Brain · Industries
Help your team consult approved firm know-how through compatible AI tools. Review source access, processing terms and client obligations before connecting matter information.
Where is our standard SaaS indemnity guidance?
The fictional precedent index points to the technology transactions practice note. The example provides a place to begin reviewing the firm’s guidance; it does not decide which clause is appropriate for a client or transaction.
Source excerpt · Precedent indexSaaS indemnity guidance: consult the technology transactions practice note.
Firm knowledge accumulates in precedent folders, practice notes and matter documents. A lawyer may know that useful guidance exists but still have to identify which version is current and whether it belongs to a matter they can access. An answer without a source adds another thing to check.
Brain’s proposed role is a connected firm-knowledge layer, not a substitute for professional judgment or authoritative legal research. Start with approved, non-sensitive know-how. Before expanding to matter data, verify the live access behavior and the processing agreements required by your firm and clients.
Connect. Ask. Govern.
Choose the practice notes, precedent guidance and non-confidential training references authorized for the pilot. Keep matter ownership and review status clear, and exclude live client records until the firm has approved the complete data path.
Ask where the relevant firm guidance appears and inspect the excerpt. A source-backed explanation helps locate material; qualified legal professionals must assess jurisdiction, facts, currency and suitability before using it in client work.
Separate ordinary firm knowledge from a restricted matter collection. Test a fresh request as a permitted and restricted identity using synthetic documents, then review changes in access before widening the pilot.
See the idea in action
Fictional examples. These interactions do not query your Brain or test real permissions.
The fictional precedent index points to the technology transactions practice note. The example provides a place to begin reviewing the firm’s guidance; it does not decide which clause is appropriate for a client or transaction.
SaaS indemnity guidance: consult the technology transactions practice note.
The fictional closed Matter Orion review note records four discussion points: measurement period, consistent accounting policies, reporting rights and dispute resolution. The practice checklist preserves those points for another supervised review. This is an invented prior-matter reference, not client advice or precedent authority; a lawyer must inspect current law, the transaction and instructions before applying it.
Owned synthetic prior-matter reference: share-purchase earn-out review discussed measurement period, accounting-policy consistency, reporting rights and dispute resolution. No client identities or operative advice included.
For a fresh matter, review measurement period, accounting policies, reporting rights and dispute resolution with the supervising lawyer. Confirm current law and client instructions separately.
The fictional handoff guide says to identify the current precedent, record the supervising lawyer and confirm any client-specific restrictions. This provides a checklist for a conversation with the matter owner, not legal advice.
Confirm the current precedent, supervising lawyer and client-specific restrictions.
The fictional matter note is restricted. Selecting limited access hides its answer and source excerpt in this simulation. The firm must test actual workspace and source enforcement before treating this presentation as a model for matter confidentiality.
Restricted example: matter-specific instructions are limited to the assigned team.
Open a question, then inspect its source excerpts.
Brain is a knowledge layer reached through MCP, the Model Context Protocol. Claude, Cursor and Codex are examples of compatible clients in the existing product. Client support and setup differ, so check the current connection instructions rather than assuming every assistant has the same capabilities.
The current public setup describes Google Drive and Notion as connected sources, alongside documents you choose to add. Start with a focused collection and inspect the actual connection screen for availability. A tool appearing in a roadmap or illustration does not mean its connector is ready for your account.
Connect the documents your workspace needs.
Bring approved pages into a shared knowledge layer.
Add a focused set of knowledge you own.
Keep access intentional
Firm guidance and confidential client files should not become one undifferentiated collection. Use approved material, deliberate memberships and source ownership. Review processing and provider terms with the firm’s obligations in mind. Brain helps consult knowledge; it does not establish privilege, resolve conflicts or replace professional responsibility for the matter. The fictional record below is metadata an authorized reviewer could inspect: actor, reference object, time, scope and outcome. It is not a client-ready export or a complete production audit. Assess actual record coverage, permitted fields and confidentiality before sharing a report; document quotations and unrelated matters do not belong in this illustration.
Fictional metadata only. No document content is shown, and this is not a record from your account or proof of live enforcement.
A practice-note question may need a particular passage and its cited exception rather than a large folder of unrelated records. Compare the answer with the full approved reference and measure actual input usage. Include retrieval, outputs and Brain charges; lower context volume is useful only when the professional can still assess the necessary evidence.
Compare current plans and limits| Approach | What to consider |
|---|---|
| General-purpose public AI | May help with broad tasks, subject to its terms and controls. It should not receive client information without the firm’s assessment and authorization. |
| Legal research, drafting and review tools | Serve specialized legal jobs with their own source coverage and workflows. A firm-knowledge layer does not replace those capabilities. |
| Document management and Brain | Keeps source documents central and adds a question-based way to consult selected know-how. Matter access and contractual requirements need live verification. |
Begin with approved know-how that contains no client or matter-sensitive information. Review provider terms, processing arrangements and access controls, then test the intended workflow with distinct user identities. Involve the firm’s security and legal owners before expanding the collection. A cited answer is useful evidence to inspect, not a substitute for professional judgment.
Training and processing commitments need to be assessed against current terms and the providers involved in the specific configuration. The privacy policy describes service providers used to operate Brain. Do not infer a contractual no-training commitment from a marketing example. Confirm the applicable agreements before connecting confidential firm knowledge or client information to the service.
A firm should verify how its document-management boundaries map to the live workspace, sources and individual users. Test both permitted and denied access, including source excerpts, before importing matter information. The withheld card on this page is a fictional UI demonstration. It does not establish matter-level enforcement or replace a security acceptance test.
The product includes model-key configuration in relevant workflows, but a firm must verify its eligible plan, supported provider and actual data path. Confirm which agreement governs each request and what other services process the source content. Bringing a key alone does not establish that every processing step is covered by the firm’s provider agreement.
This workflow concerns selected firm knowledge: finding an approved practice note, precedent index or handoff guide and inspecting the cited source. Specialized legal research and drafting tools serve different needs. A lawyer must verify authority, current law and client instructions independently. Neither the fictional examples nor a connected answer should be treated as legal advice.
An authorized reviewer can assess relevant access records with identity, object, timestamp, scope and outcome, subject to actual product coverage and the firm’s confidentiality rules. The fictional Matter Orion record illustrates those fields without document quotations. Verify the live export and sharing approval before sending anything; it is not proof of every downstream action.
A law firm’s obligations depend on its processing purposes, data, roles, contracts and transfers. Review Brain’s current privacy information and obtain the arrangements your firm requires before using personal data. This page makes no universal compliance or certification claim. Your legal and privacy owners should assess the specific deployment and document that assessment.
Explore the public demo using fictional data. Assess the source, access and contractual requirements before connecting any client or matter information.
