FOR RISK PARTNERS AND COLPs

Your duty to check a supplier is not discharged by our marketing. This page is the documentation: what the system does, where documents go, what is kept, and what we are still evidencing. Written to be checked, not to reassure.

Legal Case Analyst reads one uploaded document and returns a written analysis: issues ranked by severity and tied to the clause they came from, the jurisdictional position, cited authorities, the balance of power between the parties, any deadlines stated in the document, and preliminary advice on the points it finds.

It is not an agent. This matters for the agentic-AI provisions of current guidance, so it is worth stating precisely:

• It is triggered by an upload. It does not pursue goals or decide what to do next.

• It does not select or call tools, and has no access to your systems, files, matter management or email.

• It never communicates with a court, a tribunal, an opponent or any third party.

• It does not file, serve or send anything. The single automated outbound message is the report, emailed to the purchaser.

• It does not act in a representative capacity and holds no authority to bind anyone.

No solicitor reviews a report before it reaches the reader. It is preliminary decision support, it is not legal advice, and it creates no retainer. Where your firm uses it, the work and the advice remain yours.

The application runs on a server in London (Fly.io, region lhr). Two sub-processors receive document content, and both are in the United States:

• Anthropic — United States. Receives the document text and returns the analysis. This is the core function.

• Postmark — United States. Receives the finished report as Word and PDF email attachments, in order to deliver it.

• Fly.io — London, United Kingdom (a United States company). Hosting: processing, and our order and account records at rest on an encrypted volume in London.

• Stripe — United States and Ireland. Payment only. Receives no document content.

Transfers to the United States are made under the Standard Contractual Clauses as modified by the ICO's International Data Transfer Addendum. Our transfer risk assessment is in draft and its destination-country analysis is with a solicitor; we will publish it when that is settled.

• The uploaded file is never stored. It is parsed to text, analysed, and discarded.

• The report is not retained on our servers. It is shown on screen, emailed to the purchaser, and dropped. There is no archive to retrieve it from, and no corpus of client documents to breach or disclose.

• Order records — order number, purchaser email, amount, dates — are kept as the accounting record and purged after 24 months.

• On the firm tier, no filenames are recorded at all: firm filenames carry client names, so an optional matter reference is stored instead.

Being straight about the one gap: the model provider's data-retention configuration is an account-level setting rather than a contract term, and we have not yet published evidence of ours. Until we have, we do not claim zero retention on that leg. Postmark's retention settings are under review on the same basis.

Your document is not used to train models. That is a contractual term, not an assurance from us. Anthropic's Commercial Terms of Service, section B, provide:

“Anthropic may not train models on Customer Content from Services.”

“Customer Content” is defined there as inputs and outputs — the document and the analysis. Section C incorporates Anthropic's Data Processing Addendum into those terms by reference, and that addendum contains the Standard Contractual Clauses and the UK Addendum. You can read both documents yourself; we would rather you did.

• Every finding cites the clause it came from, so it can be checked against the document in seconds.

• Authorities from our citation bank are quoted verbatim and labelled as such. Anything the model supplies from its own knowledge is flagged VERIFY, so you always know which is which.

• Bank citations are quoted verbatim; statutory citations are checked against the official text where a machine-readable source exists, and the US case citations are machine-checked against the official reporters by a script that fails the build on a mismatch.

That is a control on citations. It is not a claim that the analysis is free of error, and it does not discharge a practitioner's duty of competence — current guidance is explicit that competence requires more than detecting and removing fabricated results. Treat the report as a first pass that shows its working.

Guidance asks you to consider disclosing AI use to your client, and sets conditions on recovering the cost. A starting point for you to settle in your own words:

We may use automated document-analysis software to assist us in reviewing documents in your matter. Any output is reviewed by us before it informs the advice we give, and responsibility for that advice remains ours. Where we incur a per-document charge for that software specifically for your matter, we may recover it from you at cost as a disbursement, itemised separately and without mark-up.

Why it is framed that way: per-document pricing on a named matter is a per-use fee for a specialised tool, which is the recoverable category — not the subscription overhead that must be absorbed. The exact price is shown before payment, so the actual cost is documented. A mark-up would need your client's informed written consent.

This is a template, not advice. It is yours to settle against your own regulator's rules and your own retainer.

• TKJ Global Media Ltd, registered in England & Wales, company number 08272919.

• ICO registration ZC223758. Data protection contact: hello@legalcaseanalyst.com.

• We are not a law firm and are not regulated to provide legal advice.

• Coverage: 73 jurisdictions, 22 document types. Immigration and wills & probate carry an additional notice, because advising on those is a regulated activity in its own right.

Questions a due-diligence questionnaire does not cover? Write to hello@legalcaseanalyst.com and we will answer in writing.

How firms use it · Privacy notice · Documentation