HARELaw
HARELaw is designed to provide runtime governance for legal AI—intended to support attorney-client privilege protection, matter boundaries, and conflict rules through cryptographic evidence.
Sector Disclaimer: Vertical examples illustrate intended application domains. Sector-specific compliance requires independent legal and technical validation.
The Challenge
Law firms are deploying AI for document review, research, and drafting. But when opposing counsel asks "Did your AI access any privileged documents?"—you need proof, not promises.
Capabilities
Documents marked privileged are cryptographically protected. AI cannot access privileged content outside authorized privilege scopes—even if the AI "has" access to the document store.
Every AI query is bound to a matter. The Arbiter enforces matter boundaries—an associate working on Matter A cannot accidentally (or intentionally) query Matter B documents.
Before any access, the Arbiter checks conflict rules. If the requesting user or matter has a conflict, access is denied—and the denial reveals nothing about the conflicted matter.
Documents under legal hold cannot be deleted, modified, or have their access patterns changed. Hold status is enforced at runtime with evidence.
In a governed deployment, each operation is intended to produce Evidence Artifacts. When you need to prove what your AI did or didn't access—you have cryptographic proof, not server logs.
Firm mergers, lateral hires, secondments—all create ethical wall requirements. HARE is designed to enforce walls at runtime with evidence indicating enforcement was not bypassed.
How It Works
Documents are ingested as Capsules carrying their matter, privilege status, and access rules. Policy travels with the data.
Capsule CreationAssociate queries AI: "Find all documents mentioning the 2024 merger." Query carries matter ID and user identity.
PLAN modeArbiter checks: Is user authorized for this matter? Any conflicts? Any privilege restrictions? Only permitted documents are returned.
Runtime EnforcementEvidence Artifact records: what was queried, what was returned, what was filtered, which policies applied. Cryptographically signed.
Proof-of-ActionProfessional Responsibility
HARELaw mechanisms support compliance with professional responsibility rules.
| Rule | Requirement | HARE Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Model Rule 1.6 | Confidentiality of information | Matter-scoped encryption, access enforcement |
| Model Rule 1.7 | Conflict of interest (current) | Pre-access conflict checking with deny-no-signal |
| Model Rule 1.9 | Duties to former clients | Persistent conflict rules, ethical wall enforcement |
| Model Rule 1.10 | Imputation of conflicts | Firm-wide conflict propagation, lateral hire walls |
| Model Rule 5.3 | Supervision of nonlawyers | AI operation audit trails, human oversight evidence |
Use Cases
AI-assisted document review with privilege protection. Provide opposing counsel with cryptographic evidence indicating privilege enforcement was maintained during AI-assisted review.
AI research assistants that can access firm work product—but only within authorized matter boundaries. No cross-matter contamination.
AI contract review with client confidentiality enforced. Prove that one client's contracts were never used to inform analysis of another's.
Contact us to discuss pilot programs and integration with your firm's AI systems.
law@hareprotocol.ai
HARE