Separation by matter
Each matter is a closed space. A document filed in one is never visible from another, and permissions follow how the firm is actually organised.
Questions across a matter, summaries of exhibits, a first drafting pass, movement between the national languages. On a model operated in Switzerland, with a record of everything submitted.
Status : In preparation. Built after redaction, on the same infrastructure as the sovereign workspace. Sheet updated 11 September 2026.
An open-weights model running on infrastructure operated under Swiss law keeps documents in the country and has no foreign publisher behind it. Since July 2026 the Swiss model Apertus 1.5 has made that arrangement realistic: multimodal, a context window of 262,144 tokens, published by EPFL, ETH Zurich and the national supercomputing centre.
The precedent already exists in the public sector. The canton of Ticino runs this arrangement internally to translate sensitive government documents without handing them to a third party.
But the model is not the product. It is public, everyone will have it. What a firm lacks is the record it can put in front of its bar association, its insurer or a client: who submitted what, when, to which model, on which infrastructure.
A firm is not buying drafting ability, it already has that. It is buying the right to use it without exposing its files, and the proof that it did not.
Each matter is a closed space. A document filed in one is never visible from another, and permissions follow how the firm is actually organised.
Every request leaves a timestamped trace: user, matter, attachments, model, infrastructure. That export is the evidence, not our word for it.
Exchanges are deleted on the firm's schedule, not ours. Keeping nothing at all is a valid option, and it is offered.
Nothing that passes through the platform trains a model, ours or anyone else's. That is a property of the hosting, not a commercial undertaking.
Questions across a complete matter, summaries of a set of exhibits, comparison of two versions of a contract, a first drafting pass.
French, German, Italian and English, on legal and accounting text where the vocabulary has to stay stable from one document to the next.
Platforms
A language model gets things wrong, including citations delivered with confidence. A professional who files a submission without reading it takes on that liability, not us.
We would rather state it here than discover it together.
On infrastructure located in Switzerland and operated by a company under Swiss law. The operator's name and the data centre location are in the contract, not only on a presentation page.
It provides what the profession asks for: a record of what was submitted, when, by whom, to which system. It does not replace your internal policy, it gives that policy facts to stand on.
Not for the same reason. On Swiss infrastructure, redaction stops being a compliance requirement and becomes a proportionality measure: submit only what is necessary. The two tools work together.
Early access goes to organisations willing to be involved in getting it right. Tell us which one concerns you and what you do instead today.
Write to us