Ethical AI

Ethics you can enforce.

Most AI-ethics pages are principles. This one is mechanisms: for every principle that matters, the platform either enforces it with a gate, measures it with a hard floor, or records it in an instrument an auditor can read. Where it cannot enforce, it abstains and says so.

Human oversight

A lawyer releases everything. There is no override.

  • No client-facing advice or document exists before a lawyer explicitly approves it, enforced by the server, not by workflow guidance.
  • Monitoring signals after release go to the lawyer only; a client never receives an automated legal conclusion.
  • The EU AI Act classification of the platform rests on this design fact, and weakening it is a recorded reclassification trigger.

Verification

The model is never trusted.

  • Every legal citation must verify against its official public source, or it cannot be displayed. There is no flag to ignore.
  • When the verified basis is thin, the platform abstains instead of guessing. Abstention is a designed, measured outcome, not a failure mode.
  • Deadlines and statutory dates come from counsel-signed deterministic rules, never from text generation.
  • Facts taken from client documents are labelled as the client's assertions and can never be presented as law.

Fairness

A bias floor of zero, tested on every change.

  • An automated bias-evaluation suite probes whether outcomes shift with client characteristics that should not matter.
  • The floor is zero strict violations, and it runs on every code change: a change that breaks it cannot be merged.

Honesty

Overpromising is technically unshippable.

  • Every AI-assisted output carries its assistance label; clients see the counsel-approved AI notice before any interaction.
  • Performance claims enter our material only as measured numbers.
  • Counsel maintains a list of prohibited promise wording; an automated check fails any release in which such wording appears in a client-facing string.

Accountability

Evidence, not assurances.

  • Every consequential action lands in an append-only, tamper-evident audit chain.
  • Any firm can download its own conformity dossier: a live-verified evidence file of its oversight, releases and certificates, generated deterministically, no model involved.
  • The platform's EU AI Act position is a counsel-signed determination on file (limited risk, Article 50), with its transparency surfaces counsel-approved, and its controls voluntarily documented to the standard the higher risk tier would demand.

Honest limits

What ethics requires us to admit.

  • The underlying language model inherits the biases of its training; our verification and abstention layers mitigate the consequences, they do not eliminate the cause.
  • The fairness floor covers the probes we have written. It cannot certify the absence of all conceivable bias.
  • Family law is deliberately out of scope: the platform abstains entirely rather than serve a domain where errors are hardest to bound.
  • Ethical review is carried by counsel of record, the data-protection officer and recorded decision triggers, not by an independent ethics board.

The measurements behind these mechanisms are on the evaluations page.