Law · Case-file analysis
Somebody has to read
the whole file.
Discovery arrives as a folder. Hundreds of documents, scans of scans, an email thread nobody has opened. The detail that decides the case is in there, and finding it costs a weekend of someone's time who bills by the hour.
The Problem
The file is not the problem.
Reading it is.
Every firm has the same quiet arithmetic. The document set is large, the deadline is fixed, and the person qualified to read it is the person whose hours are worth the most. So the file gets skimmed, and everyone hopes the thing that mattered was near the front.
The tools that promise to fix this usually make it worse, because they summarize. A summary you cannot check is not evidence, it is a rumor about your own case file.
How It Runs
A folder in. A sourced memo out.
Point it at the folder.
A matter folder, as it actually exists. PDFs, scanned exhibits, photographs, Word documents, spreadsheets, email threads. Not a tidy set someone prepared for it.
It reads what a person would have to.
Scans and photographs are read visually, so a picture of a document is still read as a document. The point is that nobody has to open every file to find out which ones mattered.
Every fact gets a citation.
Each fact comes back tied to the exact words it came from, with the page where the file has pages. A fact that cannot be traced to the file is dropped, not flagged. If an attorney wants to see where a date came from, the answer is one click.
It writes the memo, not the pleading.
The parties, a dated chronology, the limitations dates, flagged issues, strengths and weaknesses, a document inventory, and the open questions. The kind of memo you would hand a new associate, except the associate read all of it.
It tells you what it could not read.
The report says which files it opened and which it did not, by name. That list is the difference between a research tool and something an attorney can rely on, and it is the part most tools quietly leave out.
What It Means
On one real matter it pulled thousands of sourced facts out of the document set, each one tied back to where it came from.
No human had to read the whole corpus to find what mattered. It has also surfaced details a person had already read past, which is the honest reason to use it. Not because it is smarter than the attorney, but because it does not get tired on page four hundred.
The Guardrails
Built to be checked.
Nothing is invented
It does not write facts that are not in the file. If the record does not say it, the memo does not either, and an open question is recorded instead of a guess.
The coverage number is honest, including when it is bad
An early version of our own report said it had read 37 of 44 files. The real denominator was 228, because our folder walk only went two levels deep and never saw the rest. We fixed the count rather than the wording. The number a firm sees now is written by the software rather than described by it, and it names the folders it could not open as well as the files.
It writes a memo, not a filing
The memo lands in the matter folder marked privileged attorney work product, labelled as an AI draft to be verified against the source documents, and it is deliberately excluded from anything the client can see. Nothing is submitted to a court and nothing is sent on your behalf.
Bring a closed matter to the consult.
We will scope what this looks like on your real files, your practice areas, and the places your documents actually live. A closed matter is the safest way to see it work.
Book a $250 ConsultThe consult: one hour with the team, not a salesperson. You leave with a real number. The $250 comes off your build if you move forward. You pick your time right after checkout.
What working together looks like
A build phase, usually three to six months, where we scope and build the systems your firm runs on and keep adjusting them as your team actually uses them. Pieces go live along the way rather than all at the end. After that it moves to a maintenance phase at a lower monthly rate, where we keep it running and keep adding to it.
You work directly with the two people who build it. Matthew spent nearly three decades building automation for hospitals, banks and pharmaceutical companies before this. There is no account manager in between.
We can build on infrastructure your own firm owns, which is what one client did after their IT vendor reviewed it, so if we disappeared tomorrow they keep the system. We carry technology errors and omissions and cyber liability insurance, and the platforms we build on hold SOC 2 Type II reports and offer signed business associate agreements.
Referred by someone? Tell us who sent you and we will pick it up from there. Or ask Hank first, any hour, no charge.