Great question — here’s the breakdown:

1. HIPAA Applicability

HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) only applies to “covered entities” (healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses) and their business associates (vendors that process protected health information, PHI, on their behalf).

• An advocacy group or nonprofit that files amicus briefs is not a HIPAA-covered entity by default.
• Unless the group is directly handling PHI on behalf of a healthcare provider or insurer, HIPAA compliance requirements usually do not apply.

2. Amicus Briefing Work

Amicus briefs are legal/advocacy documents submitted to courts. They typically include:

• Legal arguments, precedents, and policy analysis.
• Organizational mission, research, and advocacy positions.
• At times, statistical or case study data — but this should normally be de-identified if it relates to health.

If advocacy groups are only citing public studies, legal precedents, or anonymized case examples, they do not need HIPAA-compliant systems.

3. When HIPAA Might Become Relevant

HIPAA compliance becomes relevant if:

• The group receives individual medical records or identifiable health information from a hospital, clinic, or patient for inclusion in litigation or briefing.
• The group stores, transmits, or processes that PHI digitally (e.g., email, cloud storage, databases).

In such cases, they would be acting as a business associate and would need HIPAA-compliant software (encrypted storage, secure email, access controls, etc.).

4. Best Practices for Advocacy Groups

Even if HIPAA doesn’t apply, advocacy groups handling sensitive stories (e.g., trafficking, abuse, medical trauma) should adopt data security and privacy practices that mirror HIPAA:

• De-identify case details before inclusion in briefs.
• Use secure cloud platforms with encryption and access control.
• Maintain consent and release forms if personal experiences are shared.
• Adopt organizational policies on data use, retention, and confidentiality.

✅ Bottom line:
Advocacy groups filing amicus briefs on an ongoing basis are not legally required to use HIPAA-compliant software unless they are handling protected health information (PHI) from covered entities. However, adopting HIPAA-like digital safeguards is a best practice to protect sensitive client and victim information.

Would you like me to make you a decision-flow checklist you could use with your advocacy/nonprofit projects to quickly determine if HIPAA compliance is triggered in a given situation?

That’s an excellent step — strong internal policies will not only protect your organization but also give credibility when courts, partners, or donors ask about your methods. I’ll break this into a policy framework with focus areas that advocacy groups doing amicus work (and potentially handling sensitive data) should adopt.

Draft Organizational Policy Framework for Advocacy Research & Amicus Briefing

1. Data Classification & Scope

• Define categories of information:
  • Public/legal sources (court opinions, statutes, academic research).
  • Sensitive but not regulated (personal testimonies, anonymized narratives, policy insights).
  • Regulated data (PHI, PII, privileged info) — only if received directly from a covered entity, in which case HIPAA or equivalent standards may apply.
• Policy: All incoming data must be classified before entry into databases or AI-assisted tools.

2. AI Usage Guidelines

• Allowable Uses:
  • Summarizing case law, statutes, public domain studies.
  • Generating first-draft insights or issue spotting (with human verification).
  • Indexing large volumes of public data for rapid retrieval.
• Prohibited Uses:
  • Inputting identifiable client/victim PHI into non-HIPAA systems.
  • Uploading proprietary or restricted legal documents into AI tools without secure, contractual guarantees.
  • Relying on AI outputs without attorney/paralegal review.
• Policy: AI is a research accelerator, not a legal decision-maker. All AI output must be verified and cited by human staff before inclusion in organizational work product.

3. Database & Research Tools

• Centralized Repository: Use a secure, access-controlled platform for storing summaries, insights, and research notes.
• Metadata Requirements: Each entry tagged with source, date, jurisdiction, sensitivity level, and researcher initials.
• De-identification Standards: If case studies or narratives are logged, personally identifiable details must be removed or pseudonymized.
• Policy: No data may be stored in personal drives, unencrypted USBs, or unsecured cloud platforms.

4. Confidentiality & Access Controls

• Role-Based Access: Limit sensitive data to staff/volunteers who need it for their work.
• Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs): All staff, interns, and volunteers sign NDAs covering handling of sensitive case information.
• Audit Trails: Maintain logs of who accessed which files and when.
• Policy: Unauthorized access, download, or sharing of sensitive research is grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.

