Active Matters
24
8 practice areas
Docs Reviewed Today
147
By AI agents
Urgent Deadlines
3
Within 48 hours
Billable Captured
$12.4K
AI time capture today
π€ AI Agent Status
Real-time health across all 12 legal AI agents
Contract Review AgentRunning Β· 34 docs
Legal Research AgentRunning Β· 3 queries
Risk Intelligence AgentProcessing Β· 5 flags
Drafting AgentRunning Β· 2 drafts
eDiscovery AgentIndexing Β· 4,821 docs
Deadline Engine3 urgent Β· monitoring
π‘ Live Activity Feed
Real-time agent actions across all matters
Critical Matters β Action Required Today
MATTER-2024-0847
URGENTMeridian Corp v. Apex Holdings
β AI flagged: 3 missing exhibits in complaint draft
MATTER-2024-0912
IN REVIEWTechstack Inc. β Series B Term Sheet
AI: 7 non-standard clauses + missing IP assignment
MATTER-2024-0934
DISCOVERYHargrove Estate β Probate Dispute
eDiscovery AI: 14 potentially privileged docs flagged
Why LegalOS
π Document Overload
A senior partner spends 60% of billable time on document review, research, and drafting. LegalOS automates the first pass β AI reviews, flags, and drafts; lawyers decide.
β° Deadline Risk
Courts have no mercy for missed deadlines. The Deadline Engine tracks every statute of limitations, court date, and contractual notice period β and proactively warns at 30/7/1 day.
π Research Cost
Legal research at $400β$800/hr is the largest write-off. The Research Agent searches case law, statutes, and regulations β cited, traceable, in under 60 seconds.
Active
24
Urgent
3
In Review
8
Discovery
4
Closed YTD
67
All Active Matters
MATTER-2024-0847
URGENTMeridian Corp v. Apex Holdings
MATTER-2024-0912
IN REVIEWTechstack Inc. β Series B Term Sheet
MATTER-2024-0934
DISCOVERYHargrove Estate β Probate Dispute
MATTER-2024-0891
ACTIVEGreenfield LLC β Commercial Lease
MATTER-2024-0958
DRAFTINGNovaTech IP β Patent Assignment
MATTER-2024-0902
IN REVIEWDataCorp β GDPR Compliance Audit
MATTER-2024-0877
ACTIVERiverside Hospital β Employment Dispute
MATTER-2024-0821
CLOSEDBlueSky Ventures β Seed Round Docs
Matter Detail β MATTER-2024-0847
Meridian Corp v. Apex Holdings
Commercial Litigation Β· Filed: Oct 14, 2024
Attorney
J. Davies, Esq.
Next Deadline
Tomorrow 9:00 AM
Stage
Pre-Trial Filing
Claim Value
$2.8M
β AI Flags β 3 Critical
1. Exhibit B referenced in para. 14 β not attached
2. SOL tolling agreement date β verify before filing
3. Defendant address in caption differs from service record
2. SOL tolling agreement date β verify before filing
3. Defendant address in caption differs from service record
Total Agents
12
Tasks Today
847
Hours Saved
34h
Accuracy
97.2%
Contract & Document Agents
Contract Review Agent
Reads contracts, flags non-standard clauses, missing provisions, risk terms, and inconsistencies. Reflection loop ensures clause-level accuracy before attorney sees it.
Running Β· 34 contracts
Reflection + RAGDrafting Agent
Generates first-draft contracts, letters, motions, and pleadings from firm templates with matter-specific context. All drafts held for attorney review before delivery.
Processing Β· 2 drafts
Planning + TemplateseDiscovery Agent
Bulk document ingestion, privilege review, relevance scoring, deduplication, and timeline reconstruction across thousands of documents at once.
Running Β· 4,821 docs
Multi-AgentResearch & Intelligence Agents
Legal Research Agent
Searches case law, statutes, regulations, and secondary sources. Returns cited, traceable answers in under 60 seconds. RAG on 4.2M-document corpus.
