Citation-grounded Q&A across your entire work product — including scanned PDFs your DMS can't search. Automated filing, chronologies, client portals. You own the platform and the code.
Works inside NetDocuments, iManage, and Outlook. Nothing new to learn.
The question whether AI-generated communications fall within the scope of attorney-client privilege is now squarely before the federal courts. In United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), Judge Rakoff held that written exchanges between a criminal defendant and Anthropic’s Claude were protected by neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine. The court reasoned that the platform’s terms of service — which reserve the right to disclose user data to “government regulatory authorities” — negated any expectation of confidentiality.
Applying the traditional framework from the Second Circuit, the court required that privileged communications be: “(1) among only privileged parties, (2) made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.” The court emphasized that because an AI chatbot is neither an attorney nor an agent of an attorney, the first prong could not be met.
sourcing... cited — Mejia, 2d Cir. ✓ Cited — Westlaw → United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011)Under California Evidence Code § 952(a), a “confidential communication” must be transmitted “by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons.” Where an AI platform’s terms permit data collection or third-party disclosure, any communication routed through it may constitute a waiver of privilege under § 954.
sourcing... cited — Cal. Evid. Code ✓ Cited → Cal. Evid. Code § 952(a) drafting analysis...Reading these authorities together, the dispositive question for any firm deploying AI drafting tools is whether client data routed through the platform satisfies both Mejia’s two-prong privilege test and the “no third persons” standard under § 952(a). Where the platform’s terms reserve a right to disclose, the communication is likely unprivileged — exposing the firm to involuntary waiver.
The Market
A third of legal RFPs now include questions about AI tooling. Firms without an answer are losing business. But the market's leading options — Harvey at $2,400/seat/month with a 20-seat minimum, Legora at $30K/year with 10 — are priced for AmLaw 100 economics and built for five practice areas. If your firm has 15 attorneys and handles twelve areas of law, you're invisible to enterprise legal AI. Slingr builds what they can't sell you — a platform sized for your firm, covering your practice areas, that you own outright.
The Problem
Every document filed by hand: find the client-matter with boolean search, drag it in, hand-code the fields. Attorneys reuse stale policy versions because nobody can tell which one is current — "has anyone done a personal-device policy recently?" shouldn't be an unanswerable question.
In most DMSs, a scanned PDF is invisible to search — and client files arrive scanned. Add terabytes of depositions, exhibits, and archives sitting in shared drives, partially duplicated, and the firm's most valuable asset — its work product — can't be searched, let alone asked a question.
DMS seats, storage tiers, practice tools — the subscriptions renew every year while paralegals still build chronologies by hand at thousands of billable dollars per case. You're renting the place your own knowledge lives, and the rent keeps rising.
The same evolution, tuned for the practice of law: merge matters, documents, and email into one governed pool the firm owns, stand up the custom platform that runs the firm, build the roster of agents — and retire the DMS license behind them.
The firm runs on a legacy DMS, terabytes of shared drives, scanned archives no search can see, and email. The knowledge is trapped — and every license renews.
First, matters, documents, and email merge into one governed pool the firm owns — deduplicated, OCR’d, every scanned page finally readable. Not a sync — a migration.
On that pool we stand up a custom platform — matter-centric, permission-trimmed, with the access controls and audit trail client confidentiality demands.
A roster of AI agents does the work — citation-grounded answers, auto-filing, chronologies — with attorneys in the loop. The legacy DMS is retired; the work product stays yours.
What We Build
This isn't a generic playbook. We build bespoke document-intelligence and case-management platforms for firms — starting with how your attorneys, paralegals, and operations team actually work, then building the platform around it. Your firm names it, your firm owns it.
Ask the firm's entire body of work a question and get an answer with citations to the source documents — including scanned PDFs that were invisible in your DMS. Permission-trimmed retrieval means attorneys only see what they're allowed to see.
Drag a document in and the platform classifies it, codes the fields, and files it to the right client-matter — no manual tagging. A quick human confirm in the early days; the classifier learns from every correction.
Browse, filing, versioning, and latest-version document control organized the way firms think — by client and matter. Matter- and client-level permissions, audit trail, and SSO on your identity provider, built for confidential material across competing clients.
Chronologies drawn from case documents instead of paralegal hours. Monthly client updates drafted from the month's activity, approved by the managing attorney. Deposition-prep outlines, first-draft discovery responses from your templates, and a firm-branded client portal.
When your clients ask what your firm is doing with AI — and they will — you have an answer and a branded portal to show them. Not a vendor's demo. Your platform, your name on it.
The Value
How It Works
We inventory every source — DMS, shared drives, archives — measuring counts, document types, duplication, the scanned-page share, and your license renewal timing. Every budgetary number gets trued up against the real corpus, not a guess.
Architecture and specs modeled on how the firm works: the matter-centric data model, client- and matter-level access controls, permission-trimmed retrieval, SSO, and the sync contracts that keep your DMS dual-tracked during the build.
Our pods ship in two-week cycles toward a bounded pilot: one document slice plus a live matter, end-to-end — automated filing and citation-grounded Q&A your attorneys actually use. Measured actuals true up the full-corpus plan before bulk migration is committed.
The corpus migrates in waves with reconciliation and an access-control audit at each step. When the platform is proven, the DMS is retired on your renewal timing — and the roadmap continues: chronologies, client portal, drafting agents.
34% of legal RFPs last quarter included a question about AI tooling. The firms answering that question are winning the work.
Book a 15-minute strategy call. We'll size your corpus, map the pilot slice, and show you what citation-grounded Q&A over your own work product looks like — and what the DMS license spend becomes when it's an asset instead.
Book a strategy call