The problems this exists to solve.
How it works for your team, day to day.
Privilege preserved by default
Client names, matter identifiers, and privileged content patterns are redacted inline before a prompt leaves the machine — in the browser, in desktop AI apps, and in drafting tools. Lawyers keep the drafting acceleration; the privileged facts stay inside the engagement.
Matter-level segregation, extended to AI
Policies scope to practice groups and matters, so the wall your conflicts team built lives in AI usage too: teams on opposite sides of a screen can't leak matter facts through a shared model context, and lateral hires inherit the right restrictions on day one.
Evidence for the duty of competence
Every AI interaction is logged with the redactions applied, giving the firm a defensible record that confidences were safeguarded — for outside-counsel guidelines, client audits, and malpractice-carrier questionnaires that now ask about generative AI.
The questions we hear most.
Do you cover legal-specific AI tools?
Coverage is at the surface level — browser, desktop, and drafting integrations — so legal research and drafting assistants are governed the same way general-purpose tools are, without per-vendor integrations.
Can policies differ by matter or client?
Yes. Policies scope to practice groups, matters, and clients, so a mandate with strict outside-counsel guidelines can carry tighter rules than the firm default.
Does this integrate with our DMS?
No integration is required — enforcement happens at the endpoint, governing what leaves toward AI tools regardless of which DMS or drafting stack you run.
What do we show a client who audits us?
Per-matter interaction logs, redaction records, and policy documentation — evidence that AI usage on their matters was controlled, not just discouraged.