AI agents and secure software for legal work.

I start with the workflow, the people responsible for it and the tools you already use. We assess whether an existing product meets the need, whether integration would close the gap, or whether custom engineering is justified. Data access, review requirements and ongoing maintenance all shape that decision. The first step is a clear scope with acceptance checks.

An existing system is often the starting point. I assess its available APIs, access permissions, data quality and workflow constraints before defining what can be connected or extended. We agree which system owns each record, what information can move between tools and where a person must review changes. Vendor restrictions and missing interfaces are identified during scoping.

We map what information the workflow needs, who may access it and where it will be processed. I help implement the agreed permissions, data boundaries and logging controls. Provider terms, retention settings and deployment options need review for your specific environment before sensitive data is connected. The scope identifies what can be used, what must stay out and who approves access.

We define what the system may read, recommend, prepare and execute before building it. Consequential actions follow agreed approval rules, with exceptions routed to a responsible person and an audit trail for review. Your attorneys make legal decisions; I build and test the software. The approval boundaries depend on the workflow and the responsibilities of the people using it.

We agree acceptance checks around the actual task: the information it should use, the output a reviewer needs and the actions it must never take. Testing can cover representative examples, missing or conflicting inputs, unsupported answers, permission boundaries and failed integrations. The handover records what was checked and the remaining limits, so your team can make an informed release decision.

Yes. Building toward an AI-native law firm or legal department can start with one recurring task that has a clear owner and usable inputs. We agree scope, review points and acceptance checks before building. We can define measures such as completion time, review effort or error rates against your current process. Expansion depends on what the workflow demonstrates and what your team can support, rather than an assumed return on investment.

Yes. A security assessment can stand on its own, with agreed testing boundaries, documented findings and prioritized remediation guidance. I assess the application areas and roles in scope, confirm relevant issues and explain their impact. Your team can implement the fixes, or implementation and retesting can be included in an agreed engagement. Active testing starts only after authorization.

Yes. I help teams prepare the technical controls and evidence needed before an audit or compliance review. Depending on the agreed scope, that includes identifying control gaps, implementing access and data-handling safeguards, documenting data flows and organizing evidence of how controls work. I work alongside your compliance owners and advisers; legal assessments, independent audits and certification decisions remain with the appropriate specialists.