Cases today arrive as terabytes of data. We use digital forensics, electronic discovery, and AI-assisted review to determine what matters and put the knowledge to work for our clients in commercial litigation and criminal defense.
Fellow Lawyer? Ask Us How to Bring AI Into Your Practice →When the government builds a case, it can hand over everything at once: emails, phone records, bank statements, wiretaps, text messages. Sometimes millions of pages. Somewhere in all of it is the document that can transform a case.
Most legal software was not designed to meet that problem. So we built our own.
Our system reads the massive amount of data connected to your case and turns it into a map. We know every name, every phone number, every date, tied to every document and where it appears. When a witness's name surfaces on the eve of trial, we know within seconds everywhere else that name appears in the record, and what it was doing there.
We built search tools that answer the questions you asked, not the keywords you typed. We built a monitor that watches government filings, so bad news reaches you from us and not from a certified letter with the clock already running.
We built it ourselves, for the cases we try.
It arrives as the contents of a phone, years of company email, wiretap recordings, jail calls, bank records, or a trail of everywhere a device has been. Often the volume is measured in terabytes. Often it shows up locked, disorganized, and delivered in pieces over months.
The government is not required to organize the evidence it turns over. In a commercial lawsuit, the other side can bury you in documents for the same reason. In both, the problem is the same: finding what matters.
We built our own tools to find, organize, and connect the evidence.
A single federal case can produce hundreds of thousands of files. Cases with multiple defendants, or commercial fights with many parties, produce far more. And when the evidence arrives locked, jumbled, and impossible to search, that is rarely an accident. The mess is meant to be your problem.
We make it ours. The fight over how the government hands over its evidence starts on day one, at the negotiating table when possible and in front of the judge when it is not. Everything they produce gets indexed, deduplicated, and converted to searchable text.
An organized record lets us find the gaps and contradictions that volume tends to hide.
SKS owns and operates its own AI infrastructure. Two dedicated systems sit on our network, behind our firewall: one built around a Blackwell-class GPU delivering up to a petaFLOP of AI compute, which handles ingestion and indexing, and a second built for high-bandwidth token generation and inference, which answers questions against what the first one builds. Together they hold more than 200 gigabytes of high-speed memory and run open-weight language models of up to 120 billion parameters entirely in-house.
In a recent matter, a raw production of roughly 58,000 emails and attachments went from unopened files to fully searchable in two hours and eleven minutes, a sustained rate of about 27,000 documents per hour, with semantic queries returning in under a tenth of a second.
Because we own the hardware, privileged material never leaves the firm.
When the government extracts a phone, the report it produces tells a story. We check that story against the data itself, including what the phone captured and, just as often, what it did not. When an expert claims location records place someone at the scene, we test whether the records really say that, because cell towers, GPS, and phone apps are far less precise than they sound. A damages number gets the same treatment, because an expert's conclusion is only as good as the math and records underlying it.
When a case calls for our own examiner, we do not have to look far. The digital forensics firm we work with sits down the hall, and they join the case at the beginning, not the end. They work with the raw data alongside the trial team from the day the first evidence arrives, so what they find shapes the defense rather than confirming it.
By the time any expert takes the stand, ours or theirs, we know the data better than they do.
Phone data, tower records, financial models. None of it explains itself, and the jury who decides your case will not bring a technical manual into the jury room. Everything described above exists for this moment: taking evidence that arrived as a terabyte of noise and presenting it to a jury so it is both accurate and understood. We build that presentation with the same care we build a cross-examination, because in the end they are the same job. Making the truth plain to the people who decide.
Trials have entered a new era. The volumes are enormous, the records are technical, and the jurors grew up on the same phones from which much of the evidence came. They know what a timestamp is and what a screenshot leaves out, and a case built on digital evidence usually turns on who understands the data best.
Since we started talking publicly about how we work, other lawyers and firms have asked us the same questions. What tools are worth paying for and which ones are not. What to build instead of buy. How to put AI in front of a case team without putting client confidences at risk, and how to keep every output verified against the source before it goes near a filing.
We are happy to have that conversation. Not as consultants and not to sell you software. We are trial lawyers who solved this problem for our own practice, and the profession is better off when its adversaries and its colleagues are both competent with the evidence. If you are a lawyer or a firm thinking through how to bring AI into your practice, reach out and we will compare notes.
