Questions worth answering.

BRON is litigation software for law firms. It connects matter information, client requests, evidence, drafting and review. The initial launch is scoped for litigation boutiques, particularly teams of 5 to 15 lawyers, beginning with one recurring workflow on one matter.

BRON is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. Clients participate through their own law firm; a request for a product demonstration does not create an attorney–client relationship.

Choose work the team already repeats and can inspect: requesting original documents from a client, comparing deposition passages, preparing a source-linked memorandum, or organizing a round of discovery. Name the person preparing the work and the attorney reviewing it.

The first matter should have a clear scope, manageable import volume and an observable deliverable. During the first month, review the actual work and usage before deciding whether to add matters.

No. We use a fictional matter to demonstrate the closest available workflow. Describe the work, team size, current tools and where the handoff becomes difficult. Leave out client names, privileged communications and confidential case details.

Real client material goes in only after the firm and BRON agree scope, setup, responsibilities and terms. The public demo form is for arranging that conversation.

The initial proposal identifies what BRON will handle and what will stay in the firm's existing tools. A scoped first matter does not require a promise that every current system can be replaced.

Bring the names of your practice-management, document, email and accounting tools to the demonstration. Imports, exports and connections have different capabilities. Confirm the specific flow you need instead of assuming that a named integration synchronizes every object in both directions.

The launch engagement includes firm and matter setup guidance, team invitations, a workflow introduction, a first-week check-in and a 30-day review. The firm names an operational lead and reviewing attorney, and agrees the first useful deliverable.

Historical imports and custom migration services are scoped separately before processing. The written proposal records who does each setup task, which features are available, the expected usage and any additional work.

For the first six service months, the launch guide lists $350 per firm-month plus $105 per active matter-month, or $42 for a qualifying light matter-month. Standard rates afterward are $500, $150 and $60 respectively. Users are unlimited.

These are components of the price, not an all-inclusive bill. Page and AI allowances apply; collection, historical imports, excess usage and archive work can add charges. The written firm proposal states the start date, applicable charges and standard rates after the launch period.

A qualifying light month has fewer than 1,000 new unique pages and no production made or received. An open month with no qualifying activity is dormant. The firm platform fee continues while the firm uses BRON.

Dormant matters include up to 5 GB each; excess dormant storage is a separate charge. Confirm how a partial month, a change in status, or a matter closing mid-month will be treated in the proposal. The guide does not invent a prorating rule for those cases.

Each active matter-month, including a qualifying light month, adds 1,000 new unique pages and $40 of provider-cost AI to the firm's pool for that month. The pool is shared across the firm and unused monthly amounts do not roll over. Pages and AI are separate allowances.

Unchanged pages are counted once per matter after deduplication; a changed document can contain new pages. New pages above the pool are $21 per 1,000 during the launch period and $30 at standard rates. AI above the pool is provider cost plus 25% in both periods.

Historical backlogs receive a separate quote based on unique pages, the depth of reading requested and any migration services. They are outside the launch discount unless the written proposal expressly includes them. Monthly examples are not a quote for an unscoped import.

Full read is quoted before it runs and requires attorney approval. Agree a budget before processing. A lower-cost initial read and a deeper reading task are different scopes; do not assume that adding a file authorizes every available analysis.

Record access, inspecting sources, permissions, approvals, client participation, exports, recipient verification and reprocessing caused by a BRON defect are not separate usage charges. The platform includes onboarding and ordinary product support.

The agreement should also state collection allowance treatment, initial import charges, storage, closing and retention terms, cancellation notice and export arrangements. Collector and archive fees appear in the rate guide. A public price page does not replace the firm's service agreement or establish that automatic billing is active.

A source link lets the reviewer inspect the material behind a statement. It does not establish that the passage supports the assertion, that the record is complete, or that the legal reasoning is sound. Read the passage and the surrounding context.

When sources disagree, preserve the disagreement and identify what remains unknown. The attorney decides what can be relied on and what further investigation is needed.

Citation checks can hold a document when an authority cannot be confirmed. The reviewer should inspect the named authority, the proposed use and the supporting source, then correct the problem or follow the permitted review path.

Check unavailability is not a clean result and cannot be bypassed as one. Where an overridable hold is allowed, only a licensed firm attorney can release it with a recorded reason. A passed check does not decide whether the argument is persuasive or legally correct.

The firm assigns people who prepare work and attorneys who review it. Review requests identify the version awaiting a decision. The authorized reviewer inspects that version and its sources, asks for revisions, or records an approval where the workflow permits it.

Preparing a draft is not the same as sending, signing, filing or serving it. Each external action has its own authority and requirements. Check the actual version and action instead of treating a general approval as permission for every later step.

BRON can flag affected work that recorded its source dependencies. The published scope distinguishes fact corrections from document revisions: a finished draft is flagged when a cited fact is corrected, rather than whenever a cited document gets a new version.

A flag calls for review. It does not rewrite the draft or decide that the old conclusion was wrong. Inspect the changed input and the affected work, make the necessary revisions, and obtain the review required for the resulting version.

