An AI knowledge base for a law firm: who can see what?

Decide what the firm can share

A relevant document may belong to a matter the person asking cannot access. Similar wording does not give them permission to use it. Before choosing a search tool, decide which parts of the firm's work can be shared more widely and who has the authority to approve that.

A sensible starting point is a library of templates and practice notes already approved for shared use. Each item needs someone responsible for keeping it current, a defined audience, and a clear explanation of when it applies. Someone following a search result should be able to open the source and tell which version they are using.

If useful knowledge still sits in an old client's files, a person needs to prepare and approve a reusable version. That includes checking for client names and details specific to the original matter. Removing a name alone does not establish that the rest can be shared. The original records retain their matter permissions; the separately approved material goes into the knowledge library.

Handing a matter to another lawyer

Suppose the firm has an approved internal guide for handing matters between lawyers. It asks the outgoing lawyer to identify the folder containing current documents, describe unfinished tasks, and name a person who can answer questions. It gives no deadline for the handoff. An associate asks the assistant what the firm expects when she hands a matter to a colleague.

A useful answer points to that guide and helps structure a handoff note around its requirements: a link to the documents, a description of unfinished tasks, and a contact for questions. The associate can open the source to check where those requirements came from. The guide alone cannot tell her which tasks remain on this particular matter or who the contact should be. She needs to fill in those details from the matter's records. If she asks when the handoff is due, the assistant should explain that the guide does not specify a deadline.

There might also be a similar handoff note in another client's file. If the associate cannot access that matter, the assistant should neither use the note nor reveal its title, preview, or a quotation. A title containing a client's name can disclose information even when the document itself stays locked. The shared guide gives her a starting point without opening someone else's matter files.

When someone leaves a matter team

Permissions change as people move between matters. A new search should honor their current access, including in a chat that is already open. Before putting the tool into use, check this with a test account: remove its access to a sample matter, ask again in the open chat, and then repeat after signing in again. The person responsible for access should specify what the account is allowed to see. Whoever checks the result needs to look at titles and references as well as the answer.

Earlier chat history needs a separate decision. The firm must determine whether someone who loses source access can still read and export answers they received before the change. Then check whether the tool follows that policy. Changing permissions does not recall copies already downloaded outside the system or erase what someone remembers.

An ordinary library update deserves a check, too. After a template is revised, new questions should find the current version. If the firm withdraws it, the assistant should stop presenting it as approved. Someone needs to own those decisions and keep the library up to date.

Check your existing document system first

Before commissioning another application, try the search in your document management system (DMS). An organized library with the right permissions may be enough if people mainly need help finding the correct file. An assistant available within the existing system is also worth evaluating.

For example, iManage says Ask iManage searches its repository, provides cited answers, and respects existing access and metadata. These are the vendor's claims on its Ask iManage product page. Its user guide describes asking questions in natural language and links to instructions for viewing answer evidence, working with chat history, and exporting chats. Those materials do not establish how a particular deployment behaves after access is removed. Check that in your own environment.

A separate application becomes worth considering when useful knowledge is spread across several systems and people still have to gather it manually. The work then includes connecting those sources while preserving their access restrictions. Adding a chat window does not organize the library or decide who should approve its contents.

A first conversation with Syntalith

Syntalith's Company Brain offering connects knowledge from the tools a team uses, retaining its source and the person responsible for the content. For a law firm, a useful initial scope would be one library of approved materials: finding the right item, showing its source, and checking that results respect the user's permissions. That would give the firm a chance to assess the answers before connecting more matter files. The firm would continue to decide what can be shared and who owns the content.

For an initial conversation, bring one question people regularly ask colleagues and explain where they usually look for the answer. A version without client information is enough. That gives us a starting point for discussing whether to organize the current DMS or connect other sources. See Syntalith's pricing page for commercial information. If the team can already find the material but needs help evaluating AI answers and citations, the article on AI training for lawyers covers that need.