Keep the systems you trust. Put AI under firm control.

Good. Keep it. Your practice system is there to run the office: matters, diary, billing, filing, and the ledger. Our solutions are not trying to replace any of that.

What our solutions add is a way for people to ask questions of the firm’s own files and approved knowledge, and get answers that point back to the source. They sit beside the systems you already trust, rather than asking you to move the practice onto a new platform.

Many practice and accounting platforms now offer AI features. Those are often useful for admin tasks and light drafting. In most cases, though, the AI still runs in the vendor’s cloud and reads client text there.

That is a different proposition from keeping confidential client work inside the firm while AI is used on it, and from making sure one client’s files cannot bleed into another’s answers. If your platform’s AI helps with the office, keep using it for that. Use our solutions when the prompt includes confidential client material.

Those tools are fine for general writing, learning, and work that does not include client facts. The problem starts when someone pastes a memo, a ledger extract, or client notes into them. At that point the firm has lost practical control over where that information goes.

Keep public tools for non-client work. For questions about client files and firm knowledge, use Secure Law or Secure Accounting. That is Sovereign AI: a path the firm operates, rather than a rented assistant. When a frontier model is still useful on client material, use Frontier Mode: reversible pseudonymisation first (placeholders, not redaction), you approve what leaves, and original identifiers are restored inside the firm.

The short answer is Why private AI?. For the longer ownership argument, see Sovereign AI, or a rented assistant?.

Citrix can strengthen desktop control, and Microsoft 365 Copilot can be a sound enterprise choice for office AI under your tenancy terms. Neither, by itself, means confidential client text stays inside the firm at the moment AI reads it.

Desktop control, enterprise cloud AI, and private AI on premises are three different controls. Sealed control is about the last of those: where the model reads the file.

It can, if you let it guess. Professional work should not work that way. Answers should be based on material the firm has actually retrieved, with citations the reader can check. Where our solutions cannot support a point, they should say so rather than invent one.

Partners still decide what becomes approved firm knowledge. Lawyers and accountants still own any advice or filing that leaves the firm. AI prepares; people decide.

No. The centre of our solutions is asking questions of firm knowledge and assigned client files, and getting cited answers people can verify. They are not a collections screen, a court diary, or another place to manage deadlines.

You keep those tools where they are. Our solutions are for research, drafting support, and finding what the firm already knows, under clearer control.

Our solutions should not feel like a second office. People keep working in the practice systems they already know. Secure Law and Secure Accounting are added beside them for the moments when someone needs to ask a question of the files or draft from them.

Most firms start with one team, prove the habit, then widen access. Connectors and knowledge shelves grow after people trust the answers, not before.

Using cloud email, storage, or practice software is a normal business decision. Sending confidential client text into a public AI model is a different decision. The second one is closer to disclosure than to ordinary IT outsourcing.

Being comfortable with cloud vendors for day-to-day operations does not answer the question of where AI reads a client file at the moment it answers. That is why this page exists: the confidentiality problem needs a different design, not another cloud seat.