Agentic FabriqRestrict each agent to approved clients, cases, workspaces, and document sets.
Case walls are built in: the agent can only ever reach the one engagement it serves.
SOLUTIONS / Legal Services
Keep every client and case walled off in AI-assisted legal work
Keep client cases separate and control agents handling privileged, confidential, and court-sensitive information.
01 / IDENTITY02 / POLICY03 / AUDIT
01 / THE CONTEXTEvery matter behind
Every matter behind
its own wall.
Law firms and legal-service providers must prevent information from crossing clients, cases, ethical walls, and geographic boundaries. Agents can make this harder because they retrieve and synthesize information across many systems.
MATTER LEDGER · EXAMPLE
matter files
matter files- M-2291Novara HoldingsLitigationAssigned
- M-2317Novara HoldingsEmploymentAssigned
- M-1984Kestrel RailAdverse partyEthical wall
- M-2402Ferro GroupOutside expertEnds with the engagement
matter-agent, for a matter team member: one search, and it stops at the wall.
02 / IN PRACTICE
Autonomy, with accountability.
ONE SEARCH, RUN AGAINST THE FIRM’S FILESIllustrative · matter-agent, acting for a matter team member
ask
What indemnity caps did we accept in Ardenne’s supply agreements?
RESOLVED SCOPE · the matters this person is assigned to, and no others- M-3140Ardenne Foods — CommercialRead and quoted back with a citation to the file it came from.SharePoint
- M-3155Ardenne Foods — SupplySame client, same team, same engagement letter. Read.SharePoint
- M-3162Ardenne Foods — correspondenceThread read in place; nothing is copied out of the matter.Outlook
- M-2884Brightwater Logistics — adverse partyBehind an ethical wall. The wall is applied where the documents are fetched, so this matter is not searched, not read and not summarised — it cannot reach the answer by way of the agent.withheld
HELD
Draft advice to the client, built from the three matters aboveOutlook
Example matters. The walls, assignments and reviewers are the ones you set.
03 / WHAT CHANGES
Control, in the details.
Enforce ethical walls and conflict-related access restrictions.
Screened attorneys’ agents inherit the screen — conflicts law expects the wall to hold for automation too.
Bind outside experts and temporary staff to narrow, time-limited access.
Contract reviewers and experts get exactly the documents their role requires, for exactly as long as they hold it.
Control whether an agent may draft, file, send, or only recommend.
Capability tiers separate suggesting from acting, so a research assistant never quietly becomes a filing agent.
Keep court filings and client communications out of the agent’s grant.
Filing and sending are their own actions. Granted to attorneys and not to the agent, so anything reaching a court or a client is an attorney’s act.
Preserve the sources and the actions behind generated work product.
Work product carries its research trail — the sources, the agent steps, and the attorney whose authority it ran on.
THREE LAYERS. ONE DECISION.
The boundary travels with the work.
Explore the context attached to every request.
What is this agent allowed to do?
matter-agent has a defined purpose and a bounded set of tools.
Whose authority travels with it?
The request acts for matter team member, using that person’s permissions.
Where does the action land?
The policy applies to the requested action within Matter files, before the tool executes.
04 / WAYS TO PUT IT TO WORK
Built for your real workflows.
01Legal research
Research agents work within the case’s files and approved sources, citing what informed each conclusion.
Identify→Authorize→Record
02Contract review
Review agents flag off-playbook terms for a lawyer rather than accepting them, case by case.
Identify→Authorize→Record
03Discovery
Discovery agents stay inside the assigned hold and reviewer group, keeping collection and review defensible.
Identify→Authorize→Record
04Case intake
Intake agents sort and route new requests without reaching into confidential advice or unrelated cases.
Identify→Authorize→Record
05Knowledge management
Knowledge agents use approved precedents and templates while client-confidential material stays walled off.
Identify→Authorize→Record
06Litigation preparation
Preparation agents build from the case record; filing and service are not actions they hold, so an attorney does both.
Identify→Authorize→Record
QUESTIONS
A closer look.
Does this work with our document management system?+
Yes — as a drop-in layer, not a replacement. Case files stay in the document system you run today; Fabriq sits between agents and it, deciding per request which case’s documents each agent can reach and what it may do with them.
How is AI work product kept defensible?+
Every generated document carries its sources, the agent actions that produced it, and the attorney whose authority it ran on. If a court or client asks how a conclusion was reached, the firm answers from the record.
What happens when someone leaves the firm?+
Revoke their session and their agents lose access immediately — while the trail of what those agents did stays intact for file handoffs.
Can permissions mirror each attorney’s cases and screens?+
Yes. Reach resolves from the person the agent works for: an associate’s agent sees their cases, a screened lawyer’s agent inherits the ethical wall, and temporary reviewers get narrow, time-limited access that ends with the engagement.
Can we keep external-facing actions away from the agent?+
Yes — drafting and research are granted while sends and edits to the record are not, so those never appear in the agent’s tool list. The verdicts are logged either way.
Do we paste credentials into agent tools?+
No — credentials live in the vault and attach server-side per call; nothing sits in prompts, macros, or on laptops.