America Entry scales with what the partnership actually produces, instead of front-loading a year of fixed headcount cost before the market has said anything at all. Where the minimum budget should actually go. Inside that minimum, order matters more than the total. Referral introductions cost the least and produce the fastest read, because someone the buyer already trusts is making the opening. A tightly targeted direct-sales push against your single strongest existing use case is the next dollar - not a land grab across every vertical you can imagine, but proof that one American buyer will pay for what already works elsewhere. Direct sales run this way is not a lesser option; it is a legitimate way to generate early revenue and reference customers while a bigger partnership comes together. The earliest conversations toward a white-label placement can start in parallel with both of those. That deal typically runs about six months from first vendor conversation to signature, so starting it early is itself a budget decision, not a distraction from one. None of this requires a US office, a full sales floor, or the year of runway many cost breakdowns assume for an AI or software company entering the United States. If the minimum test succeeds and it is time to plan the fuller launch, see its full line-by-line breakdown of what a US market entry actually costs and how to sequence the spend, and how its services and the results clients have generated through this approach carry that next stage forward. A related question worth reading before you hire: outsourced GTM leadership vs. a full-time VP of Sales. If you want a second opinion on how small your own US market test could be: www.naentry.com/contact. Faq. What's the smallest budget that actually tests the US market, rather than just spending time? There is no single fixed number, but it is well under the $50,000 to $250,000 a year many seed-stage companies already budget for general marketing. A handful of referral introductions plus one targeted direct-sales push against your strongest existing use case is usually enough to learn whether US buyers will pay - often for a fraction of a typical seed marketing line item. No. A US entity is not required to test the market or even to close early deals, and one can be set up quickly and inexpensively when it is actually needed. It is a later step, not a gate on the first test. How should that minimum budget be split between a partner-led route and direct outreach? Weight it toward referral and partnership conversations first, since they cost the least and produce the fastest signal by borrowing a partner's existing trust and reach. Keep direct sales in the mix as a focused test on one strong use case, not a broad campaign - it is a legitimate way to generate early revenue and proof points while a bigger partnership comes together, not a substitute for one. What tells you it's time to spend more than the minimum? A real signal: a referral conversation that turns into a second meeting, a direct-sales prospect who asks about implementation instead of price, or a vendor willing to discuss a white-label structure. Any of those is evidence the US market has answered, and that is the point at which a fuller budget - and a fuller plan for the software company - is worth building.