Skip to main content
DraftCounsel™

DraftCounsel · Grounded drafting for attorneys

Build the motion.
Defend every paragraph.

From the disputed record to a draft you can challenge, revise and make your own.

Explore the matter ↓Open DraftCounsel ↗

2 drafts · 2 Opposing Counsel Passes · 2 redlines · 2 reviews · 2 cite-checks

Fictional matter · Your decisions remain yours.

Ask a general question — do not enter client information
Miami light. A clearer view of the work.Follow the record ↓

Follow the motion through seven stages

One matter. Seven stages. Fictional demonstration.

Explore the full product ↓
Jump to a chapter
Aster Ridge v. Cobalt MeridianFictional demonstrationv1 · original retained

01 / 07 · The matter

A discovery gap. A motion to prepare.

Bring the requests, responses and conferral into one working record.

Draft a motion to compel the missing implementation records. Tie each factual assertion to the record, address the objections and conferral, and prepare narrow proposed relief for my review.

Requests for productionEx. A · p. 4 · Request 14; p. 5 · Request 17
Responses and objectionsEx. B · p. 6 · Response 14; p. 7 · Response 17
Conferral correspondenceEx. C · pp. 2–3
Production index and project emailEx. D · pp. 1–2 · index; p. 3 · email
A referenced attachment. An unanswered question.

No corresponding attachment is identified in the supplied index. A gap is not proof of intent.

Inspect the disputed discovery record
Ex. A · Requests for production

p. 4 · Request 14; p. 5 · Request 17

Request 14: implementation exception reports for the disputed project. Request 17: correspondence transmitting or discussing those reports.

Defines the discovery sought; does not establish that every requested record exists.

Ex. B · Responses and objections

p. 6 · Response 14; p. 7 · Response 17

Subject to the stated scope and privilege objections, responsive nonprivileged documents have been produced.

The responding party’s position, not an independently verified completeness finding.

Ex. C · Conferral correspondence

pp. 2–3

Counsel discussed limiting the search to the project manager and implementation lead, the project repository and their project correspondence. Search completion and the privilege objection remain disputed.

Supports the proposed narrowing. Counsel must confirm the actual conferral and any certification.

Ex. D · Production index and project email

pp. 1–2 · index; p. 3 · email

The project email references an exception-report attachment. No corresponding attachment is identified in the supplied index.

A gap in the supplied record; not proof of withholding, destruction or a complete production search.

Ask Run grounded

Start with the record. Keep the requested relief within its support.

Open the attorney chat workspace →

Fictional matter · No client data or live model call · Nothing saved, filed or sent

Aster Ridge v. Cobalt MeridianFictional demonstrationv1 · original retained

02 / 07 · The foundations

See what the draft stands on.

Drafting exemplars, matter evidence and legal authority each have a distinct role.

Inspect the illustrated foundations

Five fictional filing roles; no retrieved filings or verified hashes are claimed.

01 · Motion structure

A motion-to-compel drafting example can inform motion structure. This fictional card is not case evidence or legal authority.

02 · Request-by-request analysis

A motion-to-compel drafting example can inform request-by-request analysis. This fictional card is not case evidence or legal authority.

03 · Record-supported factual account

A motion-to-compel drafting example can inform record-supported factual account. This fictional card is not case evidence or legal authority.

04 · Conferral presentation

A motion-to-compel drafting example can inform conferral presentation. This fictional card is not case evidence or legal authority.

05 · Narrow proposed relief

A motion-to-compel drafting example can inform narrow proposed relief. This fictional card is not case evidence or legal authority.

Motion to compel discovery

Shape the work.
Keep its sources distinct.

