What changed, and what it took.
Sanitized engagement summaries from our active practice. Names and identifying details have been removed at authoring time; nothing on this page is published without the client's written sign-off. If a study reads like your situation, book a scoping call and we will tell you whether it maps to yours.
Privileged-data infrastructure rebuild
What mattered
A litigation hold three years prior had exposed the firm's storage to wider discovery than counsel was comfortable with; the partners wanted privileged + work-product material on infrastructure that produces a different per-client access scope by construction, not by policy.
What we shipped
Rearchitected the firm's matter storage so per-matter access scopes are enforced at the storage layer, not the application layer. Every cross-matter query is impossible to formulate from the application code; the type system refuses to compile a query that crosses scopes. Rebuilt the partner / associate role separation along the same line.
Outcome
The firm's malpractice carrier reduced the policy premium on the strength of the audit. A subsequent litigation hold scope was answered in one paragraph instead of a forensic engagement.
HIPAA-grade infrastructure scaled to 12 practitioners
What mattered
Existing EHR vendor's audit posture had degraded after acquisition; the practice owner wanted a fallback that satisfied both HIPAA and a pending state-level reporting requirement, on infrastructure they actually understood.
What we shipped
Built a parallel chart-storage layer with the audit posture the practice required, deployable alongside the legacy EHR. Federated mail filtering with rule-by-rule explainability; donor / patient / billing scopes architecturally separated.
Outcome
Practice passed a state-level audit on the first try. Time-to-audit-response dropped from weeks to a one-day engagement.
Source-confidentiality posture for an active investigation
What mattered
Journalists working a multi-month investigation needed source-handling infrastructure that survives both technical compromise and legal subpoena — a substrate where the relevant data either does not exist or carries no probative weight.
What we shipped
Built a tiered storage posture: communications inside the editorial scope are end-to-end encrypted by construction; metadata that escapes to logs is structurally minimal. Federated rule-based filtering replaced opaque categorization on the editorial mail flow.
Outcome
Investigation was published. No subpoenas have surfaced; a separate counsel review confirmed the substrate would not be probative if subpoenaed today.
Recognize your situation in any of these?
The first conversation is free, the NDA is mutual, and we'll tell you if we're not the right fit before either of us has invested an hour.
Not ready to book? Read the report we deliver and what it costs first. Both are published in full.