The next module was client onboarding, and we built it against a specific frustration. Most onboarding tools give you a checklist: a list of documents you still have to write. That is not help. Writing the compliance materials is the work. So we built onboarding to produce the pack, not to remind you that the pack does not exist yet.

The pack, ready on day one

Log in on the first day and the firm-in-a-box materials are already there as drafts:

  • a privacy notice for new clients, mapped to UK GDPR Article 13 and 14 transparency requirements;
  • an internal data-handling policy for the firm;
  • a complaints procedure;
  • a DSAR response workflow for when a data subject asks what you hold;
  • a draft annual AI-use report you can hand to your COLP at year end.

The content is mapped to the SRA Code of Conduct and to ICO guidance on Article 13 and 14 transparency. You edit the firm-specific parts — your name, your details, the choices only you can make. The boilerplate, which is the slow and thankless part, is done.

Why a checklist is not enough

The reason firms postpone this work is that a checklist does not reduce it. "Write an AI-use policy" is one line on a list and days of actual effort, which is why it sits undone while everyone hopes the last precedent still matches current regulator guidance.

By producing the drafts themselves, mapped to the regulators, the module moves the task from "write it from scratch" to "review and approve". That is a completely different amount of work, and it is the difference between a policy that exists and one that is permanently on the to-do list.

Anchored to the regulators, not a generic template

This is where the module earns the through-line of the whole product: built for solicitors, not a generic tool with a legal skin.

The pack is not a generic privacy template you bend to fit afterwards. It is anchored to live regulator references — SRA Code of Conduct sections and ICO Article 13 and 14 guidance — written for England and Wales, not translated from another market's rules. A generic template makes you do the mapping work yourself, after the fact, with the risk that you miss the place where your jurisdiction differs. Starting from the right frame means the draft is already pointed at the standard your regulator actually expects.

Drafts for review, sign-off by a human

As everywhere else in the product, what you get is drafts. Regulator-mapped, structured, and ready — but drafts. A partner reviews them, edits the judgement calls, and signs them off. The module does not file anything, does not represent your firm to a regulator on its own, and does not treat its output as final. Compliance is a professional responsibility, so a human stays on the decision.

And, as with every module, it runs on the same architecture: your firm and client data stays on your machine, in the browser, and only the text you approve for a given step ever reaches an AI model.

Where onboarding sits in the series

Onboarding completes the opening arc of the product. The engagement letter starts the client relationship; onboarding puts the firm's compliance footing in place at the same moment — both produced as native, jurisdiction-correct drafts, both kept on your machine, both handed to you for the review and sign-off that only a solicitor can give.

← All posts