Use AI for case pattern analysis, deposition summarization, and outcome research — while keeping privileged material out of the wrong systems.
Beyond drafting and research, AI has a growing role in the strategic side of litigation: summarizing long depositions and identifying inconsistencies across witness testimony, analyzing patterns across a judge's or opposing counsel's prior rulings and filings, and modeling likely outcomes based on comparable case data. Done well, this can meaningfully sharpen case strategy. Done carelessly, it can put privileged material into systems it was never meant to touch.
We help litigation teams use these capabilities without that tradeoff — building a workflow where AI tools work on the right data, in the right systems, with the right access controls.
The biggest risk in this area isn't inaccuracy — it's data handling. Depositions, discovery material, and case strategy notes are often privileged or highly sensitive, and many AI tools were not built with law firm confidentiality obligations in mind. Before we recommend any tool for litigation strategy work, we vet its data retention policy, whether it trains its models on submitted data, and whether it offers the access controls a litigation team actually needs.
We look at your active litigation matters to find where AI-assisted analysis would add real strategic value.
We evaluate AI tools specifically for data handling and confidentiality before recommending any for use on privileged material.
We set up summarization and pattern-analysis workflows integrated with your existing case management system.
Litigation attorneys and paralegals are trained on both the tools and the data-handling protocol that governs their use.
Only if the tool's data handling has been vetted for confidentiality — specifically whether it retains data, whether it trains models on submitted content, and what access controls it offers. We vet this before recommending any tool for privileged material.
AI can identify patterns in comparable case outcomes and a judge's prior rulings, which is useful context for strategy, but it should be treated as one input among many rather than a reliable prediction on its own.
Deposition and transcript summarization tends to offer the clearest, lowest-risk time savings, since it primarily compresses review time rather than replacing strategic judgment.
Generally no, absent a specific court order or local rule requiring disclosure, though some courts have begun issuing standing orders on AI use — we help firms track what applies in their specific jurisdictions.
Bring your current workflow — even if it's just associates using ChatGPT informally — and we'll map the fastest safe path forward.
Book a free consult