Running Β· 3 queries
ReAct + RAGRisk Intelligence Agent
Analyses contracts for high-risk clauses, conflicting obligations, SOL exposure, and regulatory gaps across all active matters. Reflection for quality.
Processing Β· 5 flags
ReflectionRegulatory Watch Agent
Monitors new legislation, court decisions, and regulatory guidance relevant to active matters. Alerts attorney if client exposure changes due to new law.
Running Β· 12 feeds
ReAct + Live RAGOperations Agents
Deadline Engine
Calculates statutes of limitations (with tolling), court deadlines, notice periods, and contractual dates. Multi-stage warnings at 30/7/1 day.
Running Β· 3 urgent
Sequential + CalendarTime Capture Agent
Analyses work product and communications to auto-suggest billable entries. Reflection loop ensures accurate task descriptions. $12.4K captured today.
Running Β· $12.4K
ReflectionConflicts Check Agent
Scans every new matter against all current and former clients. Flags direct conflicts, positional conflicts, and related-party exposure before engagement.
Running Β· 0 conflicts
Sequential + KBCourt Filing Agent
Formats documents per court rules, generates cover sheets, checks pagination and exhibit references. Awaiting matter-0847 complaint completion.
Idle Β· awaiting docs
PlanningClient Comms Agent
Drafts client status updates from matter data. Human review required before every send. Rule 1.4 compliance enforced as code β never sends autonomously.
Running Β· 4 queued
Reflection + HumanPrivilege Review Agent
Identifies attorney-client privileged and work product documents during discovery. Logs decisions with reasoning for automated privilege log generation.
Running Β· 14 flagged
Reflection + RAGDocs Today
34
High-Risk Clauses
12
Non-Standard
31
Review Time Saved
18h
π Clause Analysis β Techstack Series B Term Sheet
AI clause-by-clause review with risk rating and recommended action
| Clause | Status | AI Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Β§3.1 Liquidation Preference | HIGH RISK | 2Γ participating preferred β non-standard for Series B. Recommend negotiating to 1Γ non-participating. |
| Β§4.2 Anti-Dilution | HIGH RISK | Broad-based weighted average acceptable, but carve-outs missing for option pool. Flag to client. |
| Β§5.4 Drag-Along Rights | REVIEW | Threshold at 60% β below market (75%). Consider requesting higher threshold for founder protection. |
| Β§6.1 Board Composition | REVIEW | Investor gets 2 of 5 seats immediately β verify alignment with existing governance documents. |
| Β§7.3 Right of First Refusal | STANDARD | Pro-rata ROFR on transfer β standard market terms. No action required. |
| Β§9.4 Exclusivity Period | HIGH RISK | 90-day exclusivity with $500K break fee β unusually long. Recommend 45 days maximum. |
| Β§12.0 IP Assignment | MISSING | No IP assignment clause found β critical gap. Must be added before execution. |
π Risk Summary
Aggregate risk profile β Techstack term sheet
High Risk Clauses3 found
Review Required2 items
Standard Acceptable2 clauses
Missing / Critical Gap1 item
β Do Not Execute Without Resolving
Missing IP Assignment (Β§12.0) is a critical gap. All IP created by founders must be formally assigned to the company as a condition of the investment.