Deadlines and trial tools have limited availability. Confirm the courts, rules and specific trial functions that fit your matter before including them in the launch scope. A proposed date is not a confirmed calendared deadline.

A licensed attorney checks the trigger, service facts and applicable rule before confirming a deadline. Unsupported or conflicting inputs need investigation. Trial preparation still requires counsel to determine foundations, admissibility and the examination to conduct.

The client workspace presents requests and material the firm deliberately shares. Access to the same matter does not mean access to the firm's privileged drafts, internal notes or entire document collection.

Classification and client-sharing status are separate checks. The firm should review both before expecting a client to see an item. The client portal has limited availability, so confirm the intended client workflow during onboarding.

The client can explain the problem or ask the firm for clarification using the available request controls. Saying that an item cannot be provided does not mean the request is completed or the firm agrees that no further work is required.

The firm reviews the explanation and decides the next step. Clients should not guess at a deadline, substitute a different document without explanation, or treat an unanswered question as an extension.

No. A receipt records that material arrived through the request or collection flow. The file may still need processing, classification and legal review. The client should look for the stated status rather than infer approval from a successful upload.

If the wrong file was supplied, contact the firm with the item and file name. Do not delete evidence or repeatedly re-upload material as a way to force a review. The firm decides how to correct the record.

BRON for Mac works from the sources named in the firm's request, on macOS 15 or later. The person reviews and accepts the request before anything is copied and can pause collection. Required Mac permissions are granted by that person.

The published scope is local collection, including supported encrypted iPhone backups. Cloud-only files may be listed without being fetched, and deleted items are not recovered. Availability is limited; verify the requested sources and device before starting.

No. Read the accepted scope, transferred items, missing-file explanations and any incomplete status together. A source outside the accepted request, an unavailable cloud file or an item absent from an encrypted backup can leave a gap.

The firm assesses what the collection contains and whether further work is required. Receipt, completeness, relevance, admissibility and legal review are different questions.

Firm roles, matter permissions and ethical-wall restrictions determine what a person can access. Client sharing adds a separate decision. The firm should assign access according to the person's work and review it when that work changes.

An administrator's ability to manage firm settings does not mean every screen can disclose every matter. Investigate an unexpected access state through the firm's administrator rather than copying restricted material into another surface.

Some product tasks use external AI services. The relevant inputs depend on the task and configured services. Review the published security description and subprocessor list, then confirm any firm-specific requirements before importing client information.

Do not assume that every task runs locally, that no outside provider receives content, or that a general product description creates a particular contractual retention or training commitment. Those requirements belong in the firm's review and agreement.

Do not infer a certification from a feature name or this FAQ. Ask for the specific evidence your firm needs and assess the current scope of the product and agreement.

Encryption, access controls, review records and operational practices answer different questions. A certification, a contractual commitment and a product control are not interchangeable. The published security page is the starting point for that review.

Available export controls let authorized people preview the selected firm or matter scope and review the download. Some exports can include the original document bytes; select that option when needed and inspect the named omissions.

A firm-wide export requires the appropriate owner or administrator role. A person exporting an accessible matter should still check the result against the intended scope. Exporting a package does not establish that every system object or every file is included.

Closing, dormant storage and retention are separate parts of the scope. The proposal and service agreement should identify archive charges, retention arrangements, access after closing and the export process before departure.

Litigation holds and other applicable restrictions can prevent deletion. A retention period ending should not be read as proof that data was automatically deleted. Confirm the status and applicable policy with the firm administrator and BRON.

Clients should contact the law firm that invited them. The firm handles legal questions, requests, dates and decisions about the matter. Firm users can use the signed-in product support route, which sends the report to the firm owner's triage list.

Use the public support page to find the correct door when you cannot sign in. A useful report names the screen, time, status and steps tried. Do not send credentials or confidential documents through a public form.

This launch offer includes ordinary product support and the agreed onboarding check-ins. It does not advertise a 24-hour staffed desk or a guaranteed response time.

If your firm needs a specific support commitment, identify it during scoping and record any agreed service level in writing. Check service status for an operational incident; do not use an ordinary product-support request for a legal deadline or emergency.

The public product pages distinguish available, limited and in-development capabilities. A fictional illustration explains a workflow; it does not establish that every depicted action is enabled in every deployment or for every role.

Check the feature's requirements and your firm's agreed scope. If the feature should be available, ask the firm administrator to check your permissions and configuration, then report the specific missing control and screen.

A long scan can be read in bounded passes, so partial text can reflect genuine partial progress. Password protection, unreadable bytes or an upload hold can also prevent processing. Open the file and read the displayed status before trying another action.

A quarantined file retains its bytes. No scanner configured, released and scanned clean have different meanings. Do not delete or re-upload held evidence to work around the hold; an authorized reviewer should inspect the problem.

Request a demonstration and name one workflow. We show the closest available path on a fictional matter, confirm the people and systems involved, and prepare a written scope and price.

Once terms and setup responsibilities are agreed, begin with that matter. Review the first deliverable, the questions raised and actual usage at the 30-day check-in, then decide whether and how to expand.