Solutions

Legal Assistants

Draft, review, and advise with cite-checked outputs, privilege controls, and UPL-safe guardrails.

Law firms and legal ops teams rely on copilots for briefs, contracts, and client Q&A. A fabricated citation, unauthorized legal opinion, or leaked privileged memo can trigger sanctions, malpractice claims, and disciplinary action.

Typical deployments

Brief-writing copilots that surface binding precedent with Shepardized citations and bluebook formatting.
Contract copilots that flag risky clauses, cite playbook guidance, and generate redlines.
Internal compliance chatbots that answer policy questions for business teams with disclaimers and escalation triggers.

Incidents we prevent

Field report

Fake cases in federal court

In Mata v. Avianca, attorneys cited six nonexistent cases generated by ChatGPT and were sanctioned plus referred to a grievance committee.

The New York Times

Field report

NYC chatbot dispensed illegal advice

The MyCity business assistant told owners they could serve rat-bitten food or fire employees for harassment complaints—classic unauthorized practice of law.

SmallBizTrends

Field report

Privilege leaks via prompt injection

Researchers demonstrated that crafted prompts in Slack’s AI summarizer could expose private-channel data, illustrating how quickly privileged files could spill into another matter.

The Register

Field report

Biased risk analytics

The COMPAS risk tool was shown to disadvantage defendants of color, reminding firms to test legal AI for disparate impact before relying on it.

ProPublica

How General Analysis helps

General Analysis

AI Security Asset Management

Silo matter-specific corpora, enforce ethical walls, and trace exactly which client files or research databases each prompt can reach.

General Analysis

AI Red Teaming

Attack legal copilots with citation traps, UPL scenarios, prompt injections, and harassment to prove the system refuses when it should and documents every escalation.

General Analysis

AI Compliance & Governance

Auto-Shepardize citations, attach disclaimers, and export supervision logs to show ABA Model Rule compliance and privilege oversight.

Playbook highlights

Forces every citation to come from verified legal databases and auto-Shepardizes them so hallucinated or overruled cases never reach a client.
System prompts and disclaimer templates keep consumer bots in ‘general information’ mode, while internal drafts are watermarked as AI-prepared to enforce attorney review.
Client matters are siloed; AI Security Asset Management enforces per-matter indexes, access controls, and encrypted logs so privileged data never crosses matters or vendors.
Review workflows let attorneys inspect the AI’s reasoning traces, compare to the underlying passages, and approve or decline suggestions before filing.

Compliance considerations

Control

ABA Model Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.3, and 5.5 covering competence, confidentiality, supervision, and unauthorized practice of law.

Control

UPL, advertising, and consumer-protection rules that require clear disclaimers and human review for client-facing bots.

Control

GDPR/CCPA, client confidentiality, and ethical wall obligations demanding per-matter access controls and tamper-evident logs.

Control

Discovery, litigation hold, and work-product expectations when AI drafts must be produced or defended in court.

FAQ

Runtime guardrails require source metadata, auto-Shepardize results, and flag low-confidence authority so attorneys can verify before filing.

Yes. You can lock assistants to certain jurisdictions, matters, or playbooks, and any user question outside scope triggers a disclaimer plus human escalation.

Provide exemplar briefs, contracts, and playbooks; the copilot adopts your tone, clause libraries, and approval routing while keeping attorneys in control.

Asset Management enforces ethical walls, requires matter codes, and Observability provides tamper-evident logs so you can prove exactly who accessed which document via the assistant.

Loading page...