For law firms · Litigation drafting
Your associates spend 20 hours on a motion that a larger firm produces in 5. The gap is not talent — it is tooling and the verification architecture around it.
We build the drafting workflow, the citation-verification layer, and the standing-order compliance protocol. We teach your attorneys to run it and to understand the ethical guardrails. They own the capability after we leave.
The problem your attorneys already know about
The productivity gap your associates feel every week — and the workflow gap underneath it.
A third-year associate receives a motion assignment on Monday morning. She spends Tuesday and Wednesday in Westlaw. Thursday is drafting. Friday is revision. The following Monday, the partner redlines it and sends it back. By Wednesday, the motion is filed — 10 business days after assignment, most of it spent on research and first-draft production.
At a larger firm, the same motion takes a quarter of that time. Not because the associates are better. Because they have systems your associates do not. A firm-configured drafting workflow, a curated research and precedent layer, a cite-verification step that runs automatically, and a partner-review pattern designed for AI-assisted drafts.
Your associates are already using AI. They have to — the client is asking for the work faster every year. The question is whether they are doing it inside a firm-built workflow, or on their own inside a browser tab the firm cannot see.
Inside a firm-built workflow, the draft is produced faster, the citations are checked before anything reaches the partner, and the standing-order disclosure posture is decided once at the firm level rather than guessed at case by case. Outside one, the associate is navigating Mata v. Avianca-era standing orders alone, and the firm has no record of what was produced with AI assistance and what was not.
Rules 5.1, 5.3, and 3.3, together with Opinion 512 and the growing roster of state-bar opinions, all point the same direction: AI output is the supervising attorney's responsibility, and the firm is expected to have a documented verification posture. Attorneys who are trained on the workflow and the boundaries produce more work with less risk. Attorneys who are working ad hoc produce less work with more risk.
What changes
Partner-quality first drafts in hours instead of days. Zero fabricated citations reach a court.
Associates produce partner-quality first drafts in hours instead of days. Research time compresses. Drafting time compresses. The partner receives a brief that needs substantive editing, not structural rewriting.
But speed without verification is just faster malpractice exposure.
The system catches hallucinated citations before the partner ever sees the draft. Every AI-generated passage runs through an independent citation-verification layer. Every case cite is confirmed against the actual reporter. Every quotation is checked against the source opinion. The associate sees the verification results before the draft moves forward.
The partner reviews a draft that has already been cite-checked. The review is substantive — argument quality, strategy, client objectives — not a line-by-line hunt for fabricated authorities.
The standing-order disclosure is handled before filing. Does this court have a standing order requiring AI-use disclosure? Does the engagement letter address it? The protocol answers both questions for every filing, every time.
Your attorneys understand the tools. They understand why the verification steps exist and when to use AI versus when to draft directly. They can explain the workflow to a client, to a judge, or to the malpractice carrier. That understanding is what separates attorneys who get real leverage from AI from those who stay cautious and slow.
The verification architecture
No AI output reaches a client or a court without a documented review chain.
01
Draft generation
The AI produces a first draft from the attorney's outline, the case file, and the firm's research. The attorney shapes the argument. The AI handles the production.
02
Automated citation verification
Every case citation, statutory reference, and quotation is checked independently. The system flags anything it cannot confirm — a case that does not exist, a quote that does not match the opinion, a citation to a superseded statute. The associate resolves every flag before the draft advances.
03
Partner review
The responsible partner reviews a draft that has been through citation verification and associate review. The partner's redline focuses on argument quality and client strategy. The review is documented.
04
Disclosure assessment
The workflow checks the filing against the court's standing-order requirements. If the jurisdiction requires AI-use disclosure, the protocol surfaces it. The responsible partner makes the disclosure decision with the information in hand, not after the fact.
Every step is logged. The firm can demonstrate, at any point, that AI-assisted work product went through a defined verification chain before filing. This is the documentation the ethics partner needs, the malpractice carrier wants, and Rule 5.3 requires.
How the build works
Two to four months. Three phases. Your attorneys learn the tools and the guardrails together.
01
Scope and assessment
Weeks 1–2
We audit the firm's current AI use — including the tools associates are already using without formal approval. We map the practice areas, motion types, and jurisdictions that will run through the workflow. We review standing-order requirements for every court where the firm regularly files.
02
Design and configuration
Weeks 3–6
We design the drafting-plus-verification workflow. We select and configure the AI tools against the firm's practice areas and economics. We are vendor-neutral. We build the standing-order compliance protocol and draft the engagement-letter language that satisfies Opinion 512's specific-consent standard.
03
Training and deployment
Weeks 7–12
Your attorneys learn the tools and the guardrails together. Not a product demo — a working training program where associates draft real motions through the verification workflow and partners review real output. The ethics partner reviews the supervision documentation.
What the firm keeps. A working litigation drafting workflow with built-in verification. A standing-order compliance protocol. Engagement-letter AI-disclosure language. A malpractice-carrier-ready governance summary. Attorneys who understand the system, the rules, and the boundaries.
The system is tenant-isolated. It is not self-learning. It is not trained on your client data. Your matters stay yours.
Start with the diagnostic
Book a 90-minute working session.
A diagnostic scoped to your litigation practice. Four to eight weeks. Your team participates. You leave with an assessment of where AI-assisted drafting will make your attorneys most productive, a map of the verification architecture, and a clear picture of what to build.