When clients ask AI for a lawyer, is your firm named?

Our Zero Data Retention agreement with Anthropic is in progress, and no client data goes on the private cloud until it's signed. Under those terms, prompts and outputs aren't stored after the response is returned, and they aren't used to train models. There are two exceptions. If Anthropic's automated safety systems flag content as a possible violation of its Usage Policy, Anthropic can keep that content for up to two years. And Anthropic can keep data where the law requires it.

Hand & Seal's own systems also hold some of your data to do the work, such as your calendar and drafts. Before you sign, we'll set out in writing exactly what is kept, where, and for how long. If a matter is too sensitive for any of that, run it on the in-office option.

Source: Anthropic, API and data retention

In United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y., February 2026), Judge Rakoff held that a defendant's chats with a consumer AI tool weren't protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. He used the tool on his own, not at his lawyer's direction, and the consumer terms allowed the provider to use and disclose what he typed, so there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

Commentators, including Venable and Husch Blackwell, read the ruling as limited to consumer tools without confidentiality terms. It doesn't decide how a court would treat a business tool used under confidentiality terms, and nobody can promise you how a court will rule.

Sources: Harvard Law Review blog, Venable, Husch Blackwell, Proskauer

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) asks lawyers using generative AI to understand the tool, protect client confidences, and get informed consent before putting client information into a tool that may learn from it. Tennessee's Formal Ethics Opinion 2015-F-159 allows client information in the cloud when the lawyer makes reasonable efforts over the vendor. As of mid-2026, Tennessee has no ethics opinion specific to AI.

We'll give you what you need for your own due diligence. How the rules apply to your firm is your call, and nothing here is legal advice.

Sources: ABA Formal Opinion 512, TBPR Board Notes, Fall 2024

No. It runs smaller open models. They do well at admin, intake, summaries, search across your files and first drafts from your templates. They are weaker at open-ended legal reasoning. A lawyer checks everything it produces, which is how it should work with either option.

Phone calls still travel over the phone network, as every call does, wherever the assistant runs.

No one can. The engines decide what they say. We can show you where you stand each month and do the work that tends to move it. Everything we write for you avoids claims Tennessee's advertising rules don't allow, such as unsupported "best lawyer" comparisons.

Flat monthly fees. Never per case and never a percentage of your fees. Our call answering works only for your firm, under your name. We don't run a shared line that routes callers between firms.