Consider a document-search assistant used to find precedents in case files and prepare an initial summary. Its architecture specifies which documents the user may access, how passages are retrieved and how each proposed answer links back to its sources for the lawyer to verify.
A visible citation helps review without proving that a legal authority exists or is current and relevant. A server on the premises does not describe every access to its documents. The architecture must connect the classification of matters with permitted tools and usable checks.
Start from the information and intended use
The firm identifies the document collection and users, including the expected actions. Finding a document and drafting an analysis from several clauses may require different permissions and review.
The following classification is a practical design proposal, not a set of categories in Article 321 of the Criminal Code.
| Situation | Information | Architecture question |
|---|---|---|
| General research | Public material and a question without confidential case details | Which tool and terms suit the research? |
| Work on a matter | Confidential content, even without direct identifiers | Who may receive it and in which approved environment? |
| Archive research | Material from multiple matters | How is each search limited to authorised files? |
Removing names does not automatically make content freely shareable. Circumstances or relationships may identify the matter and remain covered by secrecy. The firm qualifies information and use before transmission.
Archives add scope complexity. Access to some matters does not grant authority to search the whole collection. That separation must apply to extracts and summaries as well as original documents.
Translate obligations into processing conditions
Article 321 SCC protects professional secrecy. The Swiss Bar Association’s cloud guidance examines provider use. It does not make hosting country alone a complete decision.
The firm examines contractual confidentiality and the provider’s role. It identifies technical access and subcontracting, including retention and possible reuse. Provider status and client information or agreement requirements need assessment for the actual matter.
Internal installation, dedicated hosting and an approved external service have different trade-offs. A no-training commitment does not describe every relevant access or retention condition.
The Bar Association’s AI guidelines also connect use with competence and verification. Contract and system design must make that verification practical.
Make retrieval and answers verifiable
Preparation preserves document references and versions alongside permissions. Retrieval may combine exact references with semantic search. Tests cover similar cases and material that has been replaced or is missing.
Answers expose their source passages and complete documents. The lawyer examines existence, currency and relevance, then the proposed reasoning. The interface should help this work rather than replace evidence with an uncheckable summary.
The test set includes questions with no answer in the collection. An acceptable result may state that absence and the search limitation. An invented reference must fail the check.
Different user profiles test access. Rephrasing a question must not bypass the separation of matters. Logs support reconstruction while limiting retention of confidential information.
Prepare sustainable operations
Sizing follows the workload, not simply the number of lawyers. Concurrent demand and document length influence capacity, as does the required response time.
An inference server such as vLLM runs the model and exposes a technical API. The web application and its authentication remain distinct components. That separation makes responsibilities and exchanges easier to test.
A single machine may suit an initial scope if the firm accepts its availability conditions. Maintenance and recovery still need arrangements. The article on local configurations describes useful measurements.
Backups cover documents and configuration, including what is needed to use them. A restore exercise checks that designated people can recover a working service. The budget includes those means and ongoing support.
Match commitments to the actual system
Client information and engagement terms must describe the processing planned. Exclusively Swiss processing or exclusive control of keys requires evidence. Broad wording can commit the firm beyond its actual arrangements.
Project preparation includes the following checks.
- Identify the matters and intended uses.
- Validate applicable legal and contractual conditions.
- Design and test access and retrieval.
- Evaluate answers on representative cases.
- Organise retention and operating responsibilities.
The result is a tool whose scope and limits the firm understands. Its value lies in usable research and verifiable preparation, with the means needed to exercise legal judgement.
This article presents an architectural approach. The firm remains responsible for assessing its matters and client restrictions, including the terms under which it works.