Request-by-request analysis

Record-supported facts

Conferral and unresolved objections

Narrow, supported relief

Separate inputs:

Exemplars
Drafting structure and practice.
Matter record
Requests, responses, conferral and supplied production.
Rules and authorities
Legal propositions requiring separate verification.
Explore the exemplar program →

Fictional matter · No client data or live model call · Nothing saved, filed or sent

Aster Ridge v. Cobalt MeridianFictional demonstrationv1 · original retained

03 / 07 · Independent analyses

Two analyses. Keep the difference.

Independent positions stay visible for counsel to inspect and resolve.

Illustrative dual-AI workflow · not a live model run

Branch A

Ask for the implementation record.

Compel all implementation records; the missing attachment suggests incomplete production.

Branch B

Keep relief within the disputed requests.

Narrow relief to Requests 14 and 17; the index alone cannot establish intentional withholding.

Conflict retained:

Scope of relief and the inference of intent require counsel’s decision. Agreement does not establish correctness.

Coverage and unavailable states

Curated fictional branches, not provider output. A live run identifies each branch’s actual inputs. Missing or unavailable branches mean incomplete dual analysis, never a successful comparison.

Check current engine availability →

Fictional matter · No client data or live model call · Nothing saved, filed or sent

Aster Ridge v. Cobalt MeridianFictional demonstrationv1 · original retained

04 / 07 · The challenge

Find the objection before the other side.

Test the scope of relief and what the supplied record actually establishes.

Findings queue

Relief scopepending
Inference of intentOpen
Privilege objectionsOpen

Motion to compel discovery

IV. Requested relief

Plaintiff requests an order compelling every document concerning Defendant’s implementation work, from all custodians and systems, and finding that Defendant deliberately withheld responsive records.

Ex. A · Requests 14 and 17
Ex. C · Conferral record
Ex. D · Index and project email

The missing attachment reference does not establish deliberate withholding.

Opposing Counsel Pass™

For review · relief-scope

Relief exceeds the supported record

The index does not establish deliberate withholding. The proposed search scope still needs counsel’s decision.

Source and uncertainty

Ex. A, Requests 14 and 17; Ex. C, pp. 2–3; Ex. D, pp. 1–3.

Unknown: additional production, completed searches and the merits of privilege objections. Confirm the governing rules, local requirements and actual conferral before filing.

Inspect the disputed discovery record
Ex. A · Requests for production

p. 4 · Request 14; p. 5 · Request 17

Request 14: implementation exception reports for the disputed project. Request 17: correspondence transmitting or discussing those reports.

Defines the discovery sought; does not establish that every requested record exists.

Ex. B · Responses and objections

p. 6 · Response 14; p. 7 · Response 17

Subject to the stated scope and privilege objections, responsive nonprivileged documents have been produced.

The responding party’s position, not an independently verified completeness finding.

Ex. C · Conferral correspondence

pp. 2–3

Counsel discussed limiting the search to the project manager and implementation lead, the project repository and their project correspondence. Search completion and the privilege objection remain disputed.

Supports the proposed narrowing. Counsel must confirm the actual conferral and any certification.

Ex. D · Production index and project email

pp. 1–2 · index; p. 3 · email

The project email references an exception-report attachment. No corresponding attachment is identified in the supplied index.

A gap in the supplied record; not proof of withholding, destruction or a complete production search.

Proposed response: Plaintiff requests supplemental responses and production of nonprivileged implementation records responsive to Requests 14 and 17, subject to the Court’s determination of the disputed scope. Plaintiff does not ask the Court to infer deliberate withholding from the production index alone.

Explore the Pass →

Fictional matter · No client data or live model call · Nothing saved, filed or sent

Aster Ridge v. Cobalt MeridianFictional demonstrationv1 · original retained

05 / 07 · Your decision

The final word belongs to counsel.

Approve the proposal, reject it or write the language the record supports.

Findings queue

Relief scopepending
Inference of intentOpen
Privilege objectionsOpen

Motion to compel discovery

IV. Requested relief

Plaintiff requests an order compelling every document concerning Defendant’s implementation work, from all custodians and systems, and finding that Defendant deliberately withheld responsive records.

