Work product
Ask the file. Check the answer.
A question against a ten-thousand-page matter, answered in the time it takes to read the answer — with every claim linked to the document and page it came from, so you check it before you rely on it.
The rule that makes it usable
It will not cite what it was not given
Drafting works from this matter's own record. Where a legal citation is needed and the record does not supply one, the draft says [CITATION NEEDED] rather than producing something plausible.
What it does cite is checked. Every case citation is resolved against CourtListener's free opinion database, and one that does not resolve is shown in red as unciteable rather than left for you to catch. That check is existence and citation accuracy — not Westlaw, no treatment, no Shepard's signal. A citation that resolves can still be bad law, and saying so plainly is the point: a confident "verified" that meant more than it should is the worst thing a tool like this could hand a lawyer.
What comes back is a draft to edit, not a filing. It is also read back to you as the other side would read it, which is the part most people find useful.
What is here
Case chat with citations
You can ask the file a question at four in the afternoon and have a cited answer before you leave, instead of blocking out a morning to re-read a box. Every claim links to its page, so you check it before you rely on it.
The question is matched against the fact ledger, and the model answers using only the facts retrieved. Citations are parsed back into document and page links, so any claim can be checked in two clicks. It is told to say what is missing rather than infer.
- Answers are informational and never enter the review queue.
- Retrieval is full-text over facts; no embeddings until a checkpoint proves need.
- It is a CONVERSATION, not a series of questions: a thread keeps the exchange, so "what about the second one?" works. Threads are per person as well as per matter — two attorneys on the same file are having two different conversations, and stitching them into one would put one lawyer's half-formed thinking into the other's context.
Drafting with cite-check and red team
A first draft that already cites this matter's own record, plus a read of the other side's best answer, before you have spent an afternoon on it. What comes back is a draft to edit — every legal citation in it is resolved against a public opinion database, and one that does not resolve is marked unciteable.
Drafts are written from the fact ledger with inline citations. The cite-check pass tests every factual assertion against that ledger — and reports EVERY legal citation, resolving each against CourtListener for existence and accuracy. That is not treatment: a citation that resolves can still be bad law, and the page says so. The red team argues the other side's best response and names what the record supports that the draft missed.
- The model is instructed to write [CITATION NEEDED] rather than cite anything it was not given; what it does cite is resolved against CourtListener for existence and accuracy only — not Westlaw, no treatment, no Shepard's.
- Editing an approved draft revokes the approval, by database trigger.
- The pre-filing checklist is ADVISORY and always will be. It reads the requirements of the court and the judge your matter sits in, measures what can be measured, and says plainly what it could not check rather than calling it clean. A failing line does not stop you approving, exporting or filing anything: signing off records that an attorney read it. A requirement from a rule set your firm has not confirmed still appears, marked unverified — never dropped, and never shown as verified.
- The firm keeps a memory of how it writes and what it has decided — its voice, notes on a judge or an opposing counsel, arguments and objections it has used, and the findings it has told the platform to stop raising. That memory reaches drafts, engagement letters, the forensic pass, the morning briefing and answers about a matter, so the product sounds like your firm rather than like a model. It is added by us or learned from a dismissal you explained; there is no screen to edit it, so what is in it is a question to ask rather than a page to open.
Chambers
The thinking you would do with a senior colleague on a Tuesday afternoon, with the whole fact ledger already in view: simulate opposing counsel, value the case, outline a deposition, argue a theory until it breaks — without any of it touching the file. Nothing said in Chambers becomes a fact, a deadline, a filing, a draft, or a time entry.
A thread runs over this matter's facts with citations back to the page each one came from. A hard question can be escalated to a more capable model for that turn only, at exactly twice the rate — the doubling is the model's own price in the rate card, not a markup added in the interface, and the checkbox says so before you send. The verbs (simulate, value, outline a depo) are the trial notebook's existing one-shots said as sentences; their results are stored where they always were, as internal decision support. Ethical walls bind Chambers exactly as they bind the matter page: a screened matter cannot be discussed, because its facts never enter the prompt. Every case citation in an answer is resolved against CourtListener, and one that does not resolve is marked unciteable.
- Chambers writes NOTHING into the record — no fact, no deadline, no filing, no draft, no time entry. It recommends; the attorney acts through the product's own review paths.
- Threads persist as firm records — there is no delete, by design. The application database role holds no DELETE on either table.
- Never client-visible and excluded from the export bundle by rule.
- Turn content is not covered by the per-document crypto-shred story; it lives in the database and its encrypted backups.
- Staff can read a thread; posting a turn is attorney-only.
Getting a filing past the portal
Nobody is at a free conversion website at eleven at night with a client's filing in it, because the two mechanical reasons a portal rejects a document are handled before it goes near one. Neither of those reasons has anything to do with the law, and neither should cost anyone an evening.
The document is converted to PDF/A, which is the archival format portals insist on, and if it is over the ceiling that portal allows it is split into parts that each fit. A bookmark outline can be built two levels deep — the section of the file the document sits in, and the title its reading gave it — because a clerk opening a two-hundred-page exhibit set will look for one. The plaintext exists only inside a private working directory that is removed when the run ends, whatever the outcome.
- It is an operator command, not a button on a screen. Ask us and it happens; there is no way for a firm to run it itself.
- The outline is as deep as the record is: two levels, from the file section and the document's own title. There is no per-page heading extraction anywhere in this platform, so there is no honest way to emit a bookmark per exhibit — and inventing one from a model would put made-up structure into a court filing.
- It does not file anything and does not talk to any portal. It produces a package that will be accepted; a person still uploads it.
What this page does not show you
There is no screenshot above, on purpose. Our demonstration matter is seeded without any chat threads or drafts, because both require a real model call — so there is no genuine picture of an answer to show, and we would rather show nothing than a mock-up of output the product did not produce. Ask for a demonstration and you will see it run against a live file instead.