Decosa Legal
Legal
Briefs, depositions, discovery, records and client calls, each checked against its sources. Open a job to see a real run first, then run it yourself on a sample.
Make and do
- Make a settlement videoA narrated settlement video built from the chronology, the bills and the client's own words and photos, with every fact on screen cited to its exhibit page and the bills tied out in code.376 / 376Cites on the right page (held-out synthetic matters)Try it
- Turn a client call into notesA cited intake memo, a conflicts list, a 0.1-hour time entry and follow-ups from a client call, with no notetaker bot and the audio deleted.89.3%Facts from the call kept in the memo (blind grader, test set)Try it
Check and prove
- Check a brief before filingA checklist pointing at the exact words in the brief: fake or misread authorities, misquotations, bad record cites and personal identifiers left in.89%Fake citations flagged as a problem (held-out test)Try it
- Check their discovery responsesEvery objection without specifics, unstated withholding, evasive answer and late or unverified set, quoted and cited to the rule, with the deadlines worked out and a first-draft letter to rewrite.174 / 235 (74%)Deficient responses caught on unseen real cases (motions to compel; held out)Try it
- Digest a depositionA topic-by-topic digest where every sentence links to the page:line it came from, plus where the witnesses contradict each other.9 / 9 in both runsPlanted contradictions found, on a small fictional held-out set written by the same agent as the prompts (it also flagged some traps)Try it
- Build a medical chronologyA dated chronology where every line cites the file, page and spot on the page, with conflicting dates, gaps in treatment and prior conditions flagged.189 / 198Planted medical events found (held-out test)Try it
- Build a privilege logA privilege call for every document with the reason checked against it, plus draft log entries that describe the document without giving the advice away.83.9% / 82.3% / 79.7%Privileged or not: overall accuracy / precision / recall (held-out test)Try it
Start to finish
Answer their motion
One matter: check their brief, digest the deposition they rely on, then check your reply before filing.
See the workflowInjury case, first call to discovery
Intake call to notes, records to a chronology, then their discovery responses and your privilege log.
- Step 1: Turn a client call into notes
- Step 2: Build a medical chronology
- Step 3: Check their discovery responses
- Step 4: Build a privilege log
Straight answers
- Can I put client documents into the tools on this site?
- Not in the demos: they are for the samples and public or made-up material. For real matters, request confidential access (the data is sealed so neither the cloud host nor we can read it), or run the tool on your own machine.
- What does running it ourselves take?
- A server or workstation with a large GPU, or for many tools an Apple Silicon Mac; each tool page lists the exact hardware under “Run it yourself”. It installs with Docker from steps we tested on a fresh machine. Self-hosting is in early access: the container images aren't on a public registry yet, so ask us for access. Once it runs, the deposition and privilege tools send nothing outside your network by default; the brief check looks up the citations (not the brief) at public case-law and statute services.
- We don't want to buy GPUs. Is there another way?
- Confidential access: the tool runs on your server without a GPU, and the model runs on a confidential GPU inside a sealed hardware enclave that neither the cloud host nor we can read, shared by default or a dedicated enclave of your own. It was proven end to end on real hardware on 28 Sep 2026 and is set up on request.
- How accurate is it, and what does it miss?
- Each tool page shows its accuracy on a test set next to the time and cost per task, and “All results and caveats” lists what it missed and how the test was built. Most test sets are small and were written by us; nothing has been validated by a court or a bar. A lawyer still reviews the output. Test results for every tool.
- Does this help with our confidentiality duty?
- Running it on your own machine, or the enclave with its attestation, can help you document the reasonable efforts ABA Model Rule 1.6(c) and Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) ask for. Whether that is enough is your judgment, and it doesn't replace client consent where Opinion 512 calls for it. This is not legal advice.
- What does it cost?
- Each tool page shows the measured cost per task at list price (the deposition digest's sample costs about 2 cents). We don't publish plans yet; ask us.
More tools
- Check the other side's briefFindings for your reply: cases the public sources don't have, changed quotations and instructions hidden for AI tools, each tied to a page and a source.Try it
- Redline from firm precedentsA Word redline with real tracked changes and a margin comment on each, using wording taken only from the firm's own precedents.Try it
- Write a due-diligence red-flag memoA red-flag memo for counsel where every flag quotes the exact words from the data room, with the document, severity and what to ask the seller.Try it
- Chart claim support in a patent specA claim chart naming the paragraphs that support each claim element, plus an issue list of missing antecedents and broken dependencies.Try it
- Check a police report against bodycamA sentence-by-sentence check of the report against the recording, with the times to cue up, plus the key events the report leaves out.Try it
- Redact a public-records releaseLabsA release PDF with the withheld text truly removed, each redaction marked with its exemption and reason, plus the index and a draft response letter.Try it
Looking for something else? Every tool, as an index.