Ex. A · Requests 14 and 17
Ex. C · Conferral record
Ex. D · Index and project email

The missing attachment reference does not establish deliberate withholding.

Approval rail

For review · relief-scope

Relief exceeds the supported record

The index does not establish deliberate withholding. The proposed search scope still needs counsel’s decision.

Source and uncertainty

Ex. A, Requests 14 and 17; Ex. C, pp. 2–3; Ex. D, pp. 1–3.

Unknown: additional production, completed searches and the merits of privilege objections. Confirm the governing rules, local requirements and actual conferral before filing.

Inspect the disputed discovery record
Ex. A · Requests for production

p. 4 · Request 14; p. 5 · Request 17

Request 14: implementation exception reports for the disputed project. Request 17: correspondence transmitting or discussing those reports.

Defines the discovery sought; does not establish that every requested record exists.

Ex. B · Responses and objections

p. 6 · Response 14; p. 7 · Response 17

Subject to the stated scope and privilege objections, responsive nonprivileged documents have been produced.

The responding party’s position, not an independently verified completeness finding.

Ex. C · Conferral correspondence

pp. 2–3

Counsel discussed limiting the search to the project manager and implementation lead, the project repository and their project correspondence. Search completion and the privilege objection remain disputed.

Supports the proposed narrowing. Counsel must confirm the actual conferral and any certification.

Ex. D · Production index and project email

pp. 1–2 · index; p. 3 · email

The project email references an exception-report attachment. No corresponding attachment is identified in the supplied index.

A gap in the supplied record; not proof of withholding, destruction or a complete production search.

Edit the proposed wording

Fictional text only. Stays in this page; nothing is saved or sent.

Proposed attorney text

Plaintiff requests supplemental responses and production of nonprivileged implementation records responsive to Requests 14 and 17, subject to the Court’s determination of the disputed scope. Plaintiff does not ask the Court to infer deliberate withholding from the production index alone.

No fictional decision recorded.

Fictional matter · No client data or live model call · Nothing saved, filed or sent

Aster Ridge v. Cobalt MeridianFictional demonstrationv1 · original retained

06 / 07 · The revision

Only the decided language moves.

Inspect the relief beside the supported facts that remain unchanged.

v1 · original retained

Awaiting your fictional decision. The original text is retained.

Requested relief

Plaintiff requests an order compelling every document concerning Defendant’s implementation work, from all custodians and systems, and finding that Defendant deliberately withheld responsive records.

Unchanged

II. The request and response

Request 14 seeks implementation exception reports. Defendant’s response states that responsive, nonprivileged documents have been produced. The supplied production index does not identify the exception-report attachments referenced in the project correspondence. (Ex. A, p. 4; Ex. B, p. 6; Ex. D, pp. 1–3.)

No other finding is decided by this interaction.

Fictional matter · No client data or live model call · Nothing saved, filed or sent

Aster Ridge v. Cobalt MeridianFictional demonstrationv1 · original retained

07 / 07 · The deliverable

The motion. The changes. The decisions.

An organized review set, with the remaining decisions made explicit.

Motion draftv1 · original retained

Plaintiff requests an order compelling every document concerning Defendant’s implementation work, from all custodians and systems, and finding that Defendant deliberately withheld responsive records.

RedlineOriginal retained

No edit has been applied.

Source referencesFour fictional source groups

Request 14 seeks implementation exception reports. Defendant’s response states that responsive, nonprivileged documents have been produced. The supplied production index does not identify the exception-report attachments referenced in the project correspondence. (Ex. A, p. 4; Ex. B, p. 6; Ex. D, pp. 1–3.)

Decision recordNo decisions made here

Remaining review is separate. No permanent receipt is created.

Prepare for attorney sign-off

Document approval
Not granted by this interaction
Export permission
Not granted by this interaction
External delivery
Not sent; delivery is a separate act

Proposed-order scope and remaining issues need their own review.

