Your whole practice, and an AI that works in it.

It answers questions about your own records, drafts the attendance notes, letters, time entries and bill narratives you write over and over, reads identity documents into the due diligence form, reads filed documents and pleadings against the file, and checks bills, bundles and generated letters before they go. Everything it produces arrives as an editable draft or a list of points in the ordinary screen, and a person decides what to use.

Your records are kept on the LawServa server. When somebody presses an AI control, the text that feature needs, and only that, is sent to one AI model provider, chosen for the whole platform by LawServa's platform administrator: Anthropic's Claude or OpenAI's ChatGPT, both in the United States and reached through LawServa's own bridge, or, if a platform administrator enables one, DeepSeek, Alibaba Cloud's Qwen, Moonshot AI's Kimi or Z.AI's GLM, all in China. That is a transfer outside Malaysia. Each AI control says what it reads before you press it. The subscription owner can switch AI off for the firm, or feature by feature, and while it is off nothing is sent to any provider. AI is on for a firm until its owner switches it off.

Yes. Every stored document is read, by OCR where it is a scan, split into passages and turned into embeddings held in a vector index for your firm, beside an ordinary full-text index. A search runs both, so an exact case number is found exactly and a clause is found by meaning even when it is worded differently. Ask AI Lawyer a question in AI Workspace and it answers from the passages it retrieved, citing the document and page (retrieval-augmented generation). Ethical walls and privilege are checked inside the search, so a file you may not open never appears.

The original file stays in LawServa's file storage, outside the web root, filed to its matter. The text read from it and the chunks it is split into stay in the firm's own records, where the ethical wall and the privilege mark are checked on every search. The vector index holds only the embeddings and the record numbers they belong to, with no names and no wording.

Yes. The subscription owner decides for each practice, on the AI Lawyers screen of the Owner Console: one switch for everything, or feature by feature. A feature that is off is not shown on any screen and its endpoint refuses, so a stale tab or a bookmarked link cannot run it. With the main switch off, nothing is sent to any AI provider, and every screen, register and figure still works, because none of them needs the AI.

Every screen falls back to the workflow it would have had without it, and says so. Intake falls back to the printed practice area checklist and due diligence to keying the form in. The morning brief is not affected at all: it is a list found by rule from the diary and the risk radar, and no model writes it. An AI provider being down never stops a clerk opening a file.

As the Solicitors' Account Rules 1990 describe it: a client cash book, a separate ledger for each client, a bills delivered book, and reconciliation at least every six months. Client and office money are never summed. Posted entries, receipts and audit lines cannot be edited or deleted, so a correction is a reversal or a credit note and both stay visible.

It files with MyInvois: a queue that submits, retries, tells you why LHDN refused one, cancels inside the window, builds the month-end consolidated document and carries the QR validation link. Nothing about it can stop you issuing a bill, because LHDN being down is not a reason a client cannot be billed. It also names any required field you are missing before you submit. Check first whether the mandate even reaches you: in December 2025 the exemption threshold rose to RM1,000,000 of turnover and the final phase was cancelled, so many firms this size are outside it entirely.

The due diligence block will not let itself be marked complete until identity is verified, risk is rated, the sanctions and PEP check is recorded and source of funds is in, with source of wealth for a PEP or high risk client. There is a compliance officer record, a training log, and a suspicious transaction register that only a person holding the STR permission can open: partners by default, and the compliance officer the firm appoints. Anybody without it cannot tell that a report exists. It also screens against the UNSC consolidated list and the MOHA domestic list, and shows you the version of each list and when it was last fetched, because a green tick with nothing behind it is the thing this replaces. A list it could not reach is recorded as not checked, never as clear. What it does not do is decide what is suspicious.

Only if your firm has given that person the client account, and that is your decision to make, not ours. You build your own user types and you can set any one action for any one person by hand. Whatever you decide, the answer is the same in every direction: the screen, the assistant, the alerts and the exports all ask the same question.

You export everything, at any time, at no charge. Your retention obligation runs to at least six years and it is yours, not ours.

Yes. It is a separate application with its own login, where a client reads the matters you granted them and the documents you shared one by one. The firm never chooses a password: you send a single-use link that expires and they set their own. A row saying a named person at the firm granted access is the only route in, so a matter belonging to another client, a document that was never shared, one you have since un-shared and one that does not exist all answer identically.

No. Every draft, whether it is a note, a chronology row, a bill narrative or a case narrative, sits inert until a person presses the button that saves it. That action is what writes the record, and it leaves a permanent flag on the field so anybody looking later can tell a machine drafted it. The flag is never cleared, even if the wording is edited afterwards.

It computes them from thirty five verified rules over twenty two triggers, and every date it produces carries the rule, the citation and the date that rule came into force, so you can check the working before you rely on it. Where a rule is unverified, or the holiday table does not reach far enough to answer honestly, it declines and asks you for the date. A wrong limitation date is a negligence claim, and software should not be the one making it.

Yes, on the telephone while the caller is still on the line. Price in, and back come the SRO 2023 scale fee, the stamp duty on both instruments by slice with its remissions, the disbursements, the tax and an RPGT estimate. No line is a bare total: each carries its arithmetic and the instrument it comes from, and the quotation reprints from the stored lines rather than being recomputed on today's rate book.

Only what your firm has written down and switched on, and a rule cannot be switched on until somebody has run it as a dry run against your real files and read what it would have done. Nothing outward-facing is automatic: it never files with LHDN, never puts a letter on a matter without a person, and never moves client money.

Yes. Put a wall on a matter and it disappears from the lists, the search, the documents, the diary and the accounts screens for everybody except the partner on it, whoever is handling it, and anybody you let in by name. It reads as absence rather than as a refusal, because a refusal tells the reader the file exists.

Yes. An owner may hold several firms on one subscription and administers them from a console above them: the firms, every seat each person holds across all of them, the user types, who holds reserved authority, and whether each practice uses AI at all. Each firm still keeps its own books and its own records, and entering one is a named, audited act.

There is a timer, and there is passive capture that rolls what the system saw into draft entries overnight. Neither writes a time entry: a suggestion sits there until a fee earner accepts it, and every one can be opened against the events it was built from, because a figure that cannot show its working does not belong on a client's bill.

Because a firm with a question at five in the evening wants an answer, not a ticket. Everything here goes to Patrick and a person replies.