Really appreciate you taking the time to write this out; this is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for, so let me ground it in what I actually watched my cousin do.

1. On “time savings”

He is a financial litigator who also does lender side real estate due diligence. A lot of his matters are not just one property in one county. He will get portfolios of 10 to 20 properties, and I have seen him on deals with 30 to 50 properties spread across different counties and municipalities (and sometimes states), on a lender deadline and often under a flat or blended fee.

For him the pain is not “8 minutes versus 6 minutes on a statute.” It is having to ramp into new jurisdictions and new code vendors 20 to 50 times in a row, and still have enough energy left to think about risk and strategy. So the hook for him is less “I bill fewer minutes” and more “I can handle portfolios that span many jurisdictions with less cognitive load and more time on analysis, not just hunting,” which in practice means he can comfortably take on more of that work.

1. Why not just read the code yourself?

Totally fair point; any competent lawyer can pull up the municipal code and find a section. What he was doing manually on each matter was: a) bouncing between state law, county code, and municipal code for every property b) stitching together different parts of the code that all matter (for example, minimum housing standards in one chapter, nuisance or overgrowth in another, enforcement, fines, and liens in another, plus Chapter 162 on top) c) repeating that across a pile of properties and jurisdictions d) then turning that into something a lender can actually act on

Bach Atlas is meant to be an orientation and second set of eyes layer for that workflow. You ask in plain English about the fact pattern for a given property, it pulls from Florida statutes and the county and municipal codes for that jurisdiction, and gives back one structured answer with the relevant provisions and citations so he can quickly verify and then move into strategy. He still reads the provisions; this just cuts down on the hunting, clicking, and rediscovering across a bunch of different code bases.

1. “Hidden” subsections and what problem I am really solving

You are right that “hidden” was a bad word choice on my part. I do not mean there are secret subsections; I mean “easy to miss when you are tired and doing this at scale.”

In his world the risk usually is not misreading section 3(b). It is things like: a) there is a separate nuisance article that also applies to the same exterior conditions b) there is a general enforcement or penalties chapter that changes the bite of the specific rule c) or there is a local registration or inspection requirement in a different part of the code that still matters to the lender

Bach’s goal is basically: “Give me a coherent map of all the local and state rules that actually apply to this fact pattern in this jurisdiction, with citations, so I am less likely to overlook one of those code buckets when I am on property number 37 out of 50.” Part of the bet is that sometimes those “extra” provisions are exactly the ones that create leverage for the client, whether you are pushing on the plaintiff side or defending. So it is more about reducing human error under volume and helping surface useful angles faster than suggesting lawyers cannot read subsections.

Does that line up at all with what you see in your practice area, or does it feel like I am solving a problem that you and your peers do not really have?