Open adjudication →
Try local packet verification →

Fictional matter · No client data or live model call · Nothing saved, filed or sent

Your full drafting desk

One matter opens the door.
Your practice goes further.

AI drafts. Counsel decides. The file proves it.

Draft ↗Revise ↗Review ↗Redline ↗Opposing Counsel Pass ↗Cite Check ↗War Room ↗For firms ↗Word add-in ↗Connectors ↗

Explore the Probate Packet Desk · Explore the simpler NDA example · Open the complete Desk Tour

Explore the simpler NDA example

One matter, end to end

Mutual NDA · Florida. Fictional matter — demonstration.

Meridian Data Systems, LLC and Harbor Analytics, Inc. are invented. This complete illustrative summary stays available alongside the interactive story; nothing is attested, paid or sent.

  1. 1. Sources

    Harbor-NDA-draft-v2.docx attached; the firm playbook and five pinned exemplars ground the run.

  2. 2. Draft

    A statute-cited Mutual NDA in six sections, Florida law.

  3. 3. Opposing Counsel Pass

    4 findings against the draft, each with its clause, reason and proposed text.

  4. 4. Decisions

    Each finding decided by the reviewing attorney: approved, revised or rejected, on the record.

  5. 5. Revision

    A scoped revision moves only the decided clauses; untouched provisions stay verbatim.

  6. 6. Export

    Meridian-Harbor-Mutual-NDA-v3.docx: the approved version, the decision trail and the source hashes.

  7. 7. Packet verification

    The packet verifies: every file matches the manifest hash; the approved version is the one exported.

Proof: the same matter runs on the adjudication desk and in every desk reference.

Open the complete NDA Desk Tour

Choose the work in front of you

Draft. Revise. Review. One governed desk.

01

Draft

Produce a source-grounded first draft tied to your matter facts.

View the workflow →

02

Revise

Apply your chosen edits to existing work and preserve untouched provisions.

View the workflow →

03

Review

Identify legal, factual, structural, and citation risks.

View the workflow →

04

Redline

Compare versions and explain every material change.

View the workflow →

05

Opposing Counsel Pass™

Challenge the work from the strongest adverse position.

View the workflow →

06

Cite Check

Verify authority existence, format, and treatment signals.

View the workflow →

07

War Room

Coordinate sources, issues, drafts, and decisions in one matter.

View the workflow →

Explore another example: the Opposing Counsel Pass

A second-pass review, built in

The Opposing Counsel Pass™

A first draft needs a serious challenge. The Pass is designed to test the work from the adverse position. Your own personal red team, examining the position an opponent could take.

Separate fictional illustration · services agreement, § 9 indemnity

§ 9 · Indemnification

drafting…

Provider shall indemnify Client against all losses, damages, and expenses of any kind, including consequential, incidental, and punitive damages, without limitation, arising from Provider’s performance under this Agreement.

1 / 3

Every objection it lands becomes a finding only you can clear — approve, reject, or revise, on an immutable record. Whatever survives your rulings goes in the file. Unresolved issues remain visible.

The first opposing counsel your draft ever meets works for you.

Challenge

test the draft from the adverse position

Decide

approve, reject or revise each finding individually

Preserve

keep the decision record with the work

Put a draft through the Pass →Already have a document? Run the Pass on it →

Opposing Counsel Pass™ is a trademark of LegalDraft Technologies LLC.

Explore how chat coordinates the full workflow

One workspace, every workflow

Chat is the workhorse. Governance is built into every run.

Describe the outcome. DraftCounsel binds the matter, selects the governed workflow, pins real filings, runs each live engine, verifies the authorities, and asks for your decision.

“Review this draft motion, compare it against the pinned Florida foundations, run the Opposing Counsel Pass, verify every authority, and prepare a redline plus a clean version for review.”

