Systems that can prove
what happened when
E-discovery, vulnerability assessments and ISMS work for law firms, security leads and regulated companies. Here logging and matter separation are the load-bearing structure, not an afterthought.
References in this industry
What we build for this industry
E-discovery & review platforms
Event-driven ingestion for mailboxes, chats and file shares, with logical matter separation and a complete audit trail.
- Ingestion for mail, chat & files
- Logical matter separation
- Complete audit trail
- Economic at mid-market scale
Vulnerability assessment & hardening
Manual and automated assessments with prioritised reporting, followed by hardening the system landscape.
- Manual & automated assessment
- Prioritised reporting
- Landscape hardening
- Retest after remediation
ISO 27001, NIS2 & GRC
ISMS build-out and process documentation, through to remediating existing audit findings in a GRC system.
- ISO 27001 process documentation
- ISMS along NIS2
- Findings in the GRC system
- Demonstrable effectiveness
Professional privilege in the architecture
The separation between platform operator and mandate-holding firm reflected right into document generation.
- Separate tenants & access paths
- External representation settled
- Documents issued in the right name
- Settled early, not retrofitted
What actually gets in the way
The problems we hear in this field, before anyone mentions a technology.
Provability is the product
A system that works but cannot show what was done, when and by whom does not serve its purpose.
Established vendors do not fit
An entire market segment is not served economically by the large platforms.
Technical security is not enough
Where professional confidentiality applies, whose name a document carries is added to the question.
What obstructs daily work
Gets bypassed, and the documented process is then no longer the one being lived.
Findings do not close themselves
A one-off fix works once. Without a control process the same finding returns in the next report.
Retrofitting is expensive
Building separation and logging into a finished system later costs a multiple.
What we have built here
E-Discovery Platform for Forensic Document Review
Forensic review platform for internal investigations in the mid-market segment - 80% lower processing costs compared to external providers.
Consulting Leadership in an Enterprise Transformation Programme
Deputy head of consulting in a multi-year process digitalisation programme - quality assurance, risk management and restructuring of the consulting organisation.
Enterprise Security Assessments
Comprehensive penetration testing and security assessments for enterprise clients, identifying and remediating critical vulnerabilities.
Have a project in mind?
Tobias
Let's Talk →Frequently Asked Questions
For large proceedings they are often the right choice. The gap sits below that: an entire market segment is not served economically by established vendors, because the case sizes do not carry their pricing models. That is exactly what we led a forensic document review platform for, with event-driven ingestion for mailboxes, chats and file shares, logical matter separation and a complete audit trail.
Logically in the data model, not through permissions on a shared store. Alongside that sits an audit trail recording every access. That structure is built at the start, because in this field logging, access design and matter separation are not cross-cutting concerns added later; they are the load-bearing structure the features align to.
By putting the boundary in the architecture rather than in an operating instruction. We have built systems where the separation between technical platform operator and mandate-holding law firm reaches into document generation, including who may appear externally and in whose name a document is produced. Clarifying such requirements early is considerably cheaper than retrofitting them.
No, it reveals them. A test produces a prioritised list; closing them is the work that follows, and without a control process the same finding returns in the next report. At a development bank we mapped risk and control processes into a GRC system to durably close existing findings rather than clearing them one at a time.
If it describes an ideal, yes. The most common reason security measures remain ineffective is not their technical quality but that they obstruct daily work enough that people find ways around them. We design along actual workflows and state openly where security costs convenience. An ISMS that fits operations gets lived.
We prepare and accompany the process; the certificate is issued by an accredited body. Our work is the process documentation, the ISMS build-out and the remediation of open points, so that what is required can be evidenced in the audit. What cannot be evidenced becomes a finding, regardless of how well it is solved technically.