Build the case inside your own perimeter.
Privileged strategy, unfiled arguments, the client’s worst facts. Bernio runs the analysis where the file already lives, and writes every step to a record built to be produced.
What stays true no matter which model runs.
Proceeding-level isolation
Nothing from one dispute can inform another — including through model memory, where cross-contamination normally hides.
Attributable analysis
Every entry, authority and argument records which model version produced it, on which source, at which time.
Defensible by construction
The audit trail is append-only and signed — provenance as evidence, not assertion. On-premise deployments hold it on your own hardware.
Strategy stays local
Case theory, privilege calls and draft submissions are governed by your model policy, and every routing decision is recorded. Where an external model is used at all, it is on de-identified material. On-premise, the policy can keep them off any external model entirely.
Chronology
The timeline assembles itself from the record, with the record attached.
Exhibits, statements and correspondence are indexed as they arrive, and each entry carries its source. When the tribunal asks where a date comes from, the answer is a click rather than an associate-week.
- Each entry pinned to its source document
- Inconsistencies and gaps surfaced as checks
- The same timeline drives bundle and witness prep
Strategy and procedure
Case theory that is written down, versioned, and argued against.
Strength, exposure and the shape of the argument live in a document rather than in the lead partner’s head — and when strategy shifts, the team can see when it shifted and why.
- Authorities with pinpoint citations, for checking
- Counter-submissions drafted against your recorded position
- Every amendment under a named practitioner’s sign-off
Deadlines
What is at risk this week, before it has slipped.
Incoming filings are tracked as they land, and deadlines at risk escalate to the partner rather than sitting on a dashboard.
Practice economics
What disputes work costs you to produce.
Utilisation per lawyer, the matters behind each figure, and what AI compute is costing against budget.
After the hearing
Judgment analysis and appeal prospects in the same file.
The record that ran the matter is the record the post-hearing work is built from.
A clause is the usual answer. Ours is a clause and an architecture.
On every tier. The matter boundary, the approval gate and the signed record are enforced in the runtime — hosted, in your own infrastructure, or on Bernio Pro.
- United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y., 10 Feb 2026)US
Material generated through a consumer-tier AI assistant was held protected by neither privilege nor work product: the tool’s terms permitted disclosure to regulators and use of prompts for training, so no reasonable expectation of confidentiality existed — and the research had not been conducted at counsel’s direction. The court left open whether an enterprise product excluding training and offering contractual confidentiality would support a different analysis, while cautioning that contractual protection alone does not establish privilege.
The stronger answer is the workflow one. No agent can act on a matter until a named practitioner is bound to it, and that binding is recorded on every action — so the work is done under counsel’s direction, and the record shows it. Running inference on your own hardware addresses the confidentiality ground on top of that. No vendor can guarantee a privilege determination; what a firm can do is build the record that supports one.
- Work-product doctrineUS
Material prepared in anticipation of litigation loses protection when disclosed in a way that substantially increases the likelihood an adversary obtains it.
Draft submissions, case theory and privilege calls are processed inside the firm’s own infrastructure, so no disclosure to an adversary-accessible third party occurs in ordinary use.
- ABA Formal Opinion 512US
Lawyers must protect confidentiality when using generative AI, and obtain informed consent before disclosing confidential information to a tool.
On-premise inference removes the third-party disclosure that consent would otherwise be needed for. Whether your engagement terms still call for a client conversation remains your judgement.
- § 203 StGB (Germany)EU
Disclosure of a professional secret by a lawyer is a criminal offence; engaging external providers requires strict safeguards.
A model executing on the firm’s own hardware is not an external provider receiving the secret. Where we retain remote administrative access, it is scoped, logged and revocable, and Bernima is engaged under the text-form confidentiality obligation § 43e BRAO requires.
Run it against a live dispute.
We walk the workspace on a matter type your team handles, and show the record it produces at the end.
Development status
Bernio is in active development with design partners — firms running real matters through the platform and shaping what is built next — and the first commercial contracts are being signed on founding terms. The capabilities described on this page are built and can be demonstrated on a matter type your team handles. Bernio Pro — the on-premise appliance — is an engineering prototype and is not yet commercially available, so any capability on this site that depends on it is marked as such. Descriptions of the product are not warranties; the binding terms for any deployment are those set out in the applicable written agreement.