  • Workflow identified
  • Matter scope confirmed
  • Sources pinned
  • Configured engines completed
  • Material disagreements reconciled
  • Citations verified
  • Attorney decision requested

You need one workspace — not a shelf of separate tools. Every workflow below starts from the same governed composer, carries the same provenance, and lands on the sameAdjudication deskwhere you rule on the record.

4 engines by their real names, selected per document. When commerce is enabled, you can check current engine availability and any upgrade price before choosing your run.

Enter the workspace →
Explore the exemplar foundation program

How it works

Start with suitable foundations.

Every premium run stands on real, publicly available filings — selected for relevance, jurisdiction, document type, authority, and recency; pinned by SHA-256; modeled, not copied, and kept out of your citations.

  1. Matter facts

  2. Jurisdiction-matched public filings

  3. Pinned source provenance

  4. Independent AI analyses

  5. Citation and authority verification

  6. Conflict comparison and synthesis

  7. Attorney decision and audit record

24 litigation filing types ground on the public court record today — ranked on a locality ladder that puts your own courthouse first and graded by the court’s rulings; reviewed county exemplar packs, a governed public-record harvest, and licensed state-court connectors extend the ladder as each clears. Transactional drafts model real material agreements from the SEC’s public record — the agreements public companies actually file. Selection uses objective signals — never firm-name rankings or endorsements.

Explore the deterministic Probate Packet Desk

Deterministic Florida probate assembly

The Probate Packet Desk

Facts in — the filing set out. The router selects the administration path and shows you the paths it rejected and why. Structural risks carry their citations. The creditor clock runs the statute. And the packet assembles from deterministic templates — the AI authors none of the operative text.

24

probate filings & court documents modeled, five administration paths

67

Florida counties with circuit-court routing on file

26/27

cited statutes hash-verified against the official publisher

264/277

evaluation checks passed — the full scorecard is public

Petitions, oaths, notices, inventory, accounting, discharge — assembled in filing order for the path your facts select, with a per-filing attorney review checklist, printed packet, and a .docx export that re-runs the same engine server-side so the file can never diverge from the screen.

Drafts for the supervising attorney — every filing carries the pending sign-off caveat until counsel rules, and the platform does not file. Court-issued documents are honestly marked as the court's to enter.

Open the packet desk →The Florida desk →

Verify all of it yourself: coverage · trust center · published evals · live engine status

Check the authority behind the argument

Cite Check: a citation needs more than correct formatting.

Inspect reporters, short forms and pinpoints. When existence verification is available, compare supported case citations with CourtListener records. A missing match remains unresolved; a found opinion does not establish that it supports your proposition.

Keep the downloadable citation checklist for counsel’s licensed research and currentness review. Source outages and unchecked citations remain visible.

Run Cite Check →

Illustrated review · no live lookup

Three distinct questions

Is the citation formatted correctly?
Reporter spacing, short-form context and pinpoint structure need their own checks.
Does the cited opinion exist?
Matched, unmatched and unavailable are different outcomes.
Does it support this motion now?
Read the holding, procedural posture and subsequent treatment. Existence alone does not answer this.
Capabilities and limits →
Try the individual-adjudication workstation

The workstation

Where findings become decisions

Load any draft's self-review — or paste a report reference from outside filings — and work the rail: source text and proposed text side by side, your revision in place, your note on the record. The gate opens only when the last finding falls.

  • ✓ Approve, reject, or revise — finding by finding, never in bulk
  • ✓ Proposed language editable in place before you rule
  • ✓ Print-ready decision packet for the matter file
  • ✓ Revision engine generates the final from your decisions alone
Open the workstation →

The approval rail — try it

High

Limit indemnity to direct damages

§ 9. Indemnification · IND-DIRECT-004

Current

…including consequential, incidental, and punitive damages of any kind…

Proposed

…limited to direct damages actually incurred, capped at fees paid in the prior 12 months…

The engine objected to its own clause: uncapped consequential and punitive exposure, no mutuality.

