What AI timekeeping does to attorney-client confidentiality
Buying committees evaluating AI timekeeping often lead with one ethics question: what does this product do to attorney-client confidentiality?
This is a product-architecture brief for that question. It is not legal advice. Your professional obligations stay with you and your counsel. Use it to diligence vendors before a pilot.
LegalTime AI is built the same way for confidentiality-minded smaller firms and Clio buyers as for the rest of that brief. Capture stays local-first. When Create is used, relevant activity is sent for AI processing. Drafts are visible only to you. Release is explicit. Zero Data Retention is in writing. The product will not become firm monitoring. A SOC 2 Type II examination is in progress. LegalTime AI is not SOC 2 certified.
Companions: privacy and local-first timekeeping, privacy-first AI timekeeping, local-first AI timekeeping.
What this brief covers
| Covered here | Take to your counsel |
|---|---|
| Product questions about confidentiality, privilege-adjacent diligence, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 | A formal ethics opinion for your jurisdiction |
| Where raw activity lives, who sees drafts, pause, purge, training, and release | Whether a specific fact pattern waives privilege |
| How local-first capture differs from screen and content capture | Any guarantee that a tool is ethics-proof |
| Honest SOC 2 status | A logo standing in for lawyer oversight |
If the firm needs a formal ethics memo, involve professional responsibility counsel. This brief helps you ask vendors better questions first.
ABA Formal Opinion 512, in buyer language
ABA Formal Opinion 512, on generative AI, is the frame most committees cite.
| Duty | What it means for a timekeeping tool |
|---|---|
| Competence | Know what the tool captures, drafts, stores, and sends |
| Confidentiality | Know who can see client-related activity or drafts before billing |
| Oversight | Keep a human gate. Do not blind-sync unreviewed time. |
| Supervision | Train associates on pause, review, and when not to capture |
A tool that drafts with no attorney review fails this frame. Approval before release is the billing gate.
Risks partners actually argue about
| Risk they name | The product question |
|---|---|
| Will partners watch my day? | Who sees drafts before release? Is there a live activity feed for admins? |
| Does the vendor train on our matters? | Shared model training? Zero Data Retention in writing? |
| Where does raw activity go? | The local machine, or a vendor cloud, for drafting? |
| What if I open privileged material? | Instant pause? Anything recorded while paused? What is the purge schedule? |
| What leaves when I bill? | The finished entry only, or the underlying activity too? |
| Is this spyware dressed as timekeeping? | An explicit commitment that it is not a monitoring tool, or a surveillance roadmap? |
Encryption (TLS 1.2+ and AES-256) protects released payloads. It does not replace the answers in that table.
LegalTime AI's pages: security, FAQ.
Capture models, from a confidentiality lens
Capture models are not ethics labels. They change what you have to diligence.
| Capture model | What the tool typically sees | What to diligence |
|---|---|---|
| Local-first activity capture (LegalTime AI) | App and activity signals on the attorney machine | Does raw activity leave for drafting? Who sees drafts? Pause and purge? |
| Practice-system AI | Activity already inside the practice system | What happens off-platform? Who can view suggestions in the system? |
| API or metadata capture | Email, calendar, documents, and meetings through integrations | How much is content versus metadata? What is the retention? |
| Screen and content capture (Ajax, per Ajax) | On-screen content across apps | Who processes content, for how long, with what access, and how do pause and purge work? |
| Passive capture plus an outside-counsel platform (PointOne, per PointOne) | Email, documents, calls, and meetings. PointOne states no keystroke logging or screen recording of content. | Do guideline or pre-bill roles expand who sees drafts early? |
| Enterprise time intelligence (Laurel, per Laurel) | Deep capture plus analytics and compliance | Who gets observability dashboards, and when? |
Ajax ships screen and content capture. PointOne states no keystroke logging or screen recording of content and ships outside-counsel and pre-bill layers. Laurel ships enterprise time intelligence. Those descriptions come from their materials. For a confidentiality-minded smaller firm or Clio buyer, LegalTime AI sits on the local-first row: raw activity on the machine, attorney-only drafts, release-gated connect.
LegalTime AI vs Ajax. LegalTime AI vs Laurel vs PointOne.
How LegalTime AI is built
- Capture. Records apps and work activity on your computer so billable work is not lost to memory. Raw activity is read locally. One-click pause. Nothing is recorded while paused.
