AI Knowledge Base for Law Firms
Built over your firm's own documents: precedents, know-how notes, advice letters and closed matter files. Not a research tool, not an advice tool — a way to find what your firm already knows, with the clause or paragraph cited every time.
Discuss your projectWhy citations are not optional here
The risk in legal use is specific and documented. Lawyers in several jurisdictions have been sanctioned for filing submissions containing case citations produced by a general-purpose model that did not exist. The model was fluent, the citations were formatted correctly, and the cases were invented. That is the failure mode this design exists to prevent.
Two things prevent it. First, the assistant retrieves only from your firm's own documents and constructs answers only from what it retrieved — it is not asked to recall case law and has no mechanism to produce a citation that is not in your corpus. Second, every statement carries a link to the document and paragraph it came from, so a fee earner verifies in one click rather than trusting prose.
Where retrieval finds nothing relevant, it says so and names who in the firm has worked on similar matters. That refusal is deliberate and it is the most important behaviour in the system. An assistant that fills gaps is worse than no assistant in a professional context.
What it is for
Finding precedents
"Do we have a clause for this?" answered from your own precedent bank and from clauses in documents drafted on past matters, with the source document named.
Know-how retrieval
The internal notes, briefings and training materials your firm has written, which are usually extensive and effectively unsearchable.
Finding internal expertise
Which fee earners have handled matters like this. Frequently the most valuable output in a firm of any size, and the one partners notice.
Closed matter files
Indexed so institutional memory survives the departure of the person who held it.
Onboarding
New joiners asking basic procedural questions of the firm's own materials rather than interrupting a supervisor.
Not for advice or research
It does not give legal advice, does not research case law, and does not draft for filing. We would decline to build it that way, and we would be wary of a vendor who would.
Access control, built for a firm's obligations
The confidentiality and conflicts requirements make this stricter than a typical internal assistant.
- Matter-level access: a fee earner retrieves only from matters they are entitled to see, enforced at retrieval against their identity rather than by instruction.
- Ethical walls honoured. Where a fee earner is screened from a matter, its documents are not retrievable by them — the assistant must not become the route by which screened information travels.
- Client confidentiality maintained across matters, so work for one client cannot be surfaced to a team acting for another.
- Anonymised precedent extraction where you want clause language reusable without client-identifying detail, which is usually the right default for a precedent bank.
- Every query and every document retrieved logged, which your risk and compliance function will require.
- Retention and destruction following your existing matter retention schedule rather than a software default.
Common questions
Related in AI Automation
Tell us what you need
Describe the problem and we will come back with scope, timeline, and a rate. No obligation to proceed.
Get in touch