Legal Solutions Bureau · SC-01

A General Counsel who leaves a working legal system behind.

For studios and service groups with several entities and freelancers: contracts, IP, privacy and disputes handled by a lawyer with 13 years of practice — and turned into rules your team can run on its own.

Book a 20-minute call See the case register
D. Kein — General Counsel Approved · 07/2026
Fig. 0 — The short versionSC-01
Today
Legal work handled ad hoc

Templates from the internet, contracts signed under deadline, answers that live in one person's head.

Sanscript brings
A lawyer on the matter

A General Counsel with 13 years of practice reads the facts, makes the call and signs it off.

After
A system that stays

Templates, rules and a legal register your team keeps running after the engagement ends.

Six principles · eight schematicsMethod →
Sec. 01 — Complaints on file Five recurring failures · Exhibits A–E
Exhibit A
Client MSA with uncapped liability

The client's paper puts your whole company behind one project: no cap, a broad indemnity, no pay for work in progress if they terminate.

The fix — Order 02 →
Exhibit B
Freelancer work you cannot prove you own

The work was paid for, but the contract does not transfer the rights — and the client's due diligence asks for the chain of title.

The fix — Order 01 →
Exhibit C
Privacy policy that does not match how the group works

Data moves between entities and countries; the policy describes a single company that does not exist.

The fix — Order 03 →
Exhibit D
Contractor who is really an employee

Fixed hours, one client, a company laptop: the label says contractor, the facts may say otherwise.

The fix — Order 01 →
Exhibit E
A client who stopped paying

Invoices are overdue, the client is abroad, and nobody has put the contract, the emails and the delivery record in one file.

The fix — Order 05 →
Sec. 02 — Evidence 039-SC-91-002 ●

Evidence on record.

Three matters from current practice, anonymised: no client names, no confidential terms. Each file shows the problem, the decision, where it stands — and which principle it shows.

13 yrs
Practice — litigation → Head of Legal → General Counsel
6
Jurisdictions worked — IE · HK · RS · RU · LV · PT
6
Entities in one group under a single General Counsel
~100
Contractors under one NDA and IP framework
CASE 01 Contracts · Privacy SC-91.01

Two entities, one contractor

One registration, two provable contracts — and privacy roles kept out of the contract.

Jurisdictions — IE · HK Full case file — Proof →
1
The problem

A group pays freelancers from two entities, in Ireland and Hong Kong. Moving a project from one entity to the other meant re-signing contracts, and it blurred which company controls the contractor's data.

2
The decision

Double Acceptance: registration creates two separately provable framework agreements. Each Order names exactly one customer entity. An existing Order moves only by a three-party instrument — never by automatic novation. Accepting the contract is kept separate from privacy consent and from controller roles.

3
Status

Architecture in use; current revision in legal review.

4
What it shows

Facts before labels — the contract and the privacy role are two different questions.

Structure of the decisionCase 01 — Proof →
TWO ENTITIES ORDERS · PROVABLE PRIVACY ROLES · APART IE · HK FRAMEWORK × 2 ONE CUSTOMER / ORDER
Text description

Mini schematic: a contractor registers once with a group of two entities; Double Acceptance creates two framework agreements and binds each Order to one customer; out come provable Orders and privacy roles kept apart from the contract

CASE 02 Confidentiality · People SC-91.02

An NDA that survives role changes

A fixed core and a replaceable rider instead of a new NDA for every project.

Jurisdictions — Group-wide Full case file — Proof →
1
The problem

Every new project or role meant a new NDA for staff, candidates and contractors.

2
The decision

A fixed NDA core plus a replaceable Permission Rider with nine permissions; a blank permission means not permitted. When someone changes role, only the Rider is signed again.

3
Status

Live in the e-signature platform since September 2026; HR trained; an 18-scenario regression checklist.

4
What it shows

Law that runs through what people already do.

Structure of the decisionCase 02 — Proof →
ROLE CHANGE NEW RIDER ONLY 18-SCENARIO CHECK STAFF · CONTRACTORS NDA CORE · FIXED PERMISSION RIDER
Text description

Mini schematic: a role change enters the NDA system; the NDA core stays fixed and only the permission rider changes; out come a new rider instead of a new NDA and an 18-scenario check

CASE 03 Privacy SC-91.03

Privacy for a group run by one lawyer

A privacy structure sized to the team that has to run it.

Jurisdictions — EU · HK Full case file — Proof →
1
The problem

Several entities, GDPR and Hong Kong's PDPO, and one lawyer. Asking for permission at every processing step was unmanageable.

2
The decision

Roles are assigned by what each entity actually does, not by declaration. A master data processing agreement gives standing written authority on both sides of the processing chain, while prior notice of new sub-processors and the right to object are preserved (GDPR Art. 28(2)).

3
Status

Candidate documents in review.

4
What it shows

A system sized to the team that has to run it.