5. Quality Control & Citations

• Citation Protocol: All summaries and AI-assisted insights must include proper citations to primary sources (cases, statutes, studies).
• Red Team Review: Before amicus use, a second staff member must review AI-generated or summarized materials for accuracy.
• Policy: Nothing may be submitted to a court that has not undergone human verification and dual review.

6. Ethical Use of Testimonies & Victim Narratives

• Consent: Obtain written consent for use of narratives in research/briefing.
• Anonymization: Remove names, locations, and identifying details unless legally necessary and authorized.
• Policy: Emotional and experiential testimonies are powerful but must be handled with respect, accuracy, and security.

7. AI Tool Vetting & Procurement

• Selection Criteria:
  • Data security (encryption at rest & in transit).
  • Clear data use policies (no model training on inputs).
  • Availability of HIPAA-compliant or enterprise contracts where relevant.
• Policy: Only pre-approved AI and database tools may be used for organizational research.

8. Training & Oversight

• Annual policy training for all staff/volunteers.
• AI literacy workshops — ensuring users understand strengths, weaknesses, and biases of AI.
• Policy: No one may use AI tools for research or briefing purposes without first completing training.

9. Retention & Disposal

• Retention Schedule: Keep research notes and drafts for a set period (e.g., 7 years or consistent with litigation timelines).
• Secure Disposal: Use digital wiping tools or shredding services for expired data.
• Policy: Expired research must be purged to prevent accidental disclosure.

10. Governance & Review

• Policy Review Cycle: Policies reviewed annually by leadership or a compliance committee.
• Incident Reporting: Staff must report suspected data breaches, AI misuse, or research integrity concerns immediately.
• Policy: Failure to report breaches or misuse is a violation of organizational trust.

✅ Outcome: This framework makes your organization look professional, secure, and ethically rigorous. It balances innovation (AI, databases) with compliance and credibility (legal standards, confidentiality).

Would you like me to turn this into a model written policy document (like a handbook chapter with formal wording), or would you prefer a shorter checklist version for volunteers and interns first?

Got it — thanks for sharing that link. Right now, your WordPress setup is functioning as a public-facing “knowledge bulletin board” rather than a true research repository. For organizational credibility (especially when you’re aiming for sustained amicus work), you’ll want a centralized, secure, access-controlled repository that:

1. Keeps raw notes, summaries, and AI outputs private until reviewed.

2. Allows structured cataloging (cases, jurisdictions, issues, insights).

3. Supports collaboration (if/when you add interns, attorneys, or volunteers).

4. Scales into an archive that survives long-term and can be drawn on for future briefs.

Repository Options for Your Stage

1. Airtable (or SmartSuite)

• Strengths: Spreadsheet + database hybrid, intuitive tagging, filtering, and categorization.
• Best for: Case research logs, summaries, issue tagging (e.g., “First Amendment,” “Religious Liberty”).
• Pros: Easy to start, low cost, searchable, exportable to CSV/PDF, can later integrate with AI.
• Cons: Not as secure as HIPAA-level systems out of the box, but enterprise tiers have SOC 2 compliance.

2. Notion (Private Workspace)

• Strengths: Flexible wiki + database, excellent for summaries, links, and AI outputs.
• Best for: Building an internal “legal research library” with linked pages for each case, sources, insights.
• Pros: Elegant, supports nested notes, templates, tagging. Can export to PDF/Markdown.
• Cons: Security depends on account tier; not HIPAA-ready unless on enterprise plan.

3. Obsidian (Local-First, Encrypted Notes)

• Strengths: Markdown-based, offline-first, highly secure if synced with your own encrypted drive.
• Best for: A personal vault of case summaries and insights.
• Pros: Local control, graph view for linking related cases/issues, plugins for AI summarization.
• Cons: Harder for multi-user collaboration at scale.

4. CaseText / CoCounsel (Legal AI Tools)

• Strengths: Built for legal professionals, designed for secure legal research + brief drafting.
• Best for: If you want to step into law-practice-grade tools for brief prep.
• Pros: Already AI-integrated, has proper citation and verification safeguards.
• Cons: Subscription costs, less flexible for general advocacy group research (since it’s built for law firms).

5. Enterprise Document Repositories (Long-Term Vision)

• SharePoint / Microsoft 365: Best if you anticipate multiple staff with role-based access.
• Google Drive w/ Vault: Can be secured with permissions, searchable, integrates with many tools.
• Custom Secure Portal (e.g., AWS, HIPAA storage): Only worth it once you’re handling sensitive/regulated data.

