legaldoc.app

Trust

Privacy controls and data handling

Direct answer: LegalDoc.app applies data minimization, retention controls, explicit consent capture, and auditable deletion workflows across legal automation operations.

Privacy design principles

Teams evaluating legal workflow automation privacy controls need implementation details, not policy slogans. The principles below map directly to product behavior: what is collected, how it is processed, who can access it, and how quickly it can be removed.

Data minimization

Only required contract and workflow data is processed for drafting, review, and storage features.

Configurable retention

Default retention is 30 days with user-managed retention adjustments and immediate deletion support.

Consent and disclosure

AI processing and lawyer-handoff actions capture explicit consent events with versioned records.

User-initiated deletion

Users can delete vault records directly, with purge verification through background jobs.

Data lifecycle in legal operations workflows

Collection

Collect only inputs required for document generation, review analysis, billing, and support operations.

Processing

Apply ownership scoping and consent checks before review or assistant workflows process content.

Storage

Store data using encrypted infrastructure and retention policies controlled by user preference and policy defaults.

Deletion

Support immediate deletion requests and run background purge verification to confirm artifact removal.

Retention decision matrix

Privacy controls are most defensible when teams decide retention policy by scenario, not by one static default. This matrix gives legal operations teams a repeatable way to align retention windows with matter lifecycle, sensitivity, and escalation requirements.

High-volume drafting with low retention needs

Use shorter retention windows and rely on vault exports for required long-term records.

Active negotiation cycle with frequent redlines

Extend retention only for active matters and set automatic reversion after closure.

Sensitive document categories

Apply stricter access controls, explicit consent checkpoints, and accelerated deletion where permitted.

Counsel escalation with external handoff

Record handoff consent, shared artifact scope, and deletion responsibility boundaries.

Regulatory references

Privacy workflows are designed with common legal obligations in mind. For regulatory context, see GDPR guidance and California CCPA information.

Related pages: Security and Compliance.

Privacy operations checklist

  • Capture explicit consent before AI processing or lawyer handoff.
  • Expose retention settings at vault level and respect immediate delete requests.
  • Record deletion events with purge verification for compliance traceability.
  • Review disclosures against actual data flows before publishing policy changes.

Privacy risk scenarios to monitor

  • Disclosure language promises retention or deletion behavior that is not enforced by runtime policy.
  • Access permissions remain broader than required after guest-to-user upgrades or workflow role changes.
  • Escalation packets include unnecessary personal data fields beyond review and legal decision scope.
  • Policy updates are published without validating downstream queues, storage jobs, and audit events.

Disclosure review checklist

  • Confirm product behavior and policy language still match after workflow or retention updates.
  • Verify consent text versions are reflected in all relevant user-action screens.
  • Check that deletion and retention language reflects current background purge behavior.
  • Document owner and review date for each major disclosure section.

Policy-to-product alignment checks

Privacy pages become unreliable when policy language and runtime behavior drift apart. After any workflow update, confirm that consent prompts, retention controls, and deletion behavior still match public disclosures. Treat mismatches as release blockers, not documentation cleanup tasks.

Before release

Verify updated flow screenshots, wording, and consent versions in all user-facing touchpoints.

After release

Sample live records to confirm retention and deletion outcomes match stated policy behavior.

Teams should also verify that internal training material and support responses match public privacy language. Misalignment between external policy text and internal instructions is a common source of operational privacy drift.

Reviewing these scenarios monthly helps teams catch privacy drift early, especially when product workflows evolve quickly. Tie each observed issue to a named owner and remediation timeline so privacy posture improves as part of normal release operations.

Privacy FAQ

What privacy principle is most important for legal workflow tools?

Data minimization is foundational: collect only what is required to complete drafting, review, and escalation workflows.

Can users control retention and deletion directly?

Yes. Users can set retention windows and trigger immediate deletes from the vault, with audit verification of purge operations.

How is consent captured for AI and lawyer handoff?

Consent is captured as a versioned event before AI processing and before any lawyer intake handoff action.

Does this page constitute legal advice?

No. This page describes operational controls and should not be treated as legal advice for specific regulatory obligations.

This page explains platform controls and should be combined with your own counsel guidance for policy decisions.

Teams should revisit this framework whenever retention policy, AI processing scope, or external handoff behavior changes so privacy controls remain synchronized with actual workflow implementation.

Include data subject request handling in privacy operations reviews, including ownership, response timelines, and evidence retention for completed requests. This strengthens day-to-day privacy readiness and reduces reactive policy work during high-pressure periods.

Documenting response outcomes also improves repeatability for future privacy request handling.

Repeatable workflows are critical for demonstrating privacy control reliability during internal and external reviews.