For legal
AI-assisted work that survives a privilege challenge
Legal teams do not need permission to use AI; they need a record. Shield lets counsel use frontier models on contracts, discovery, and research while keeping confidentiality intact — sensitive terms minimized before dispatch, only zero-retention models in play, matter-level scoping, and a per-request log that answers a client, court, or regulator without an internal investigation.
What legal leaders are being asked
- Which AI tools has this matter touched, and under what terms?
- Was client material used to train a third-party model?
- Can you demonstrate compliance with outside counsel guidelines on AI?
- Who inside the firm accessed which model, and when?
- What is your position under the EU AI Act for the systems you rely on?
These are evidence questions. They are unanswerable when access is a collection of individual accounts and answerable in minutes when every request passes one governed path.
Controls that matter for confidentiality
- Zero Data Retention enforced per model, so no provider learns from client material.
- Payload minimization for names, deal terms, and identifiers before dispatch.
- Matter and client scoping, including ethical-wall restrictions on routing.
- Attribution to individual timekeepers for disclosure and internal review.
- Retention and legal-hold behavior you control, rather than a vendor's default.
Request an AI Readiness Review — free
A 20-minute review of how your teams use AI today, which models are in play, and the controls a board would expect. No obligation.
Frequently asked questions
Does using AI on client material waive privilege?
Privilege turns on confidentiality being maintained. Sending material to a provider that retains and trains on it undermines that argument; sending it under zero-retention terms through a controlled path with an audit record supports it. Document the control, not just the intent.
Can we use AI under outside counsel guidelines?
Increasingly clients permit it with conditions: named models, no training on their data, disclosure on request, and retained records. Those conditions are exactly what a gateway can enforce and evidence per matter.
How do we handle matter-level segregation?
Requests carry identity and matter context, so routing and logging can be scoped per matter and per client, including ethical-wall restrictions.
What about court and regulator disclosure requirements?
You need to state which tool, which model, and what was submitted. A per-request log answers that in minutes rather than through interviews.