PROVEAiBLE Intake was built so the hardest privacy problem in legal AI — client data reaching a model — simply doesn’t happen. Identifying details are stripped on our server before any AI call, nothing is kept, and your centre runs on its own AI account. Built to the UK GDPR standard, so it holds across Australia, the UK, Canada and New Zealand — and it meets US professional-conduct rules (ABA Formal Opinion 512).
These are verified against our own code — not marketing. Your data-protection officer can hold us to each one.
Names, addresses, phone, DOB and government IDs are stripped to typed tokens ([CLIENT], [EMPLOYER], [ADDRESS]…) on our server, before any AI call — enforced server-side, so it can’t be switched off by a tampered browser.
Our database holds only your centre’s settings and a PII-free job record (session id, status, timestamps). Client names, documents and contact details are never written to it.
Intake data lives only for the session, on disk, and is permanently deleted the moment the case file is delivered to your team. Original documents are never stored.
In production your centre runs on its own Anthropic (Claude) or OpenAI key, under those providers’ API terms. Your organisation is the data controller; we’re a processor at most. What BYOK means →
Anthropic and OpenAI don’t train on API data. We enforce no-logging / no-training per request in code (data_collection: deny), not just in an account setting — and no client PII is written to our logs.
Every redaction the client confirms is timestamped as a consent record (GDPR Art. 7) and delivered with the case file — a defensible audit trail your data officer can file.
The UK has the strictest privacy bar (UK GDPR special-category data + DPIA) — build to it and Australia, Canada and New Zealand follow. The US works differently: professional-conduct rules (ABA Formal Opinion 512), which PROVEAiBLE’s architecture is built to meet.
The US has no single federal privacy law for legal intake. The governing framework is professional conduct — and the ABA has addressed AI directly.
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is the compliance baseline for AI use in US legal practice, reaffirmed by the ABA Task Force Year 2 Report in December 2025. It requires lawyers to assess three things before using any AI tool with client information: how the tool handles data, whether it could disclose information to third parties, and whether it trains on client inputs. The answer to all three must be satisfactory before a lawyer can use the tool ethically.
PROVEAiBLE is built around those three requirements:
Prospective client duty — Model Rule 1.18: Confidentiality obligations attach at the point of intake — before any lawyer reviews the matter, before representation forms. A law firm website that invites submission of confidential information creates a Rule 1.18 prospective-client duty from the first message. PROVEAiBLE is designed for this: intake data is protected from the moment of capture, not from when a lawyer first opens the file.
State bar guidance: New York (Formal Op. 2024-5 and 2025-6), Texas (Op. 705), Florida (Op. 24-1) and Illinois (Supreme Court AI Policy, Jan. 2025) have all issued AI guidance consistent with Opinion 512. Each requires lawyers to vet vendor data handling, avoid self-learning tools that could expose client data to third parties, and obtain informed consent before entering confidential information into a third-party AI system. PROVEAiBLE’s architecture — redact, process transiently, delete on delivery, no training — is the control pattern each of these opinions points to.
Privilege: Early 2026 case law (US v. Heppner, SDNY; Morgan, E.D. Mich.) distinguishes enterprise AI tools with contractual confidentiality, no training on inputs, and deletion on request from public consumer tools. Courts have consistently indicated the former are designed to support confidentiality obligations; PROVEAiBLE’s architecture aligns with the controls those decisions identify.
HIPAA: Most plaintiff-side PI and immigration firms are not HIPAA business associates and their intake data is not regulated as PHI. Firms acting as business associates — typically defense-side or insurer-retained — may require a BAA. Contact us to discuss if your practice needs one.
California CCPA/ADMT: California’s automated decision-making regulations (effective January 2027) apply to AI used for significant decisions in employment, credit, housing and healthcare. Legal intake and case triage are outside the regulation’s defined scope. Baseline CCPA obligations — notice at collection, data minimisation, deletion rights — may apply to large firms meeting the revenue threshold. PROVEAiBLE’s transient processing and deletion on delivery architecture supports compliance.
Every term your client chooses to redact is captured with a timestamp as a consent record under GDPR Article 7 and handed to your caseworker alongside the case file. It shows which entities were redacted (CLIENT, OTHER_PARTY, ADDRESS, ID, PHONE…), when the client confirmed each, and that the AI only ever received the protected version.
The case file your team receives is itself the proof the AI never saw identifying data — defensibility by architecture, not by promise. The token–to–name mapping is never sent to anyone and is deleted on delivery; your team receives the role-tagged file, with original documents arriving through your own configured channel.
data_collection: deny), not just as a setting in an account dashboard.We’ve done the privacy paperwork so your clinic doesn’t have to start from a blank page. Enter your email and we’ll send it.
A Data Protection Impact Assessment pre-filled for AI client intake — adapt it to your clinic and file it.
A one-page checklist per jurisdiction — map PROVEAiBLE to your obligations and tick them off.
US firms: compliance reference mapped to ABA Formal Opinion 512, Model Rules 1.6 and 1.18, and 2025–2026 state bar guidance — available on request.
We’ll email the document and may follow up once. No list-selling, ever. This page is information about our architecture, not legal advice — your clinic remains bound by its own privacy and professional-conduct obligations.