AI for legal teams, from intake automation to discovery acceleration.

Yes, when the system is designed correctly. Privilege is preserved by keeping all matter data inside infrastructure under your direct control or a vendor under a defensible processing agreement, by ensuring no model training occurs on your documents, and by maintaining audit logs that prove who, what, and when. We deploy on EU regions by default, sign DPAs that include zero-retention and no-training clauses for inference traffic, and produce a privilege-and-confidentiality memo for your general counsel before any system goes live. ABA Model Rule 1.6 and the equivalent rules in EU bars are met when the technical and contractual stack is built around them, not bolted on.

Conflicts checks remain a deterministic database query against your conflicts system; AI does not replace that step. What AI does is structure the inbound matter brief into the fields your conflicts system expects, surface adverse parties named in unstructured email or attached documents, and flag relationships across affiliated entities your reviewer would otherwise miss on a fast scan. The AI output is presented to your conflicts officer with citations to the exact source text, never auto-cleared, never auto-rejected. The decision stays with the qualified human, but they get to it 5x faster and with fewer misses.

A first engagement targets one workflow with a measurable baseline, runs 4 to 12 weeks to production, and lands as a single signed-off system inside one DMS or matter-management surface. Common scopes are: contract-review automation across one or two contract types; matter-intake automation across one or two practice areas; e-discovery classification across one or two document categories. Submit a project with the workflow you have in mind and the rough volume, and we scope and price the discovery phase before any code is written.

The EU AI Act classifies AI used in the administration of justice as high-risk under Annex III §6, which triggers obligations on risk management, data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity. We build conformity-assessment scaffolding into the system from week one: an ISO 42001-aligned governance memo, the technical documentation pack the regulation requires, an append-only audit log, and a documented human-in-the-loop step for any output that affects a client decision. If your specific use case is limited-risk rather than high-risk, we ship the proportionate controls, but we never default to less than the regulation requires.

Yes. The delivery layer is built around your DMS, not the other way around. We ship integrations with iManage Work, iManage Insight, NetDocuments, SharePoint, and the major matter-management platforms (Aderant, Elite 3E, Clio for smaller firms). For systems without a modern API we build a queue-based bridge with idempotent writes and a manual reconciliation interface. The audit log writes regardless of where the data lands, so you can prove lineage even when the downstream system cannot.

Production-grade deployments see clause-level error rates of 0.3 to 0.6% on routine commercial contracts after the first three weeks of evaluation tuning, against a typical 2 to 3% human-only baseline reported in industry studies. Accuracy depends on contract complexity, document quality, and the breadth of the evaluation set. We do not claim a single accuracy number across all contract types. We baseline first, target a specific delta against your current process, and report against it weekly through the pilot.

By default, all processing and storage runs in EU regions on infrastructure under EU jurisdiction. We support regional pinning when a regulator or contract requires it (Germany-only, France-only, Lithuania-only, US-only). Original documents land in immutable EU object storage with hashes recorded in the audit log. We do not train any model on your documents, full stop. If your contract requires US-resident processing for a US-only matter, we expose that as an explicit configuration toggle, never a default.

Pricing is set after the discovery sprint, against your specific workflow and integration surface. We do not publish a flat rate because the scope variation across legal AI is wide: a single-clause extraction system on a uniform contract corpus is a different build from a cross-jurisdiction regulatory-monitoring stack. Submit a project with the workflow and rough volume, and we come back with a discovery proposal within one business day.