Five things, once a month, none of them filler.
Written for COLPs, MLROs, managing partners and IT leads in UK firms of roughly 5–200 fee earners — where compliance and technology decisions land on the same two desks.
Findings patterns, anonymised
What we are actually seeing across live file reviews and AI audits: the clusters, the severity, and the fix that worked. Never a firm's identity, never a client's data.
Regulatory movement, translated
MLR, SRA, ICO and ISO/IEC 42001 changes, written for a fee-earning reader with ten minutes — including a plain line on whether it needs action this quarter.
New tool reviews
First sight of entries and re-scores in the AI Tools Index, with the reasoning rather than the rating alone.
Templates and one-pagers
The artefacts we build for clients, released free when they are general enough to be useful to everyone. Register templates, checklists, board notes.
The occasional opinion
On the parts of this market that deserve one: unverifiable vendor claims, 'AI-powered' marketing, and consultants who offer to certify their own work.
- Vendor news and funding rounds
- Webinar invitations with no substance behind them
- Anything we would not want to read ourselves
- Your address, ever, in anyone else's hands
Cadence, and how we keep it honest
Monthly, plus occasional extra sends when something regulatory actually changes.
One email a month. When there is nothing useful to say, there is no email — and you will notice we keep that promise.
Everything we have sent.
No gating and no "read the full issue" tease — the archive is the archive. Subscribe and the next one arrives; skip it and you can still read everything here.
The AI your staff installed, and the register that catches it
Fourteen undeclared tools across nine firms. Plus: why the new SRA warning notice makes your file notes a compliance artefact rather than a habit.
No. 6August 2026Regulation 28 is not a photocopying exercise
The most common High-severity finding in our reviews, the four records we look for, and the twelve-minute count that sizes your exposure.
No. 5July 2026Private models: what the vendors' own moves tell you
Legal AI's biggest players are building proprietary models. What that means for a firm choosing between public APIs, private tenancy and self-hosting.
No. 4June 2026The £480k band: source of funds in practice
Worked examples of proportionality from anonymised reviews, including the third-party payer and the statement-alone file.
No. 3May 2026Why we will never certify you
ISO/IEC 17021-1, the independence boundary, and how to tell whether your consultant has drifted across it.
No. 2April 2026The legacy DMS: where five-year retention goes to die
Two firms, one shared black hole, and how to prove records are retrievable when the old system has no exit interview.
No. 1March 2026What a regulator's reviewer actually opens first
The document order we see in supervised firms, and why the board summary is read before the findings.
No. 0February 2026Launch issue: the free 3-file check, explained in full
What we do with three files, what we do not do, and the results from the first twenty firms to send them.
COLPs, MLROs and the two people in every firm who end up owning technology.
COLPs, MLROs, managing partners and IT leads in UK firms of roughly 5–200 fee earners — where compliance and technology decisions land on the same two desks. If that sounds like your firm, forward this page to the colleague who would otherwise forward you a vendor whitepaper.
- The 2026 private AI in law guide — 14 sections, free
- Checklists and templates — including the AI register CSV
- The AI tools index — 18 tools, scored independently
- The free 3-file check — findings in ~48 hours
Send three files.
We'll tell you what a reviewer would flag.
- No charge and no obligation — you keep the findings either way
- Turned around in ~48 hours, encrypted transfer only
- Most firms find at least one issue they did not know they had