You have to put your name on it.
Legal work has zero tolerance for a confident invention. Every assertion our systems produce is wired back to the clause it came from — and where no clause supports it, the system refuses rather than drafts.
Retrieval over privileged material, inside your perimeter.
A call with the engineers who built it, not a sales pitch.
This is for you if
If none of these are true we are probably not the right call yet, and we will say so.
- A drafting tool has already produced a citation that did not exist
- Review volume is growing faster than the team reviewing it
- Privileged material cannot be sent to a public model
- Adoption stalls because nobody will sign off on the output
What we build for legal teams
Clauses, obligations, dates and parties pulled from scanned, executed and marked-up documents.
Every answer carries the passage it rests on, so counsel verifies rather than trusts.
Deviation from your standard positions surfaced across a portfolio, not one agreement at a time.
Intake, triage, comparison and first-pass drafting, bounded by what the agent may assert.
Built for how lawyers actually read — source alongside answer, never answer alone.
What was asked, retrieved and generated, retained for professional-conduct scrutiny.
The four objections that decide it.
Select the one your risk function will raise first — each has a technical answer rather than a reassurance.
A hallucinated authority is a filing problem.
Legal is the sector where a confident invention has professional consequences. Answers are assembled from retrieved passages, every assertion carries the passage supporting it, and where retrieval returns nothing sufficient the system declines rather than drafts.
- Assertions built only from retrieved text
- Every claim one click from its clause
- Explicit refusal when nothing supports it
- No free-text generation on points of law
- Retrieval quality measured, not assumed
- Counsel verifies in seconds, not minutes
Enforced at retrieval, not filtered after.
Matter-level and team-level access is applied when documents are fetched. A question from outside a matter cannot surface that matter's material at all, which is a different guarantee from filtering results afterwards.
- Matter and team boundaries in the retrieval layer
- Conflicts walls enforced technically
- Access decisions logged per query
- No cross-matter leakage path to exploit
- Ethical walls survive re-indexing
- Auditable per user and per matter
Disclosure volumes people cannot read.
Review sets outgrew human reading long ago. Extraction, clustering and prioritisation put the documents that matter in front of counsel first, with the reasoning for the ordering visible.
- Clause, obligation, date and party extraction
- Deviation from standard positions across a portfolio
- Near-duplicate and version clustering
- Prioritised review order with reasoning shown
- Scanned and executed copies handled
- Multi-language document sets
What you can show a regulator.
Professional-conduct review can arrive long after the matter closed. Every query, retrieval and generation is retained in a form that reconstructs what the system was asked and what it returned.
- Full query and retrieval log
- Model and prompt version recorded per answer
- Retention under your own policy
- Exportable in a review-friendly format
- No silent model swaps
- Runs inside your tenant
A hallucinated authority is a filing problem.
Legal is the sector where a confident invention has professional consequences. Answers are assembled from retrieved passages, every assertion carries the passage supporting it, and where retrieval returns nothing sufficient the system declines rather than drafts.
- Assertions built only from retrieved text
- Every claim one click from its clause
- Explicit refusal when nothing supports it
- No free-text generation on points of law
- Retrieval quality measured, not assumed
- Counsel verifies in seconds, not minutes
Why legal is different.
Most AI failure modes are inconvenient. In legal practice they are professional-conduct events, which changes what the system has to be able to prove.
A fabricated citation is not a quality issue here; it is a filing problem and a reputational one.
Access boundaries are enforced in the retrieval layer, not by policy documents and good intentions.
Adoption only happens if the tool is faster than doing it yourself — including the verification step.
Let's talk about the question you cannot risk getting wrong.
The kind of document set it lives in, and how counsel would need to verify the answer. That is a conversation, not an evaluation — no corpus, no upload and no NDA to have it.
Legal AI — common questions
By construction rather than by prompt. Answers are assembled from retrieved passages and every assertion carries the passage that supports it; where retrieval returns nothing sufficient, the system says so instead of generating. Counsel is always one click from the underlying text.
Yes, and for most legal engagements it must. The stack — retrieval, models, evaluation and logging — can run inside your own tenant or on-premise, so privileged material never leaves the boundary it is already held in.
In the retrieval layer. Matter-level and team-level access is enforced when documents are fetched, not filtered afterwards, so a question asked by someone outside a matter cannot surface that matter's material at all.