Legal
Signed records and data protection for law firms.
Security built for law firms and their clients
Client confidentiality depends on both careful handling and a record the firm can explain. Security monitoring in a SIEM connects document, email and access activity so concerns can be reviewed with evidence.
Obligations
| Obligation | Supporting record | Stays with the firm |
|---|---|---|
| ABA Rule 1.6(c), Op. 483: monitor | Sign-in and file server logs, plus alerts on silent sources. → | Document management logs need a parser, which Security support adds at no charge during the contract. |
| Op. 483 and client guidelines: notify | A case timeline of what was touched. → | The notice itself. |
| Op. 512: generative AI | Prompts and uploads checked, then blocked or logged. → | The client consent process. |
| FRE 902(14) | Hashed, signed, chained logs and a standalone verifier. → | The admissibility ruling. |
| FRCP 37(e): preservation | Signed records, retention set per source. → | A legal hold workflow. |
| SRA Code for Firms 2.2 | Signed records and a console audit log. → | The firm’s compliance records. |
| Ethical walls | None. → | Enforcement inside the document system. |
Client audits
Document-management, email and remote-access records help establish who accessed client information. Keeping those records connected supports a focused investigation and a more precise response to client questions.
ABA Rule 1.6(c)
DLP data-handling policies can protect client files on covered email, upload, printing and removable-media paths. Approved exceptions help lawyers complete necessary work while preserving the reason for the transfer.
Checks on AI prompts and uploads
Prompt and upload inspection by a DLP can help apply confidentiality rules to supported AI tools. The firm decides which services and uses are permitted and how client consent or other professional duties are addressed.
Remote access
Application policy can restrict unapproved remote-access and file-transfer tools. Monitoring adds context about who used a permitted tool, from where and for what activity.
By rule
ABA Rule 1.6(c), Op. 483: monitor
Collection-health monitoring in a SIEM shows when a source stops reporting and helps the team investigate the gap.
Op. 483 and client guidelines: notify
A SOAR incident workflow retains ownership, evidence, approvals and actions so reviewers can follow the response.
Op. 512: generative AI
Content inspection by a DLP applies handling rules to covered AI prompts and uploads, with policy decisions recorded.
FRE 902(14)
Signed records from a SIEM and verification material support an independent check of the evidence’s integrity.
FRCP 37(e): preservation
Signed records from a SIEM and verification material support an independent check of the evidence’s integrity.
SRA Code for Firms 2.2
Signed records from a SIEM and verification material support an independent check of the evidence’s integrity.
Ethical walls
Ethical walls define which matter teams may access information. They are enforced within the firm’s document and access systems; security monitoring contributes the available activity evidence.
Questions
Would we spot a new remote access tool?
Recorded process, connection and identity activity can reveal use that differs from the firm’s usual pattern. Review the evidence alongside approved IT support and maintenance.
Who approves an action?
The organization defines who may approve each response. A SOAR workflow presents the decision to that person and retains the approval, action and outcome.
What stays with the firm?
The firm owns ethical walls, legal holds, client communications and legal decisions about evidence. Security records support those processes without replacing the document or case-management controls.
Guide
What does ABA Formal Opinion 483 require?
Lawyers must monitor for breaches, stop them promptly and notify clients when client data is affected.
Can law firms use AI tools with client data?
Use depends on confidentiality duties, the tool’s data practices and the client’s circumstances. ABA Formal Opinion 512 discusses these responsibilities, including when informed consent is needed.
What is FRE 902(14)?
A federal evidence rule addressing authentication of copied electronic data through a process of digital identification. Hashes can support that process; the evidence still needs the required certification and handling.
How ARRTECH takes care of law firm security
Connects security activity into a signed record, giving incident decisions and board reporting evidence that can be independently verified.
Protects intellectual property and customer trust, with content-aware controls that let organizations adopt AI on their own terms.
Expands response capacity through automation, with defined human authority and a record of who approved what.
Finds changes in behavior that predefined rules miss, connecting the signs of an attack so teams can understand what warrants action.
Investigates alerts, tests explanations and prepares the evidence, giving analysts more capacity while people retain authority over the response.
