Privilege · No third party in the path

Built so privileged material never reaches a third party.

Disclosure to a vendor is a question a firm has to answer. HIGHCOURT is built so the question does not arise: there is no vendor-side copy to disclose.

Request a Briefing See what it does

The privilege boundary, drawn at the building

Contracts allocate risk after disclosure. Architecture can prevent the disclosure.

No disclosure to a provider

Privileged documents are read on the firm's own machine. No third party receives, stores or processes them at any point.

No subpoena surface elsewhere

A vendor holding your client's file is a party that can be compelled. There is no such party here.

No incident to notify

A provider breach cannot expose matters that a provider never held.

Evidence for the file

The architecture is simple enough to describe to a client, a carrier or an opposing party in a paragraph.

What stays true on every matter

These do not change by practice area, firm size, or the question asked.

Nothing leaves the firmNo cloud, no API call, no telemetry. The matter is read on hardware the firm owns.

Owned, not subscribedA one-time purchase. No per-seat monthly fee and no usage meter.

Citations verified on-machineAuthority is checked against a local corpus, not recalled from a model’s memory.

The entire matterFull workup across the whole file — not a chat window over one document.

Runs on your workstationA current RTX-class GPU. Designed to run with no internet connection at all.

Bring your risk committee's objection.

The privilege conversation is the one we would rather have first. Bring the version your general counsel would ask.

Request a Briefing

Questions firms ask

The answers below are specific to this page’s subject.

Does using AI on privileged material waive privilege?

The concern turns on disclosure to a third party. Running the analysis on firm-owned hardware with no outbound path means no third party receives the material. Whether any particular use is appropriate remains the responsible lawyer's judgment.

What do we tell clients who ask about AI?

That the analysis happens on the firm's own equipment and their file does not leave it. That is a materially different answer from naming a cloud provider.

Is this ABA Model Rule 1.6 compliant?

Rule 1.6(c) requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorised disclosure. Keeping the material on firm-owned hardware with no external transmission is a strong form of that. Compliance is always assessed against the firm's whole practice, not a single tool.

What about a client who forbids automated processing entirely?

That is a matter-level restriction, and it should be recorded and enforced at matter level rather than left to memory.

Other pages covering the same ground from a different angle.

Confidential legal AI (ABA 1.6) Private AI for privileged documents Zero data leave / no cloud legal AI Air-gapped AI for law firm data security Stop sending privileged data to the cloud On-premise legal AI platform

See it run on a real matter.

A briefing walks the whole path — intake, workup, the Adjudicator's pass, and the work product that comes out the other side.