from osmoda research · law firm
10,142 documents privilege-scanned overnight — and logged.
lantern reads, redacts, and remembers. Bates numbering, privilege calls, redactions, the FRE 502(d) clawback notice, and the production reconciliation — all written to one SHA-256 hash-chained ledger. Ethics wall enforced in KEYD, not in a workspace permission.
TL;DR
- • 10,142 docs privilege-scanned in 6h overnight for $4.20, vs $5–$15/doc in attorney review time at industry rates [ComplexDiscovery 2024]
- • Hash-chained chain of custody from collection through production — the EDRM Preservation-stage requirement enforced in software, not memos
- • Drafts the privilege log and the FRE 502(d) clawback notice from the same evidence record — no second pass
- • Spirit isolation builds an ABA Rule 1.10 ethics wall by construction; access enforced in KEYD, not a Relativity workspace permission
- • Inadvertent waiver is the malpractice tail; per-doc reasoning + reviewer attestations harden the FRE 502(b) "reasonable steps" defense
1. The pain — privilege review is the holdout cost
Privilege review is the single most expensive, error-prone phase of document review. Human privilege review has historically run $5–$15 per document in experienced attorney time, with manual logging adding another layer on top. Even AI-assisted privilege review, until recently, sat at $1.50–$3.00/doc; the market is now compressing toward $0.11–$0.50 per document as Relativity bundles aiR for Privilege into RelativityOne.
The legacy stack is Relativity (or RelativityOne), Everlaw, DISCO, Logikcull, or Reveal as the review platform, layered over an FTP-and-S3 collection workflow whose chain of custody is a spreadsheet plus reviewer notes. The EDRM lifecycle requires preservation of a chronological account of evidence handling — provable to a court — yet most firms still patch that across three or four tools, with the privilege log generated in a separate manual pass after review closes.
The malpractice tail keeps growing. FRE 502(b) preserves privilege on inadvertent disclosure only if the producing party took "reasonable steps" to prevent it; courts are increasingly testing what "reasonable" means in the AI era. Lubrizol v. IBM (N.D. Ohio Feb. 8, 2024) showed that even a 502(d) order will not paper over questionable production conduct. ABA Model Rule 1.10 ethical-wall requirements compound the operational risk.
Relativity / RelativityOne
Market-standard review platform. aiR for Privilege bundled in 2026 helps, but chain of custody outside the workspace and the privilege log itself remain bolt-ons or services.
Everlaw
Cloud-native review with Storybuilder. Strong on collaboration, lighter on per-document reasoning artifacts that survive a 502(b) "reasonable steps" challenge.
DISCO / Cecilia
Unified cloud platform with generative AI. Integrated, but the customer still owns the chain-of-custody attestation across collection, review, and production.
Logikcull / Reveal
Self-service and AI-forward respectively. Useful at midsize firms, but neither hardens the ethics wall in a way that satisfies ABA Rule 1.10 by construction.
2. The workflow — collection to production, one ledger
- 1 · soot ingests the collection (Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, custodian images) over a typed
m365.export.collecttool, hashes every file on arrival, and writes the SHA-256 of each item plus collection metadata to the chain-of-custody ledger as the first preservation event. - 2 · lantern sweeps each document with a privilege-classifier prompt grounded against the matter's counsel list, outside-counsel list, and legal-hold custodian map, returning a privilege call, a confidence score, and the cited spans behind the call.
- 3 · naga enforces the ethics wall: KEYD-scoped credentials gate which lantern instance can read which folder, so a conflicted matter's documents are unreachable to other matters at the syscall level — ABA Rule 1.10 by construction.
- 4 · lantern auto-generates the privilege log entries (custodian, date, parties, basis), drafts redactions on the produced set, and stages a parallel Bates-numbered production with a per-page hash; everything appended to the same hash-chained ledger.
- 5 · frog reconciles the production: diffs produced count vs reviewed count, flags any unaccounted-for documents, and generates the FRE 502(d) clawback notice template pre-filled against opposing counsel; rollback-able to any prior state via NixOS atomic deploys.
3. Why it works
Sovereignty
Privileged material is the one thing a firm cannot let leave its control. osmoda is Apache-2.0 and self-hostable on a dedicated NixOS server inside the firm's perimeter; managed cloud is EU-1 by default. The post-quantum X25519 + ML-KEM-768 mesh between firm machines means a custodian image moving between offices is encrypted with a hybrid that does not become readable in a future harvest-now-decrypt-later world.
Workflow integrity
FRE 502(b) hinges on whether the producing party took "reasonable steps." A SHA-256 hash-chained ledger that records every privilege call, every reviewer attestation, every redaction, and every production hash, in append-only sequence, is what "reasonable steps" looks like in 2026. Spirit isolation between lantern (review), naga (vault/wall), and frog (reconciliation) makes the ethical-wall claim defensible in software, not in a memo.
Economics
At ~$5–$15/doc human review against $4.20 for a 10,142-doc overnight scan, the unit-economic delta is roughly three orders of magnitude — and the AI-bundled Relativity equivalents do not solve the chain-of-custody and ethics-wall layer underneath. The point is not just cheaper review; it is one-pass review-plus-log-plus-production with the audit chain attached.
FAQ
How is this different from Relativity's aiR for Privilege?
aiR for Privilege classifies documents inside RelativityOne. lantern does the same classification, but also owns the chain of custody from collection ingestion, the ethics-wall enforcement at the credential layer, the privilege log generation, and the production reconciliation — all written to one hash-chained ledger. It is a runtime, not a feature you bolt onto a workspace.
Does the audit ledger satisfy FRE 502(b) "reasonable steps"?
It is built for that test. Each privilege call carries the prompt, the cited spans, the model version, the reviewer attestation, and a SHA-256 hash that links to the immediate predecessor event. If opposing counsel challenges an inadvertent production under FRCP 26(b)(5)(B), the firm replays the ledger with byte-identical evidence — exactly what courts mean by "reasonable steps."
How is the ABA Rule 1.10 ethics wall enforced?
Through KEYD vault scoping, not workspace permissions. Each matter's documents are encrypted with matter-scoped keys; an agent or human running on a conflicted matter cannot decrypt or even see the bytes of a walled matter, regardless of UI permissions. That makes the wall a syscall-level invariant rather than a Relativity setting that can be misclicked.
Spend $4.20 to scan 10K docs overnight — and produce a 502(b)-grade audit trail at the same time.
Spawn a review server →