Who we help · Law firms
Secure AI use without weakening professional accountability.
For law firms where confidentiality, professional judgement, operational resilience and accountability matter, and AI is already affecting drafting, review, research or client delivery.
Who we typically work with
- Managing Partners setting the firm's AI position
- COOs responsible for delivery and operating risk
- COLPs and Heads of Risk answering to regulators and insurers
- Innovation and IT leaders running tool selection
- Practice group heads scaling use within their teams
The position
The tools are already in the building.
Most midsize firms passed the experimentation stage some time ago. Drafting assistance, document comparison, summarisation and research tools are in daily use, often across several practice groups and several vendors.
What tends to be missing is the connective work: knowing which tools touch client confidential information, where a supervising lawyer reviews output, and what record survives on the matter file. That connective work is what turns capable adoption into defensible adoption - and it is what allows the firm to widen use with confidence.
What we organise the work around
Six control questions a law firm has to answer well.
Confidentiality
Client information is the firm's most sensitive asset. Governed adoption starts with knowing precisely what data reaches which tool, on what terms, and what is retained afterwards.
Professional judgement
AI can prepare, summarise and compare. Advice remains a matter of professional judgement, and the workflow should make that boundary explicit rather than assumed.
Supervision
Supervision of AI-assisted work is the same duty applied to a new kind of delegation: defined review points, a competent reviewer and a record of the review.
Client trust
Clients increasingly ask how AI is used on their matters. A clear, accurate answer supported by evidence is a commercial advantage in panel and tender processes.
Auditability
If a matter is examined years later, the firm should be able to show what the system contributed, who checked it and on what basis it was accepted.
Staff adoption
Where approved tooling is slow or unclear, staff use their own. Practical, well-communicated options are a control in themselves.
Secure and safe deployment
Risk, security and oversight inside the matter workflow.
We design controls where the work happens: intake, drafting, review, sign-off and file closure - rather than in a separate compliance layer nobody consults.
- Data classification that determines which tools may be used on which matters
- Named review points before AI-assisted output reaches a client
- Explainability requirements proportionate to the risk of the task
- Decision logs capturing tool, version, reviewer and rationale
- Escalation routes for concerns, near misses and unexpected behaviour
- Client-facing answers on AI use that the firm can substantiate
AI system
The use case, data, authority and intended operating conditions are defined.
Material risk
Consequence, failure modes and misuse scenarios are identified.
Control
Permissions, boundaries, oversight and limits are specified.
Test
Each material control is exercised, not assumed to operate.
Evidence
Test results, logs, approvals and rationale are retained.
Residual risk
What remains after controls is stated rather than absorbed.
Accountable decision
A named leader approves, conditions or declines deployment.
Monitoring
Control performance, changes and incidents are reassessed.
How we engage
A path sized to the firm.
Most law firms start with the risk review, then move to governance and implementation in the areas with the clearest return.
Next step
Adopt more AI, with more confidence.
An independent assurance review gives your partnership an evidenced view of what the firm\u2019s AI systems can do, which controls have been tested and what exposure remains.