Security is rarely something people want to talk about openly. For many companies, it still lives behind closed doors, guarded by secrecy, internal policies, and a general belief that limiting disclosure reduces risk. That approach might work in some industries. It doesn’t work when you are building software for legal professionals.
From day one, it was clear that Legora’s customers would be among the most demanding in the world. Not just in terms of functionality or performance, but in what they expect from security, privacy, and risk management. These are organizations whose entire profession is built on caution, accountability, and trust. Vague promises are not enough.
Trust through transparency
Early on, we realized that secrecy would be a blocker, not a safeguard. If we wanted to earn trust in this market, we had to be far more transparent than is typical for a technology company.
That thinking led directly to how we approach security today. A public trust center. Detailed security whitepapers. Clear documentation of controls, certifications, and responsibilities. Sometimes because customers asked for them, but also because transparency itself has become a part of the product. Security is not something we “claim”.
Importantly, this material is not produced by a separate compliance function operating at arm’s length. Our whitepapers and documentation come directly from the product and engineering teams. They reflect real architectural decisions, real trade-offs, and a clear line back to how the platform is built.
The diamond castle
There is a metaphor we sometimes come back to internally. A diamond castle.
From the outside, everything is visible. You can see the structure, the walls, the way it is built. There is no fog, no mystery, no hand-waving. At the same time, it’s impossible to shatter. Transparency and strength are not opposites here, they reinforce each other. That is how we think about security at Legora.
Customers should be able to understand how their data is handled, where boundaries exist, and what safeguards are in place. They should not have to take anything on faith. At the same time, access control, isolation, and protection are uncompromising.
Security as a founding principle
This focus did not appear late in the company’s journey. It was present from the earliest days, driven strongly by our founders, Max Junestrand and Sigge Labor. Security was never treated as something to bolt on once scale arrived. It was treated as foundational infrastructure.
That early buy-in matters more than people often realize. When security is part of how decisions are made from the start, it compounds. It shapes how systems are designed, how access is controlled, how data flows through the platform, and how quickly an organisation can respond when standards evolve.
It is one of the reasons we were able to implement ISO 42001 in a matter of weeks rather than months. Because the underlying principles were already in place.
Built for scrutiny
If there is one thing we have learned, it is that the most demanding customers make the product better. Lawyers scrutinize details. They ask uncomfortable questions. They want clarity, not marketing language.
Security, in that sense, becomes a shared exercise. Something discussed, reviewed, and continuously improved. The goal is not to overwhelm with technical detail, but to remove uncertainty.
As AI becomes more deeply embedded in legal workflows, that clarity matters even more. The stakes are higher. Expectations are higher. The margin for error is smaller.
Security is a promise that has to be earned every day, and our job is to meet that bar, openly.
Security as an ongoing practice
One of the less visible aspects of security is that it never reaches a finished state. There is no moment where the work is complete and attention can shift elsewhere. Every new feature, integration, or workflow introduces fresh questions that need to be answered deliberately.
That reality shapes how we work day to day. Security reviews are not checkpoints at the end of a roadmap, they are part of how ideas are evaluated in the first place. The question is not just whether something can be built, but whether it should be built in a particular way, or at all.
This mindset also affects how teams collaborate. Product, engineering, and security are tightly coupled, often overlapping, and sometimes slowing each other down in the service of getting things right.
For customers operating in highly regulated, high-stakes environments, that discipline is not a constraint. It is reassurance.
