Built for courtroom scrutiny. Sealed on your device. Timestamped by three independent witnesses. Locked in immutable storage that no one can alter or delete.
Claim a Charter seatIn 2025, courts began disqualifying attorneys — not fining them, disqualifying them — for AI-related misconduct. — Johnson v. Dunn, N.D. Ala. 2025; Mata v. Avianca, S.D.N.Y. 2023 The common thread: no verifiable record of what the attorney actually asked or verified.
Your AI provider built the tool, holds the record, and controls what a court sees. They are the evidence and the witness simultaneously.
In New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.), OpenAI spent two and a half months preparing 20 million user chat logs before producing them under court order. Two and a half months of deciding what gets de-identified, what format is used, what context is included, and what is omitted.
The professional whose conversations those were had no equivalent record. They had nothing that predated the provider's version.
Apostillum gives that ownership back to you — sealed before the preparation window begins.
Attorney receives a bar complaint alleging reliance on unverified AI output. She verified every citation manually — but has no record of doing so. Her ChatGPT history is on OpenAI's servers, unverifiable, and outside her control. The careful attorney and the reckless attorney look identical.
The same attorney exports a sealed record showing her prompt at 2:14 PM asking the AI to verify citations, the AI's response, and her follow-up corrections — all sealed with three independent timestamps before the complaint was filed. Her diligence is visible and provable.
It runs silently in the background — a sealed record is created the moment any AI conversation occurs. You change nothing about how you work. If you ever need to prove what was said, the record already exists.
Every sealed record is written to WORM storage — Write Once, Read Many infrastructure provided by Amazon Web Services, the world's largest cloud platform, operating across dozens of data centers on six continents. The storage uses Amazon S3 Object Lock in Compliance mode — a configuration where no record can be deleted or overwritten through any API operation before its retention period expires. Not by Apostillum. Not by Amazon Web Services. Not by a court order directed at either party. The constraint is absolute: it is enforced at the infrastructure level, not by policy.
In 2025, over 200 attorneys faced documented sanctions for AI-related misconduct. — Thomson Reuters, AI & the Legal Profession: 2025 Survey
Firm policies do not protect you. Records do. At charter rates, Apostillum costs less than a single court filing fee.
Article 12 requires automatic recording of events over the lifetime of high-risk AI systems, with minimum six-month retention and broader documentation kept for ten years. Over 40% of companies currently fail Article 12 audits due to incomplete or unavailable logs. — European Commission, AI Act Readiness Assessment, 2025 Fines reach €35 million or 7% of global turnover.
In the United States, over 300 judges have issued AI-specific standing orders. — ABA Standing Committee on Ethics & Professional Responsibility; Law.com AI Standing Order Tracker The ABA's Formal Opinion 512 requires competence, confidentiality, and transparency in AI use. New York now requires two annual CLE credits in AI competency.
The question is not whether documented AI governance will be required. It is whether your records will predate the requirement.
If anyone — including us — altered a single record, the cryptographic hash would no longer match the three independent timestamps. The math would catch it before any human could.