Advisory engagements that produce written, defensible work product — not strategy decks and not mission statements.
These are fixed-scope advisory engagements, not ongoing retainers. Each delivers a written work product at close.
A written assessment of whether your AI governance program meets the standards regulators, courts, and boards actually apply — not the standards that look right on a slide deck.
This engagement delivers a gap analysis with risk ratings, a documentation review, and a prioritized remediation roadmap that legal and compliance teams can act on immediately. It is scoped to produce a document, not a presentation.
Who engages this: General Counsels and Chief Compliance Officers preparing for regulatory review, board reporting, or M&A transactions who need an independent written assessment of current governance posture.
For organizations building AI governance from scratch — or rebuilding programs that a regulator or auditor would expose immediately. This engagement constructs the governance infrastructure that the Compliance Audit would assess.
It delivers documentation, accountability structures, risk frameworks, and policy architecture designed to regulatory standards from day one. The output is a governance program with a paper trail, not a governance program with good intentions.
Who engages this: Organizations that have received regulatory inquiry, are preparing for one, or have acquired AI capabilities through M&A and need a defensible governance program in place quickly.
A written due diligence report on a target company's AI governance posture and regulatory exposure — with risk ratings that M&A counsel and investment teams can act on directly. Not a summary of what the target says about their governance. An assessment of whether it holds up.
Scope varies by transaction size and complexity. Delivered as a written report with executive summary, risk ratings by category, and specific findings for negotiation or post-close remediation planning.
Who engages this: M&A law firms, private equity firms, and corporate development teams where a target's AI exposure is a material consideration and the standard technical due diligence doesn't cover governance risk.
When the timeline is short and the stakes are high — a regulatory inquiry, a deposition, a board meeting — these workshops are scoped to the situation.
A facilitated working session for leadership teams facing a specific regulatory inquiry, enforcement action, litigation, or M&A governance event. Half-day or full-day format. Produces a documented governance position, a chain-of-accountability map, and a clear record of what decisions were made and by whom.
Who attends: GC, CRO, CPO, CISO, and relevant technical and product leads — the people who would be deposed or examined.
Prepares executives and technical witnesses to testify about AI systems with accuracy and credibility. Covers how to characterize AI decision-making without creating new liability, documentation gaps that become deposition vulnerabilities, and the difference between what governance programs say and what the record shows.
Who attends: Witnesses, in-house counsel, and outside counsel managing AI-related litigation or regulatory testimony.
Quarterly · Washington, D.C.
Small-group briefings for senior compliance, legal, and governance leaders. The regulatory landscape, enforcement trends, documented interpretations, and what is actually happening inside AI governance programs at organizations under scrutiny.
Not a conference. Not a webinar. A closed working session for people who need current, specific information and whose organizations are consequentially exposed.
Attendance is by invitation. If you believe your organization should be in the room, reach out directly.
Inquire About Attendance →Describe what you're dealing with. If there's a fit, we'll tell you which engagement addresses it and what the scope would look like.
Start a Conversation →