Court-portable evidence infrastructure, built for the qui tam workflow

Whistleblower cases die in the substantiation gap

Every meritorious qui tam, SEC TCR, or state Medicaid case has the same shape: a credible allegation arrives, a partner has to decide whether to commit firm capital on contingency, and the answer depends on substantiation that didn't exist when the relator walked in. The gap between “credible” and “file-able” is where most cases die.

• Triage is unfunded work. Your firm reviews dozens of inbound allegations per partner per quarter. Most don't pencil out. The ones that might require associate hours and senior judgment before you know if it's a real case.
• Substantiation is the gate. A credible allegation isn't a viable case. You need beneficial ownership, sanctions screening, financial-integrity analysis, prior-incident matching, and cross-firm signal — all contemporaneous to the moment you decide to file.
• Filing requires court-portable evidence. An attached evidence package that can survive a 902(14) authenticity challenge is what separates a complaint that proceeds from one that gets bogged down in records-keeping disputes.
• Privilege travels with the data. Anything your tech vendor holds at rest is potentially discoverable. If your e-discovery vendor or forensic accountant is subpoenaed, the firm has to defend the privilege at the vendor's perimeter, not just yours.

Why this architecture is built for whistleblower work

The locked 2026-05-06 ecosystem-wide architecture — zero customer data at rest in JIL infrastructure, customer-owned AWS S3, L1 audit record — is the technical answer to the four privilege/admissibility/discovery challenges plaintiff firms face every case.

Firm-level base + per-case T2 + per-case T3 + optional recovery-tied

T2 and T3 are the necessary tiers for whistleblower work; T1 alone is too shallow for filing. The economics are calibrated against False Claims Act recovery share (15–25%, often $millions), so per-case T2/T3 fees are typically a single-digit percentage of expected recovery.

SaaS subprocessor under your engagement letter

We are not a partner. We are not a referral source. We do not represent the relator or your firm. We are a SaaS subprocessor under your engagement letter with the relator — the same posture courts and bar associations have accepted for e-discovery vendors and forensic accountants for decades.

           Relator (whistleblower)
                  |
                  |  Attorney-client engagement (your standard letter)
                  v
           Plaintiff Law Firm
                  |
                  |  MSA + DPA + BAA where applicable
                  |  Firm subscribes; JIL is subprocessor under firm direction
                  v
           JIL Sovereign Technologies (SaaS subprocessor)
                  |
                  |  Cross-account IAM role (write-only) into firm's AWS S3
                  |  L1 anchor commits (hashes only)
                  v
           Firm's AWS S3 bucket (firm's KMS, firm's region)
           Firm's Snowflake account (firm's contract, firm's queries)

Programs we support

FRE 902(14) is a federal rule, but most state evidence codes have adopted substantially identical provisions. The CREB™ bundle ports across federal, state, and administrative venues.

Initial wedge focus: federal qui tam (FCA), with healthcare fraud as the lead category. The 8-vertical-engine attestation depth (capital markets, P2P, trade finance, EB-5, H-1B, federal grants, P&C, workers' comp) overlaps directly with the dominant FCA case categories.

Before any partnership signs

We don't sign MSAs without counsel review on both sides. The engagement model rests on bar-ethics, privilege, and fee-splitting analyses that vary by jurisdiction; we provide the technical posture and contractual templates but every partnership confirms its own legal footing.

• Bar ethics review. ABA Model Rules 5.4 (fee-splitting), 1.6 (confidentiality), 7.3 (solicitation), and unauthorized-practice-of-law analyses applied to your jurisdictions.
• Privilege analysis under Kovel. The doctrine treats third-party experts engaged to assist counsel in providing legal advice as falling within attorney-client privilege. Our SaaS subprocessor posture maps onto this directly. Confirmation by counsel in NY, DE, DC, CA, TX, IL, MA, FL is the standard initial pass.
• MSA / DPA / BAA templates available under NDA for counsel review. DPA conforms to GDPR Art. 28 processor obligations; BAA narrows scope to processing-in-flight (we don't store PHI at rest).
• Recovery-tied SKU fee-splitting analysis. The percentage is calibrated against attestation work value, not relator recovery share, and is paid by your firm to JIL (not split from court award). Some jurisdictions (DC, AZ, UT) have relaxed Rule 5.4; most others are strict. We get written opinions from at least 3 jurisdictions before offering.
• Conflict-of-interest policy. Architectural isolation handles most conflicts (per-customer S3 buckets, no cross-customer query path). Soft policy covers edge cases (defendant-as-existing-customer scenarios). Disclosed during onboarding under NDA.

Operational guardrails

Zero data at rest is an architectural claim, but it depends on operational discipline. JIL enforces:

• No payload content in debug logs. CI tests verify on every release.
• No error-bucket retention. Errors that touch payload trigger an exception path that does not persist to disk.
• No sidecar caching of customer data. No Redis caches of CREB content; no temp files; no in-memory caches that persist across requests.
• Per-vertical engine versioning with signed binaries. The L1 anchor records the exact engine version that produced each attestation, signed at build time, for reproducibility under FRE 902(14) authenticity challenges.
• No JIL-employee access to your S3 bucket without your firm's consent and audit trail. Bucket access is logged in your bucket access audit, not just ours.
• Annual SOC 2 Type II target Q4 2027.
• Annual penetration testing.

Want to evaluate JIL for your next qui tam matter?

Schedule a partnership call. We'll cover the architecture, the SKU model, the engagement-letter template, and the bar-ethics posture in your jurisdictions. NDA on request before MSA review.

Informational only. Not legal advice. All bar-ethics, privilege, fee-splitting, UPL, and engagement-letter conclusions referenced on this page are subject to review by counsel licensed in the relevant jurisdiction before any partnership signs. United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961). Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902(14), eff. Dec. 2017. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.