RSM Australia runs multiple AI systems across its practice. Mike Peters, the firm’s information manager, faces the same headache troubling IT teams at professional services firms worldwide: each new tool demands its own bespoke integration, its own security review, its own compliance headache.
That fragmentation just got a potential fix.
iManage rolled out its MCP Server on Tuesday, offering law firms and corporate legal teams a standardised connection between any AI system—ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot, Harvey, Legora, or proprietary tools—and the governed documents sitting inside iManage’s platform. One connection replaces the growing tangle of custom API integrations that have turned AI adoption into an expensive IT project.
The announcement, made from the company’s London office on 14th May, targets a specific pain point revealed in iManage’s Knowledge Work Benchmark Report 2026. Thirty-two per cent of organisations cited integration complexity as the biggest barrier to AI adoption. Nearly half of global leaders expect entirely new legal frameworks to emerge within the decade specifically to govern how AI systems talk to each other. Two-thirds reckon that shift will be transformational for their business.
“Customers are not choosing one AI tool and stopping there. They are already experimenting with multiple AI systems, and the real challenge is connecting those tools to the knowledge that matters most without creating new governance gaps or operational complexity,” said Neil Araujo, iManage’s chief executive.
The Model Context Protocol itself isn’t an iManage invention—it’s an open standard that’s been gaining traction as a vendor-neutral way to let AI systems access external data sources. What iManage built is a server implementing that protocol, sitting between AI tools and the company’s document management platform. That matters in professional services, where ethical walls, client confidentiality requirements, and regulatory scrutiny make bulk data exports or uncontrolled AI access a non-starter.
Here’s how it works in practice. A lawyer uses Claude to draft a memo. Instead of uploading documents manually or giving Claude access to copy files out of iManage, the AI tool queries the MCP Server. The server checks permissions—does this user have access to these documents?—then lets Claude read what it needs without moving files anywhere. All access gets logged. Ethical walls stay intact. Compliance teams can audit every query.
For firms already managing integrations with three, four, or five different AI tools, that architecture promises relief. Add a new AI system and it connects through the same MCP Server—no new API work, no fresh security assessment for each tool, no vendor lock-in if the firm decides to switch AI providers six months later.
“We are already investing in AI tools across the business, but the real value comes from being able to connect those tools securely to the governed knowledge held in iManage,” Peters noted. “The iManage MCP Server provides a practical pathway to do that without treating each AI use case as a bespoke integration project. For an organisation managing sensitive client information, the ability to connect AI capabilities to permission-aware, governed content is an exciting development and aligns strongly with the modern way of working.”
The timing reflects broader anxiety in the legal technology market. Firms rushed to adopt AI over the past 18 months, often approving multiple tools as different practice groups pushed their preferred platforms. That created a patchwork of integrations, each requiring maintenance and each potentially introducing security gaps. Document management vendors like NetDocuments and OpenText face similar pressures to provide unified access without compromising governance.
iManage, which has spent more than 30 years building its document management platform, now serves over one million professionals across 4,000 organisations worldwide. The MCP Server sits alongside Ask iManage, the company’s own AI assistant, as part of what it’s positioning as a complete AI platform rather than a single-tool play.
Araujo framed the announcement explicitly around flexibility. “iManage MCP Server gives organisations a governed way to do that—enabling permission-aware access to business-critical knowledge that remains governed within iManage, while giving teams the flexibility to adopt the AI tools that make the most sense for their business,” he explained.
Documents never leave the iManage platform under this model. AI tools query content, receive results, generate outputs—but the underlying files stay put, governed by whatever access controls and retention policies the firm already has in place. That addresses a persistent worry among general counsel and chief information security officers: letting AI systems create copies of sensitive documents scattered across multiple vendors.
The company plans live demonstrations at ConnectLive Chicago from 19th to 20th May and ConnectLive London on 9th and 10th June. A dedicated webinar titled “Your AI. Your Knowledge. Fully Governed.” is scheduled for 28th May, walking through technical implementation and real-world use cases.
What remains unclear is adoption speed. Professional services firms move cautiously when security and compliance are at stake. The MCP standard itself is still maturing—adoption across AI vendors varies, and not every tool supports it yet. For firms already deep into custom integrations, migrating to a standardised protocol means additional work upfront, even if it simplifies things long-term.
Still, the bet iManage is making seems straightforward: firms won’t pick a single AI winner anytime soon, which means the integration problem only gets worse without a common standard. Whether MCP becomes that standard—and whether competitors adopt it or build rival approaches—will shape the legal technology landscape over the next 24 months.
For now, Peters and IT leaders like him have a potential path out of integration chaos. Whether it scales across the industry depends on how quickly AI vendors embrace open protocols and how willing firms are to rethink the bespoke integrations they’ve already built.