Structure of the decisionCase 03 — Proof →
GROUP ENTITIES STANDING AUTHORITY SUB-PROCESSOR NOTICE GDPR · PDPO ROLES BY FACT MASTER DPA
Text description

Mini schematic: group entities under GDPR and PDPO enter the privacy structure; roles are assigned by fact and a master DPA is signed; out come standing written authority and prior notice of new sub-processors

Execution layer — three public demos of systems built around the lawAnnex E — Proof →
Sec. 03 — Services

Six orders on file.

Fixed prices to start; a retainer when you want the whole thing handled.

See all services
00

Legal health check

Problem
You sign client contracts yourself and suspect the gaps are bigger than you know.
Deliverable
A ranked risk register and a fix-first plan with fixed prices.
Timeline
Fixed price · 1 week
Price
from €900
Order 00 — details
01

Freelance-ready studio

Problem
Freelancers deliver the work, but the paper does not prove you own it.
Deliverable
NDA core + rider, contractor terms, chain of title, e-sign flow.
Timeline
Typically 3–4 weeks
Price
from €3,500
Order 01 — details
02

Provider-side MSA review

Problem
The client's paper puts your whole company behind one project.
Deliverable
Risk heat map, redline with comments, fallback positions.
Timeline
2–3 business days per round
Price
from €400 per round
Order 02 — details
03

Group privacy architecture

Problem
The policy describes one company; data moves between several.
Deliverable
Role map, intra-group DPA, notices, records, sub-processor register.
Timeline
Typically 4–6 weeks
Price
from €5,000
Order 03 — details
04

Fractional General Counsel

Problem
Legal work arrives every week, and nobody owns it.
Deliverable
Up to 4 days a month, a legal register and a quarterly risk review.
Timeline
4 days a month · minimum 3 months
Price
from €2,400/month
Order 04 — details
05

Dispute-ready matter file

Problem
Invoices are overdue and the evidence sits in five inboxes.
Deliverable
Chronology, claim analysis, demand letter, brief to local counsel.
Timeline
Typically 1–2 weeks
Price
from €1,500
Order 05 — details
Sec. 04 — The Method

How the bureau works: six principles.

01

Facts before labels

Start from what actually happens — who signs, who pays, where the data goes — and only then name it in legal terms.

02

Law that runs through what people already do

Rules go into the tools and steps your team already uses, not into extra signatures and forms.

03

The smallest change that works

One clause, one rider, one procedure: the narrowest fix that removes the risk.

04

A human decides, in writing

Every legal call is made by a lawyer and recorded with its reasons. AI drafts and checks; it does not decide.

05

Evidence boundaries

Each answer says what it rests on and where it stops. Unknowns are named, not guessed.

06

Independent review

Important documents get a second read against a checklist before they leave.

The method in full — principles, review cycle, Fig. 01–10

If a contract is on your table this week, start there.

You do not need a legal department to get it right. Send one thing — a client MSA, a freelancer agreement, a privacy question, an unpaid invoice. The bureau reads it and tells you what matters, what it costs to fix, and whether you need a lawyer at all.

Intake procedureSC-05
  1. 1You send the document or describe the problem in plain words. No prep, no deck.
  2. 2Within 48 hours you get a short written view: what matters, what to change, what it costs.
  3. 3You decide. If we work together: a fixed price or a retainer, and the result stays with your team.
Book a 20-minute call
Appendix A

Frequently asked questions

Is Sanscript a law firm?

No. Sanscript is a legal solutions bureau and does not represent clients in court. Legal work is done by a lawyer with 13 years of practice; where a local licence is required, the bureau brings in and briefs local counsel.

Who is this for?

Studios and service groups with several entities and freelancers — usually run by a founder or COO who has been signing contracts without a lawyer, or with one who is stretched across too much.

Do I need a full-time lawyer instead?

Often not yet. A fractional General Counsel covers the recurring work for a fraction of a full-time salary. When you outgrow it, the system left behind makes the first in-house hire easier.

Can Sanscript build AI tools?

Yes, but AI is not the starting point. The bureau first structures the legal process, the sources, the answer boundaries and the escalation path; AI-assisted search or Q&A is added only where it improves speed without replacing legal judgment. AI is a lawyer's tool here; the decision and the sign-off stay with the lawyer.

What kind of work is a good fit?

Contracts with clients and vendors, freelancers and IP, privacy across several entities, disputes before they reach court — and any of these once they repeat often enough to deserve a rule.

What is not a good fit?

Court representation; regulated work that needs a local licence the bureau does not hold; "AI transformation" without an owner.

Do you publish prices?

Yes — fixed packages start at the prices on the Services page; retainers from €2,400 a month.

What happens to the data we share?

Intake can start under an NDA — just say so in the first message. Work happens inside your own systems wherever possible, so documents stay where they already live. Case files on this site are anonymised: no client names, no confidential terms. How this site handles personal data is set out in the privacy notice.