Contract review and brief drafting on privileged content —
designed to keep the privilege boundary inside your perimeter
Privilege is binary: either the work product is protected, or it’s discoverable. Routing privileged communications, mental impressions, or client-confidential context through an unprotected LLM provider is a privilege-waiver risk every general counsel correctly refuses. VeilEngine’s legal vertical pack is designed to preserve the privilege boundary; the client-side (Tier 0) configuration that keeps raw work product inside your perimeter is scoped per engagement, while frontier AI accelerates the work.
Your associates want frontier AI on the brief — your general counsel sees Heppner
Post-Heppner enterprise discipline made clear that voluntarily disclosing privileged content to a third party — including an LLM provider — is a waiver event. Every major firm responded with policy: no privileged work through public AI tools. The result is two-tier productivity: associates use AI on the parts they shouldn’t, or they don’t use AI at all on the parts that would matter.
ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) and Rule 5.3 (non-lawyer assistance — which extends to AI services) define the boundary. The state-bar variations on AI ethics opinions (NY, CA, FL) add per-jurisdiction language. The protection problem is real, and "trust the provider’s zero-retention claim" is not the same as preserving the privilege.
Client-side protection — scoped to keep privilege inside your perimeter
VeilEngine’s legal vertical pack can be scoped for Tier 0 client-side protection when privilege risk requires it: the design keeps raw privileged work product inside the firm perimeter for approved text and structured workflows, and the LLM provider receives only the working artifact. Non-text attachments (scanned documents, images) are block- or disclosure-default and handled separately. A counsel-directed configuration is designed to keep mental impressions, client-confidential strategy, and privileged communications client-side; counsel directs which workflows qualify.
- Tier 0 option — client-side protection scoped for privileged workflows; LLM provider receives only the working artifact, never the raw mental impression
- Conflict-check before the request — pre-request validation that the workflow respects the firm’s conflicts list
- Rule 5.3 supervision evidence — receipts attest to which attorney approved which AI workflow class, when, under which engagement
- Zero-retention attestation — per-request, not per-vendor-promise
Workflows your General Counsel and Managing Partner sign off on together
Contract review & markup
First-pass redline against playbook + jurisdiction. Tier 0 (scoped per engagement). Illustrative: ~2 min TUA vs. ~3 hours manual associate review.
Brief drafting (privilege-preserved)
First-draft brief from associated work-product. Privileged mental impressions stay client-side. Tier 0 (scoped per engagement).
Document review at scale
Privileged-content discovery review with conflict-check before the request. Per-document signed receipt of what was reviewed and which workflow ran.
Deposition prep synthesis
Cross-reference deposition transcripts with witness statements and case documents. Counsel-directed mode preserves work product.
Legal research with citation grounding
Jurisdiction-specific research with cite-back to primary sources. Receipts attest to source provenance.
Custom workflow
Bring the privileged workflow your GC has blocked. We scope during the regulatory audit.
Legal AI governance, answered
Bring the privileged workflow your GC has blocked
We start with a discovery regulatory audit alongside your GC and Managing Partner. You receive a preliminary exposure map and a privilege-preservation plan as the diagnostic deliverable — yours to keep regardless of next steps.