Architecture comparison
A deployment and control comparison for law firms evaluating where sensitive matter data is processed, governed and retained.
Shared cloud legal AI
Your documents are processed on the vendor's infrastructure.
Your firm uses a multi-tenant, vendor-operated cloud service shared with other customers.
Your security boundary extends to infrastructure operated outside the firm.
A compromise of the vendor environment can put customer work product in scope.
General assistants
Not built around privilege, matter scope or the matter as the operating unit.
Legal source verification and matter provenance are not the default interaction model.
Data handling depends on the assistant, plan, settings and vendor policy.
The environment is designed for general assistance rather than governed institutional legal work.
Sanctum Lex
Inference runs inside your perimeter, on your hardware.
One firm per node. Nobody shares your enclave.
Zero external model egress by architecture.
If we are breached, your private-perimeter matter documents were never in our vendor environment.
Matter intelligence, legal research, drafting, review, knowledge and governed workflows remain attached to the same matter context.
Source-grounded responses return the passage, page and matter reference for lawyer review.
SSO, SCIM, ethical walls, matter permissions, audit, retention and model policy operate as firm-level controls.
Institutional knowledge and approved methods remain governed alongside the matter.
Opposing Counsel and Judicial Review can independently pressure-test the same position without rebuilding context.
Hearing Room and Witness Room carry the same matter into preparation and rehearsal.
The firm controls the deployment boundary instead of extending privilege into a vendor-operated AI environment.
Architecture review
Confirm the physical and logical boundary in which documents, prompts, outputs and model inference are handled.
Establish whether the firm can govern network egress, identity, matter permissions, retention and approved model routes as institutional controls.
Require source passages, page references and matter provenance to remain available to the lawyer throughout analysis, drafting and review.
Bring representative documents and one workflow your lawyers care about. We will show the legal work and the private-perimeter deployment boundary in the same session.