Use case · Solicitors & litigation support
Evidence that holds up
under disclosure.
OSINT findings get challenged in two places. Once when opposing counsel asks where they came from. Twice when disclosure obligations cover the collection method, not just the conclusion. CLEARSKY is built so the answer to both is a verifiable file, not a screenshot from six months ago.
The friction
The work, before a verifier exists.
-
01
OSINT findings export as PDFs with no chain of custody. The body of the report can be read but the provenance is in the analyst's head or in a sibling spreadsheet that never makes disclosure.
-
02
Each new matter starts on a fresh sheet. Object reuse across matters needs manual cross-reference. Every time a defendant company appears across two cases the relationship is rebuilt from scratch.
-
03
Disclosure of method is awkward. "We searched Companies House and did some Google work" is not a defensible methodology under cross-examination. Specifics are missing because they were never recorded as the analyst worked.
-
04
Subject access requests arrive late and untooled. A defendant's solicitor SARs your firm. The process to reconstruct what was held when, and on what lawful basis, takes hours per request.
What CLEARSKY changes
Five capabilities mapped to litigation.
-
01 · Public verifier on every dossier
ECDSA P-256 signature on the signed envelope. Opposing counsel paste the document ID at
verify.clearsky.79thunit.co.ukand confirm authenticity in roughly 200ms with no account. That removes "is this real?" from the disclosure conversation. -
02 · Append-only audit log
Every collection event, every redaction, every analyst action recorded with a UUID against the matter. Database-level UPDATE/DELETE block. The audit trail is a queryable artefact, not a hopeful narrative.
-
03 · Field-level redaction reasoning
When a field is withheld in the disclosed dossier, the redaction carries its own reason code. Privilege, third-party personal data, irrelevance: each is a record, not a black box.
-
04 · Object reuse across matters
A company, a person, a vehicle, a phone number is the same object across every matter your firm runs. Cross-matter relationships emerge in the knowledge graph rather than being rebuilt by hand.
-
05 · Subject access by default
A subject asks what your firm holds about them. They go to the subject portal, verify by OTP, and receive a Receipt of Evidence built from the same audit log your investigators write to. UK GDPR Art 15 served without a parallel workflow.
Concrete shapes
Three illustrative matters.
Hypothetical examples for illustration. Not statements about real clients or matters.
Family law · absent parent
Locating an absent parent for service of proceedings. Open-source collection across electoral roll, Companies House, social media, and travel signals. Signed dossier exported to counsel. Subject can request a Receipt of Evidence at the portal once served.
Commercial · pre-action diligence
Defendant company directors and beneficial owners. Cross-match against sanctions lists, prior judgments, related entities. Audit log captures the lawful basis (legitimate interest with documented LIA) on each sensitive collection.
Personal injury · defence side
Claimant social-media activity inconsistent with pleaded injuries. Proportionality gate documents the necessity and scope. Signed dossier handed to instructing counsel. Verifiable without disclosing the platform to the court.
Compliance posture
Built around UK regulatory shape.
- SRA supervision: the audit log captures supervisor sign-off and analyst-of-record on each step. The supervision record is a queryable artefact, not a separate file.
- UK GDPR Article 6(1)(f): legitimate interests with documented assessment recorded inline at collection time.
- UK GDPR Article 9: special category data is not collected at the platform level by default. If a matter requires it, the proportionality gate forces a documented Article 9 condition before the worker proceeds.
- Disclosure-friendly export: redaction reasoning per field; signed envelope so the defending side can verify authenticity without your firm in the loop.
Pricing fit
Which tier suits a litigation team.
Sole practitioners and small chambers run on the Analyst tier (£49/month). Litigation support teams of two to five investigators take the Team tier (£399/month) for the shared knowledge graph and CRDT collaboration. National firms with multi-region teams should talk to us about Enterprise.