Your firm runs on judgement. Show whose.
AI on matters, with a named supervising solicitor on every output, the tools you approved written down, and the review evidence your insurer asks for already on file.
It is already being used. Nobody can show how.
- A May 2026 survey found 59% of UK lawyers report using AI that the firm has not authorised.
- In Munir, uploading confidential documents to an open tool waived privilege.
- The SRA has said compliance measures that are not written down effectively do not satisfy its requirements.
- Its 2025 thematic review found 44% of firms have no deputy COLP, and most COLPs report the strain.
- Your professional indemnity insurer now asks an AI question at renewal, and the answer has to be evidence.
- The policy exists as a document. Nothing connects it to what happened on a matter.
The question is never whether the firm used AI. It is who supervised the output, and what you can show.
In. Build. Leave. Prove.
One job, four weeks, in production. Then it keeps proving itself.
In
The work in scope, the tools you approve, and which fee earners supervise what.
Build
Built into how a matter already runs, alongside your practice team, not beside it.
Leave
Your COLP owns the rules and the register, and can change both.
Prove
Per document: which tool, on which matter, reviewed by whom, under which version of the policy.
Three jobs a four-week deployment could take.
- AI-assisted research and first drafts on a matter, with every output reviewed by a named supervising solicitor before it leaves the firm, and the review recorded per document.
- An approved-tools register that answers the renewal question: which tool, on which matter, reviewed by whom, under which version of your AI policy.
- Client intake and file-opening checks triaged by AI, with the COLP or COFA sign-off recorded.
- Whichever we start with, the record is the same: what was allowed, what happened, who signed.
What evidence did you have on file when your insurer asked?
What the AI is allowed to do is written down first.
Every decision is checked against those rules before it happens.
A named person signs it off. The check produces the evidence; a person judges.
You can replay the whole history any day and get the same answer.
If anyone changes it later, it shows. Patent pending, UK application GB2620101.2.
That is what a deployment leaves running for your job. In the accessibility product today, a person on your team accepts every finding before it reaches your record.
Who this is for.
- COLPs and heads of risk at mid-market firms who can decide without a long committee cycle.
- Managing partners whose fee earners are already using AI informally.
- Firms facing an AI question at their next professional indemnity renewal.
Not for
A firm that wants a policy document and nothing behind it. We build the thing the policy describes.
Two people, on every call and in your standup.
Simon Milner, Founding Architect
He designed the record: what the AI is allowed to do, checked before it acts, and replayable afterwards. Twenty-five years in Silicon Valley before that.
Jason Crispin, Founder
He owns the customer side of every deployment: what the job is, what it is worth, and that it lands. He is on the first call and every one after.
Patent pending, UK application GB2620101.2. Meet the team
Four weeks, then it keeps proving itself.
Week 1
The baseline
What the job is, what allowed means for it, and who signs. Written down before anything runs.
Weeks 2 to 4
The build
Our engineer works in your codebase next to your developers. The old way and the new way run side by side.
Week 4 on
The proof
Every decision checked and recorded. Replay it any day. We maintain it, or you run it without us.
What you keep
- The workflow, running on your matters.
- The approved-tools register, owned by your COLP.
- The code, assigned to you in writing.
- The review record, per document, replayable any day.
What people ask.
Does the SRA require AI governance tooling?
Does the SRA require AI governance tooling?
No, and we will not tell you otherwise. What the SRA has said is that compliance measures which are not written down effectively do not satisfy its requirements. The tooling is how you write them down once and keep them true.
What is the risk with open AI tools?
What is the risk with open AI tools?
In Munir the Upper Tribunal held that uploading confidential documents to an open tool places them in the public domain, breaching confidentiality and waiving privilege. Closed tools were distinguished. That is why which tool was used, on which matter, matters.
What does our PI insurer want at renewal?
What does our PI insurer want at renewal?
Since 2025 insurers have expected a dated written AI policy naming approved tools and supervisory responsibility, with documented human-review evidence for every AI-assisted deliverable. The record is what makes that answerable without a file hunt.
Who reviews the output?
Who reviews the output?
A named supervising solicitor, before it leaves the firm. The AI can draft; it cannot release. The review is recorded per document, against the person who did it.
Our COLP has no deputy and no time. Is this more work?
Our COLP has no deputy and no time. Is this more work?
It is less, once it runs. The evidence assembles itself as the work happens, instead of being reconstructed when someone asks. That is the point of building it into the matter workflow rather than beside it.
What does it cost?
What does it cost?
Scoped on the call, because it depends on the work you want it to cover.
Could you answer the renewal question today?
Thirty minutes with Simon and Jason. Bring the insurer's question or the AI your fee earners are already using, and you leave knowing what it would take.