Law · the same standard, extended
The accountability standard, read in legal practice.
Provenance and integrity you can demonstrate, not assert — tamper-evident from creation to production. The same eight axes, the same chain, the same verifier, instantiated for the duty of candor and chain-of-custody. The eight axes never change; only what they mean in practice does.
Don't trust us — the integrity of this page is recomputable in your own browser
Patent-pending — U.S. Provisional 63/921,717
For legal practice
Who it's for, what it promises, how it's proven.
How it works
From a record to a proof, in four moves.
The mechanism is the same for every record and every access. Nothing here asks you to trust a vendor's word — the last step is something you do yourself.
The record is written
A record (or an edit to one) is committed and bound into an append-only chain — sensitive fields encrypted at the record.
Every access is stamped
Each read or change becomes a WORM event — who, what, when — that nobody can quietly remove or rewrite after the fact.
Access is gated
A person authenticates with a phishing-resistant passkey; access is least-privilege and the access itself is recorded.
You recompute the proof
Open the verifier and recompute the hash yourself. If the record changed, the hash changes — integrity resolves to math, in your browser.
One framework · eight axes
The eight axes — read in legal practice.
The canonical axis codes, names, and roles are frozen by the engine and shown unchanged. Only the gloss — what the axis means in legal practice — is specific to this domain. No axis is relabeled; no named entity is measured.
PO · Physical & Outdoor
Somatic foundation
Practice & infrastructure foundation — matter operations and the systems that hold the record.
NM · Nutritional & Metabolic
Somatic foundation
Matter & resource intake — engagements, staffing, and the resources that sustain the practice.
ER · Emotional & Relational
Resilience wing
Client & court relationships — the relational duty owed to clients and to the tribunal.
SC · Social & Communal
Spirit term
Bar & professional standing — coherence with the bar, courts, and professional community.
RS · Religious & Spiritual
Resilience wing
Duty & ethics adherence — fidelity to professional responsibility and the duty of candor.
ES · Environmental Stewardship
Environment term
Records & chain-of-custody stewardship — provenance from creation to production, evidence integrity.
TA · Technological & Adaptive
Technology term
eDiscovery & legal-tech modernization — provenance tooling, security, and adaptive systems.
PV · Purposeful & Vocational
Purpose exponent
Admission & vocational fitness — bar admission, scope, and fitness to represent.
The composite is multiplicative — you can't paper over a missing pillar to lift the score — and the consistency exponent rewards steadiness across all eight. See the canonical eight axes →
Engineered for the rules, not badged against them
How the standard maps to the evidence & eDiscovery regime.
We don't ask you to take a certificate on faith — a logo on a page proves nothing you can check. Each obligation maps to a mechanism you can inspect or recompute — the difference between asserting compliance and demonstrating it.
| Obligation | How the standard satisfies it | Status |
|---|---|---|
FRE 902(13)–(14)Self-authenticating electronic records |
Records bind into a SHA3 hash-chain; any alteration changes the leaf and is detectable. You recompute the hash yourself. | Built |
FRCP 37(e)Preservation of ESI / anti-spoliation |
Every access is an append-only, chain-stamped WORM event — who, what, when — that no one can quietly remove. | Built |
FRCP 34Production of ESI |
A verifiable export — a portable, independently-checkable record of provenance and access that an auditor can re-verify. | Built |
Litigation hold (Zubulake duty)Duty to preserve once litigation is anticipated |
Retention classes and legal hold are enforced on the chained record; even disposition is itself a logged, tamper-evident event. | Built |
Chain of custodyProvenance from creation to production |
End-to-end provenance — each step is a chained leaf, so chain-of-custody is reconstructable and tamper-evident from creation onward. | Built |
ABA Model Rule 1.6Confidentiality of client information |
Field-level AES-256-GCM on stored sensitive fields — encrypted at the record, not just the disk. Key custody and rotation are part of the rollout. | Built |
Status is honest. Each row is Built (the mechanism exists in the gold stack) or Roadmap (the Law-specific instantiation is planned). Medicine is the one live, shipped domain today. This maps mechanism to obligation — it is not a claim of certification, because the standard is to prove integrity, not badge it.
Same engine · illustrative archetype
An illustrative legal practice archetype, scored by the same engine.
Illustrative profile: a firm with exceptional duty-of-care and chain-of-custody discipline, modernizing its eDiscovery technology.
These are illustrative inputs — not a measurement of any named entity. Feed them through the same public compute() on The Standard page, change any slider, and recompute it yourself.
What you get
The standard, in your hands.
- The accountability score — your eight axes scored by the public engine, recomputable by anyone.
- The tamper-evident record — records and access history on an append-only chain.
- The in-browser verifier — recompute any record's integrity yourself, no trust required.
- A verifiable export — a portable, independently-checkable account of who-saw-what, when.
- Encrypted data at rest — field-level AES-256-GCM on sensitive fields (rolling in).
- A standard, not a lock-in — the proof is open math you can run even if you leave.
Questions litigation counsel and firm IT ask first.
Is an export self-authenticating under FRE 902(14)?
The export carries a SHA3 hash you (or opposing counsel) can recompute to show the data was not altered — the mechanism FRE 902(14) contemplates. Whether a given production qualifies is a legal determination; we give you the verifiable artifact. Talk to us.
How does this fit with my eDiscovery / DMS platform?
It adds tamper-evident provenance alongside the systems you already use for review and production. Tell us your platform.
If you go away, can we still authenticate our own records?
Yes. The verifier is open math over an append-only chain — independent re-verification does not depend on us being online.
What's live today versus on the roadmap?
Medicine is the live, shipped anchor. For legal practice the core mechanisms above are Built in the gold stack; the practice-specific instantiation is on the roadmap.
Why one framework covers it
The same formula, the same chain, the same verifier.
Accountability has the same shape in legal practice as anywhere else: a foundation, the relationships built on it, the capability to adapt, and the consistency to sustain it. The proof is identical — and it resolves to math, not to our word.
One formula over eight axes
The composite is multiplicative and the consistency exponent rewards steadiness — so you can't fake a missing pillar to lift your standing. The same engine that scores every domain.
One append-only chain
The record — and every access to it — sits on a chain where nobody can quietly rewrite the past. Tamper-evident by construction, not by promise.
One verifier anyone can run
Don't trust us — recompute the chain in your own browser. Every domain runs the exact same proof. Open the verifier →
Looking for another regulated world? The same standard reads in all ten domains. Medicine is the one that is live and shipped today — see the live anchor →