Legal
Legal on infrastructure you own
Client data stays in your control. Matter files do not transit third-party infrastructure. Privilege considerations are built into how the platform handles AI-assisted work.
UK law firms operate under a strict confidentiality regime. Every piece of client information received in the course of a retainer is confidential by default, and the obligation persists beyond the end of the retainer. The infrastructure that holds that information needs to reflect that — not through contract clauses, but through architecture.
The regulatory weight
The frameworks that bear on legal data infrastructure are not optional and some are actively evolving:
SRA Standards and Regulations
The current SRA regulatory framework (effective November 2019, updated) requires firms to protect client money and assets, which regulators increasingly interpret to include data. The SRA has published specific AI guidance (updated 2024) addressing competence, confidentiality, and oversight obligations when using AI tools.
SRA Transparency Rules
Require documented processes for client matter handling. Data processing arrangements are part of what auditors look at.
UK GDPR and UK DPA 2018
Client personal data is processed under UK GDPR. Legal professional privilege does not exempt firms from data protection obligations; it runs alongside them.
ICO enforcement
The ICO has regulated law firms directly. Firms using AI tools that process client data offshore, or that share data with model providers without a lawful basis, are exposed.
We build for confidentiality from the start of every engagement, local processing and no third-party model training on client data, rather than a setting that could be switched off later.
Why sovereignty matters specifically here
Legal professional privilege is one of the strongest protections in English law. It applies to communications and documents prepared for the purpose of litigation or legal advice. It does not automatically extend to data held on third-party infrastructure, and the position on AI-processed legal documents is not settled.
Three practical problems arise with hyperscaler legal infrastructure. A firm using a cloud-hosted AI tool for legal research or drafting needs to satisfy itself that client confidential information is not being used to train underlying models — and that the vendor’s terms actually support that position, not just imply it. A cross-border data transfer requires documented legal basis; many firms have not audited whether their AI tooling satisfies this. A matter management system that stores privileged documents on infrastructure outside the firm’s control creates uncertainty about whether privilege could be challenged on the basis of voluntary third-party disclosure.
None of these are hypothetical. The Law Society and SRA have both flagged data protection and AI risk as active supervisory concerns.
Three typical engagements
Sovereign document platform
Self-hosted matter management, document storage, and collaborative working environment. Client files never leave your infrastructure. Access controls auditable at the file level.
AI deployment with privilege-aware controls
Private AI for legal research, contract review, or document drafting. Configured so that privilege-sensitive material is processed locally, no data is transmitted to external model providers, and the lawyer remains the decision-maker on all substantive outputs.
Data processing audit
Review of current AI and SaaS tooling against SRA guidance, UK GDPR, and ICO expectations. Documented gap analysis, remediation plan, and updated data processing register. Fixed scope, fixed price.
Proof
Case studies in this sector are in preparation. Work in this area is ongoing; we will publish when client permission is confirmed.
Start here
Fixed scope. Fixed price. No day rates. We will map your current tooling against SRA AI guidance and UK GDPR obligations on a 30-minute call and tell you exactly what the work involves.
Book a scoping call