Interactive demo · fixture finding · nothing here is saved

Confidentiality

Private, account-bound, and deliberately shared.

Workspace records persist behind authenticated account ownership. Matter and firm access is granted explicitly, public sharing is opt-in, and model providers process only the content needed for the selected workflow.

Production data access is enforced through row-level policies and server-side authorization; export and sharing routes re-check scope on every request. Retention, deletion, subprocessors, and incident controls are documented on the trust center and the computed engine status page.

Grounded in real public filings.Two-engine review when both are live.CourtListener-backed citation verification.Account-bound records with explicit matter-scoped sharing.

Continue in the drafting desk

The Drafting Workspace

Draft, Revise, Review, Redline and the Opposing Counsel Pass™ share your matter context. Ask counsel, attach files, images or folders, and keep each case separate. Export Word or PDF and install the desktop app.

The proprietary exemplar program selects suitable document foundations, modeled, not copied. Inspect their provenance and coverage limits. The dual program keeps material disagreement visible for your individual decisions; availability depends on both required engines.

Litigation foundations cover 24 filing types. Transactional lanes use their appropriate agreement sources. Caption and service details come from structured inputs; counsel reviews the resulting document.

Enter the workspace →Engine tiers & pricing →

Engine choices and current evidence

  • Claude Opus 5
    available
  • ChatGPT 5.6 Terra
    awaits its key
  • Claude Fable 5
    available · +$50–$100 per document by size
  • ChatGPT-5.6 Sol
    awaits its key · +$25–$50 per document by size

DraftBench: 264/277 checks passed. Fixture results do not establish legal accuracy or successful live dual analysis.

Inspect engine evidenceRead the scorecard

Connectors

Work product lands in your systems

Excel workbooks and email packets out of the box. Clio, DocuSign and Plaid are on the roadmap, under your firm's own credentials.

Explore connectors →

Excel

Export

Gmail

Compose link

Clio

Planned

DocuSign

Planned

Plaid

Planned

Priced like a tool, not a department

No subscriptions, no seats, no minimums. Buy the matter in front of you; every plan includes the full engine, the Opposing Counsel Pass™, Cite Check, the workstation, and the audit trail.

Matter Review

$199per matterOutside paper through the workstation
  • Rigorous AI review of any uploaded instrument
  • Every finding routed to the approval rail
  • Approve, reject, or revise — finding by finding
  • Immutable audit trail + printable decision packet
  • Revision engine: adjudicated decisions applied to a clean final
Purchasing is not live — contact us
Most popular

Matter Draft

$249per matterFull drafting cycle, brief to final
  • Complete AI first draft, statutes cited to the governing state
  • The Opposing Counsel Pass™ on the finished draft
  • Approval workstation — adjudicate every finding
  • Immutable audit trail + printable decision packet
  • Final revised document with Word (.docx) export
Purchasing is not live — contact us

Purchasing is not live yet. Contact us to join the launch list.

Verify it yourself

The scorecard is public. The status is computed.

264/277

evaluation checks passed

4

engines, by their real names

24

grounded filing types

SHA-256

every foundation pinned

Solo attorneys and firms run the same desk — consent-based firm membership, a shared clause playbook, and the audit trail your file expects. For firms →

Questions counsel actually asks

What is DraftCounsel?▼

DraftCounsel (draftcounsel.io) is an AI drafting and review workstation for licensed attorneys, built by LegalDraft Technologies LLC. The engine produces a complete, state-tailored first draft with statutory citations, then attacks its own work with the Opposing Counsel Pass™ — and every finding routes through the attorney's approval workstation. Nothing finalizes without attorney sign-off, on an immutable audit trail.

Is DraftCounsel affiliated with draftcounsel.co?▼

No. DraftCounsel™ (draftcounsel.io), by LegalDraft Technologies LLC, is not affiliated with, connected to, or endorsed by draftcounsel.co or any other similarly named service. The official DraftCounsel attorney workstation is at draftcounsel.io; the companion consumer platform is LegalDraft (legaldraft.io).

