Designed for
Litigation associates and supervising counsel
Templates and prompts focused on typical law-firm workflows
For litigation teams
Pre-built prompts, citation-aware drafting guidance, and privileged-data controls to speed drafting, normalize firm style, and produce court-ready output for partner review.
Designed for
Litigation associates and supervising counsel
Templates and prompts focused on typical law-firm workflows
Core capabilities
Drafting, summarization, citation guidance, and redline-ready output
Output formatted for cut-and-paste into filings and brief outlines
Solve common litigation bottlenecks
Drafting pleadings, preparing motions, and summarizing discovery are repetitive and time‑sensitive. This assistant delivers role-focused prompts and templates that reduce drafting time while preserving partner oversight. It flags citation placeholders for verification, produces redline‑friendly edits, and surfaces reviewer checklists to reduce filing risk.
From matter intake to filing
Use secure matter context (firm precedent, pleadings, transcripts) and role-based prompts to produce drafts ready for partner review. The assistant does not substitute legal judgment: it produces structured drafts, citation placeholders, and verification checklists so supervising attorneys can validate legal arguments, case law, and pin cites before filing.
Summarize depositions, chronologies, and large document sets into concise, issue-focused outputs with marked excerpts for exhibit checks.
Draft briefs and motions with clear citation placeholders and reminders to verify controlling authority and pin cites in jurisdiction.
Produce tracked-change style edits and suggested partner comments to simplify review and billing.
Ready-to-use prompts for litigation tasks
Use the prompt clusters below directly or adapt them to firm precedents. Each prompt includes explicit output structure and reviewer flags so drafts are focused and verifiable.
Protect client confidences
Configurable controls let firms restrict document sources, require human verification before external use, and apply automated redaction checklists. The assistant is designed to work with firm‑level policies: ingest matter-specific precedents only when authorized, and surface privilege and redaction prompts before any content is exported.
Practical reviewer steps
Suggested checklist to validate AI-assisted drafts before filing. These items are designed to be concise and defensible in supervisory review.
Implementation without disruption
Onboard by mapping common matter types, uploading firm templates and precedents where permitted, and training junior associates on partner review limits. Use built-in prompts to standardize first drafts and reduce repetitive drafting across matters.
Drafts include explicit citation placeholders and reminders to verify pin cites. The assistant can cite controlling authority generically, but it always flags citations for human verification — supervising counsel should confirm authority, jurisdictional relevance, and use Shepardizing or equivalent citation treatment before filing.
Configurable matter-level controls restrict which templates and documents are available. The assistant surfaces redaction checklists and privilege-log templates and can require partner approval before external export. Firms should pair the tool with internal policies governing what can be uploaded and who may access matter data.
Yes. When firms authorize upload of internal templates, the assistant uses them as stylistic and structural guides. Drafts can be produced in the firm’s preferred voice and produce tracked-change versions to show edits to partners for quick acceptance or revision.
A concise review workflow: (1) confirm facts against source documents, (2) verify legal authorities and pin cites, (3) check local rule and formatting compliance, (4) run privilege/redaction checks, and (5) finalize tracked changes and billing codes for supervisee time.
The assistant produces issue-focused summaries and chronologies: one-page deposition chronologies, grouped document summaries by relevance, and short evidence matrices. Summaries mark excerpts for exhibit checks and tag documents with suggested privilege status and follow-up actions.
Supervising attorneys should require partner review for all court filings, set clear rules for what matter data may be uploaded, and require associates to document sources and verification steps (especially citations and quoted testimony) in the draft metadata or cover memo.
The assistant can export drafts with tracked-change views and a summary of reviewer comments. Firms should use the tracked-change output as the audit record and attach a short supervisor approval note to support billing and matter management.