Work we've actually delivered.

The situation: a large plaintiff's litigation firm knew AI tools were entering its practice — some sanctioned, some not — and had no documented picture of what was in use, how tools handled client data, or what its professional obligations required the record to show.

The work: a phased governance engagement. Phase I: a structured assessment of the firm's AI footprint — usage inventory across practice groups, review of how each tool handles confidential data, and a written governance framework with policies, controls, and documentation standards fitted to how the firm actually works.

What was delivered: the written assessment and governance framework, a documented AI usage inventory, and a prioritized implementation roadmap. The firm moved to scoping the implementation phase on the strength of the Phase I record.

The situation: a litigation matter turned substantially on iPhone data — message threads whose content, timing, and completeness mattered, and which needed to be preserved and presented in a form counsel and a court could actually work with.

The work: preservation-first handling of the device data; extraction and organization of the relevant conversations with their metadata intact; and preparation of clear, plain-fact exhibits that present the messages as they exist in the data — documented so the methodology can be explained and repeated.

What was delivered: preserved source data, organized message evidence, and exhibit-ready output counsel could file and question witnesses from — with the technical record of how it was produced.

Both engagements started the same way: a focused technical read of what the matter or the organization actually turned on, before any bigger commitment. Both ended with a written record — not just advice. That's the standard for every LTD engagement, and it's what the TRACE™ structure exists to produce. The full sequence is on How Engagements Work.