How much does DraftCounsel cost?▼

Per-matter, one-time pricing — no subscriptions, no seats, no minimums. Matter Review (rigorous AI review of outside paper through the approval workstation) is $199 per matter. Matter Draft (the full drafting cycle, brief to adjudicated final, with Word export) is $249 per matter. Every plan includes the complete engine, the Opposing Counsel Pass™, Cite Check, the workstation, and the audit trail. Current checkout availability is always shown live on the pricing page.

Who is DraftCounsel for?▼

Licensed attorneys and their supervised staff. DraftCounsel is professional drafting software — the workstation assumes a lawyer is making the calls, and the audit trail exists to prove that a lawyer did.

What does the engine actually produce?▼

A complete first draft — numbered operative sections, recitals, protective boilerplate, signature blocks — drafted to your governing state with statutory citations and grounded in primary-source per-state law: verified execution formalities (witnesses, notarization, recording), statutory limits (security deposits, interest-rate caps), and a deterministic cross-document consistency check. Plus the Opposing Counsel Pass™ on that same draft: risk flags, missing protections, and negotiation points, each routed to your approval rail as an adjudicable finding.

What is the Opposing Counsel Pass™?▼

Your own personal red team, built into every draft. The moment your draft is finished, the engine switches sides and re-reads its own work as hostile opposing counsel — attacking ambiguities, over-reach, missing caps, absent carve-outs, and anything the opposition could use — and files every objection as a finding only you can dispose of. In a real production run it drafted a venue clause, then objected to its own work: "the single most critical blank in the document — may render the venue clause unenforceable." It runs on every draft automatically, with no opt-out, and on outside paper you upload too. No other drafting platform makes its AI testify against itself.

Does DraftCounsel check my citations?▼

Yes — Cite Check reads every citation in your brief and checks it against the Bluebook: reporter abbreviations and spacing, short forms (id./supra), pinpoints, and Table T6 case-name abbreviations, each flagged with the specific rule it violates. With existence verification enabled, every case is matched against CourtListener's database of millions of real opinions, so a non-existent or AI-hallucinated citation is caught before you file — plus a downloadable Westlaw verification checklist for manual sign-off. It tells you honestly which checks ran: a format-correct citation is not the same as a real one.

Can the AI finalize anything on its own?▼

No. The finalization gate is hard-coded: every finding must be approved, rejected, or revised by you before the work product can finalize. There is deliberately no "approve all" button.

What goes on the audit trail?▼

Every adjudication — the decision, the source text, the proposed text, your final text, your note, the playbook rule, and a timestamp — written to an append-only event log. Print the decision packet for the file, or export the consolidated trail.

Can it assemble a probate filing packet?▼

Yes — the Probate Packet Desk is deterministic end to end for Florida probate: enter the matter facts and the router selects the administration path (formal, summary, disposition without administration, or ancillary) while showing the alternatives it rejected and why. Structural risks surface with statute citations and remedies, the creditor-claim clock runs §§ 733.702/733.710, fee presumptions compute under §§ 733.617/733.6171, and the filing set assembles in order from deterministic templates with a per-filing attorney review checklist, print packet, and .docx export. The AI authors none of the operative text, every filing is a draft for the supervising attorney, and the platform does not file.

Is this legal advice? Does it create privilege?▼

No. DraftCounsel is a drafting tool operated by LegalDraft Technologies LLC, not a law firm. Output is AI-generated draft work product for your professional review; you remain solely responsible for the final work product. Communications with the platform are not attorney-client privileged.

How is client material handled?▼

Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, processed server-side for the selected workflow, and protected by authenticated account, tenant, matter, and entitlement checks on every DraftCounsel read or export.

Bring the matter. Keep control.

Open workspaceView access status