Permissions
Define authorized systems, data and actions with the firm. A prompt alone is not an access-control boundary.
AI for Law Firms · Governance
Put clear boundaries around AI in your firm.
Decide what AI may access, say, retain and send—and where a person needs to review or take over. Start by understanding the tools and workflows your firm actually uses.
AlphaForge connects intake, client relationships and daily operations. Keep the software that works—or choose AlphaForge’s CRM and case management system within an agreed scope.
Current specialization: estate planning, probate, trusts and inherited property.
Get your free Firm Intelligence AuditAI boundaries in practice
What can your AI see, say, retain and send?
Clear permissions, human oversight and reviewable activity help define how AI fits your firm. The Audit investigates current use and the boundaries worth checking; it is not a compliance certification.
Skip the video and start your free Firm Intelligence AuditGet your free Firm Intelligence Audit
Start with contact details, then four operating sections. We review what works, where context or AI boundaries need a closer look, and which gaps may be worth fixing. Do not include client names, matter facts, privileged material or credentials.
What happens next
We read your answers and call or email if we need more detail. Then we tell you what we found and what, if anything, is worth fixing. Sending the form doesn’t commit you to a plan or start a subscription.
Prefer to talk? Book a 20-minute discovery callPractical implementation
Agree on the evidence. Then agree on the change.
Oversight
Agree where human review, escalation and verification belong. Do not assume every proposed control is already implemented.
Evidence
Review configuration and available activity records. Unknowns remain unknown; governance is not a guarantee of compliance.
Check the documented control boundaries
Our trust and safety details distinguish configuration controls, supervision and planned capabilities. Review that scope alongside any proposed implementation; an illustration is not proof that a control is deployed.
Read the trust and safety detailsDo we have to replace our software?
No. We first review what fits. Connections, migration and any AlphaForge replacement depend on permissions, system capabilities and the agreed scope.
Does this Audit automatically recommend a package?
No. It starts with evidence across four business domains. The appropriate next step may be clarification, a scoped improvement or no change.
Is this legal advice or a compliance assessment?
It is an operating diagnostic, not legal advice, certification, a formal valuation or a guarantee of compliance or financial results. Attorneys retain professional supervision.
What a finding can look like
An inquiry is recorded. The next action is unclear.
A useful finding connects the evidence to a practical decision: what to keep, what to check and what may be worth changing.
Fictional example · not a client result
Every record and staff statement below is invented to explain the Audit. This is one sample finding, not a complete four-domain assessment.
Illustrative finding: Gap Identified
The example records do not show who owns the next follow-up or when it is due.
What the firm could decide
Confirm the existing handoff, then assign an owner and a firm-approved next-action time if a gap remains. A manual process may be sufficient.
Read the evidence, uncertainty and recommendation
- Evidence in this fictional scenario
- A sample CRM record shows an estate-planning inquiry and an unanswered callback. Its next-action and owner fields are blank. A fictional intake coordinator reports that another team member usually handles the next attempt.
- What works
- The inquiry and first attempt are recorded. Keep that history and the software that supports it.
- What remains unknown
- Another person may have followed up by a different channel. These records do not establish that a prospective client was lost, how often this happens or any revenue impact.
- Confidence in the example: Medium
- The sample record supports a documentation gap. The staff explanation needs corroboration before concluding that the workflow itself failed.
- Recommendation and responsibility
- Ask the intake lead to confirm who handles an unanswered callback and where completion is recorded. If ownership is unclear, agree on an owner, backup and follow-up interval. Consider automation only if the existing process cannot reliably support that handoff.
- Priority, effort and next check
- Review the handoff before buying another tool. Configuration effort depends on the current system; confirm it before committing. Review an agreed sample of inquiry histories to establish frequency and decide whether implementation is warranted.
- How an agreed change would be tested
- Use fictional inquiries to check that an unanswered callback has an owner, due time and completion record, and that a backup can see overdue work. Agree on acceptance criteria with the firm before implementation.
- What leadership could measure
- Track whether follow-ups have an owner and next-action time, whether they are completed as agreed, and the consultation outcomes recorded afterward. Establish a baseline first; a later change alone does not prove causation.
Your findings depend on your firm’s evidence. The next step may be clarification, a scoped improvement or no change. The Audit does not promise recovered revenue or require a software switch.