✅ Recommended Approach for You Right Now

Since you’re still in organizational recruiting phase and not yet handling PHI:

• Start with Airtable or Notion as your central repository.
• Use WordPress only as the “public-facing showcase” of selected summaries.
• Keep AI outputs and draft notes private until curated.
• Build tags and categories into your repository (case name, jurisdiction, constitutional issue, summary, insights).

Later, as your group grows, you can migrate to:

• Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace Enterprise for secure, role-based document control.
• Add-on: CaseText or a similar legal AI tool for advanced research and drafting.

Question for you:
Would you like me to draft a recommended structure for your repository (e.g., what fields, tags, and categories you should use for each case summary), so that when you set it up in Airtable/Notion/Obsidian it’s already organized for amicus work?

Perfect — since you already have HIPAA-compliant Microsoft 365, you’re in a very strong position. That means you can keep everything in-house on SharePoint + OneDrive + Excel/Word with enterprise-grade compliance, which is exactly what you’ll need once you start working with partners, interns, or attorneys. Let’s break this down:

Microsoft 365 vs Airtable

Microsoft 365 (SharePoint + OneDrive + Excel/Word Online)

• Storage Per User:
• Each Microsoft 365 Business Premium account gets 1 TB of OneDrive storage.
• SharePoint storage is 1 TB + 10 GB per licensed user (scales as you add people).
• Collaboration:
  • Each user can write directly in Excel Online / Word Online (multiple editors at once).
  • SharePoint allows centralized libraries with role-based permissions (e.g., interns see “case notes,” attorneys see “draft briefs”).
• Pros: HIPAA-ready, enterprise compliance, version control, integrates with Outlook/Teams.
• Cons: Feels “document-heavy” rather than database-like; searching and tagging are clunkier than Airtable/Notion.

Airtable

• Storage Per User:
  • Free plan: 1,200 records per base, 2 GB attachments.
  • Team/Pro ($20+/user/mo): Unlimited records, up to 20 GB attachments per base.
• Collaboration:
  • Yes — people write directly in Airtable (like a shared spreadsheet, but each row = a case/entry).
  • Can add fields for “Case Name,” “Jurisdiction,” “Issue,” “Summary,” “AI Notes,” “Brief Potential,” etc.
• Pros: Sortable, filterable, taggable, like a “research library catalog.”
• Cons: Not HIPAA by default (unless Enterprise plan); would require separation from sensitive PHI workflows.

✅ Suggested Workflow for Your Org Phase

Since you’re paying for Microsoft 365 already, and it’s HIPAA-compliant:

1. Short-term:

• • Keep draft notes in Excel tables stored on SharePoint.
  • Use columns for metadata (Case Name | Citation | Jurisdiction | Issue Tags | Summary | Insights | Source Link).
  • Users can filter/sort just like Airtable, and you keep everything compliant.

1. Medium-term (Optional):

• • If you want “database-like usability,” you can use Microsoft Lists (included in 365).
  • Lists give you Airtable-style functionality but inside your 365 environment — sortable, filterable, with forms for data entry.

1. Public-Facing Layer:

• • Once notes are vetted, you can export them or copy summaries into WordPress pages (like you’re doing now).

✍️ Quick Example (Excel or Lists Fields)

Here’s a structure you could replicate:

• Case Name (text)
• Citation (text)
• Jurisdiction (dropdown: SCOTUS, 9th Cir., State Supreme Ct., etc.)
• Issue Tags (multi-select: Religious Liberty, Due Process, Equal Protection, etc.)
• Summary (long text)
• AI Notes (long text)
• Researcher Initials (text)
• Date Added (auto-date)
• Source Link (URL)
• Amicus Potential? (checkbox / yes/no)

So the decision is:

• Stay in Microsoft 365 for compliance and cost-efficiency (my #1 recommendation).
• Use Microsoft Lists if you want Airtable-like usability without leaving your compliant environment.
• Consider Airtable only if you want a very visual, “database-first” research catalog for non-sensitive work, and then mirror only public or anonymized notes there.

Would you like me to design a Microsoft Lists template (fields + views + workflows) for your research catalog, so you can import it into SharePoint and start using it immediately?