- Create. Activity becomes draft entries with narrative, matter, billing code, and duration. Drafts are visible only to you.
- Connect. You approve, edit, or discard. Only then do you release into the practice or billing system through your firm's existing login. No blind sync.
The released payload is the finished entry only. Capture stays local-first. Create sends relevant activity for AI processing. Raw activity is purged on a rolling basis.
- Capture stays local-first on the attorney device by default. When you use Create (draft generation), relevant activity is sent for AI processing.
- Zero Data Retention agreements. No shared model training on client content.
- A data processing agreement is signed with every firm.
- Partners cannot see your drafts. LegalTime AI will not build a monitoring product.
- A SOC 2 Type II examination is in progress. LegalTime AI is not SOC 2 certified. Docs are available under NDA.
- LegalTime AI is a Clio Trusted Platform Developer.
It is built for privacy-conscious smaller firms and Clio practices that want automatic capture without turning timekeeping into surveillance.
Pricing is quoted per attorney on pricing. G2 lists $125 per seat per month as a directional directory note. The trial is 30 days. Onboarding is about ten minutes per attorney. Nothing is installed on a server. First users get white-glove help. Clio path: integrations/clio.
Privilege-adjacent diligence
Buyers sometimes ask whether AI timekeeping breaks privilege. Privilege and confidentiality rules are specific to the jurisdiction and the facts. Product architecture cannot answer that legal question for you.
What product diligence can do:
| Step | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Map capture boundaries | Know what signals are collected on a typical attorney day |
| Confirm pause | Attorneys need a reliable off switch for sensitive windows |
| Confirm who sees drafts | Risk rises if drafts circulate before the attorney reviews them |
| Confirm the training policy | Shared training on client content is a common committee red flag |
| Confirm the release payload | Billing systems should receive finished entries, not a dump of raw activity |
| Keep human oversight | ABA Formal Opinion 512 expects lawyer judgment on what becomes a bill |
Write vendor answers into the RFP grid. Then ask counsel whether firm policy needs an update for passive capture tools.
Six questions for the RFP
- Where is raw activity stored before an entry is approved?
- Who can see drafts before release: the attorney only, partners, admins, or vendor staff?
- What exactly leaves on release: the finished entry, or the underlying activity?
- Can the attorney pause instantly, and is anything recorded while paused?
- Do you train shared models on client content? Is Zero Data Retention in writing?
- What is the SOC 2 report type and date, Type I or Type II, and can we review controls under NDA?
LegalTime AI's published answers: local-first capture; Create sends relevant activity for AI processing; attorney-only drafts; finished entry only on release; instant pause; no shared training, with Zero Data Retention; SOC 2 Type II examination in progress.
Why confidentiality and recovery sit in the same meeting
Clio's 2025 Legal Trends figures: utilization 38% (about 3.0 billable hours captured), realization 88% (about 2.6 invoiced), collection 93% (about 2.4 collected). Firms want automatic capture. Partners refuse tools that feel like spyware. The architecture is how those two pressures meet.
The designed trade on LegalTime AI is about five minutes of review against roughly half an hour of reconstruction.
SOC 2, next to the confidentiality questions
Ask every vendor for report type and date, not a logo.
| What the vendor says in public | How to read it |
|---|---|
| LegalTime AI: Type II examination in progress | Honest status. Not certified today. Docs under NDA. |
| Ajax: Type II certified (per Ajax security) | A completed Type II claim. Still verify pause, draft visibility, and where capture runs. |
Pair certification status with the six RFP questions. SOC 2 in progress and what certified means.
Directories still mix up names. LegalTime AI (legaltime.ai) releases time into the practice system you already run. "Legaltime" on some directories is a separate practice-management product, often listed near $24 per user per month. About.
Start a 30-day free trial · Book a 15-minute demo
Sources
Related
Frequently asked questions
Does AI timekeeping violate attorney-client confidentiality?
How does ABA Formal Opinion 512 apply?
Is local-first capture different from screen capture for confidential work?
Is LegalTime AI a monitoring tool?
Does LegalTime AI train on our client data?
Is LegalTime AI SOC 2 certified?
Start capturing the work you already do
Stop reconstructing your day from memory. Let capture run. Review in minutes. Release only what should bill.
Capture → Create → Connect. Not a monitoring tool.