READ β 47 pages ingested Β· 12,847 tokens
EXTRACT β 32 clauses identified and tagged
RAG β Market standard corpus queried
COMPARE β Each clause vs. firm template library
FLAG β 3 high-risk Β· 2 review Β· 1 missing
REFLECT β Critique pass: all flags verified
DONE β Report ready Β· 4m 12s Β· $0.018
EXTRACT β 32 clauses identified and tagged
RAG β Market standard corpus queried
COMPARE β Each clause vs. firm template library
FLAG β 3 high-risk Β· 2 review Β· 1 missing
REFLECT β Critique pass: all flags verified
DONE β Report ready Β· 4m 12s Β· $0.018
Drafts Today
14
Accepted Unchanged
62%
Avg Draft Time
47s
Template Library
284
βοΈ Drafts Awaiting Review
AI-generated β attorney review required before any use
Motion to Compel Discovery β Matter-0847
REVIEWLitigation Β· 14 pages Β· MATTER-2024-0847
Patent Assignment β NovaTech IP
DRAFTINGIP Β· 8 pages Β· MATTER-2024-0958
Client Status Letter β Hargrove Estate
REVIEWProbate Β· 3 pages Β· MATTER-2024-0934
New Draft Request
π€ AI Drafting Process
Planning + Reflection pattern β human review always required
PLAN β 4 sections: intro + standard + argument + prayer
RAG β 3 SDNY precedents retrieved
LOAD β Template: firm-motion-to-compel-v4
DRAFT β All 4 sections generated
REFLECT β Critique: hallucinated citation removed
REFLECT β Critique: exhibit reference corrected
GUARD β No PII Β· citations verified good law
READY β Draft queued for attorney review Β· 47s
RAG β 3 SDNY precedents retrieved
LOAD β Template: firm-motion-to-compel-v4
DRAFT β All 4 sections generated
REFLECT β Critique: hallucinated citation removed
REFLECT β Critique: exhibit reference corrected
GUARD β No PII Β· citations verified good law
READY β Draft queued for attorney review Β· 47s
β Human-in-the-Loop β Always
Every AI-generated draft requires attorney review before it leaves the firm. LegalOS never sends documents to courts, clients, or counterparties without explicit attorney approval. This is governance-as-code.
Queries Today
47
Avg Response
52s
Citations Generated
284
Corpus Size
4.2M
π¬ Research Results β Matter 0847
Query: "Standard for motion to compel in SDNY commercial litigation"
π Case Law94% relevant
Compania del Bajo Caroni v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 556 F. Supp. 2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
Court held that a party moving to compel must show: (1) the opposing party failed to respond adequately to discovery requests; (2) the material sought is relevant; and (3) the motion was preceded by good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute.
β Cited in 847 cases Β· Last cited 2024
π FRCP Rule98% relevant
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) β Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery
A party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in responding to a request.
β Primary authority β federal rule
π Local Rule91% relevant
S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 37.2 β Mode of Raising Discovery Disputes
No motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 shall be made without prior compliance with this rule. Counsel for the moving party shall confer in good faith to resolve the dispute, and if unable to do so, shall request a pre-motion conference.
β SDNY-specific Β· Pre-motion conference required
π° Practice Guide88% relevant
Moore's Federal Practice Β§ 37.22 β Grounds for Granting Motion to Compel
Courts in the SDNY consistently require that the moving party demonstrate proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1). Analysis weighs importance of issues, amount in controversy, and burden on the responding party.
β Secondary authority Β· Persuasive
π Research Query
Cited answers in under 60 seconds β all sources verified good law
How the Research Agent Works
1. Query expansion β Reformulates with legal terms of art
2. Hybrid retrieval β BM25 + dense vector on 4.2M docs
3. Relevance ranking β Re-ranks by jurisdiction, recency, authority
4. Citation verification β Confirms cases are good law via Westlaw
5. Synthesis β Summarizes legal standard with full citations
2. Hybrid retrieval β BM25 + dense vector on 4.2M docs
3. Relevance ranking β Re-ranks by jurisdiction, recency, authority
4. Citation verification β Confirms cases are good law via Westlaw
5. Synthesis β Summarizes legal standard with full citations
Critical
2
High
5
Medium
11
Mitigated
34
Active Risk Flags β Across All Matters
π΄ SOL Expiry β Meridian Corp v. Apex Holdings
CRITICALStatute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claim expires in 34 days. Complaint not yet filed. Three exhibits missing from current draft. If filing is delayed beyond May 22, 2026, the fiduciary duty claim is time-barred. Estimated claim value at risk: $1.2M.
π΄ Missing IP Assignment β Techstack Series B
CRITICALTerm sheet executes in 7 days. No IP assignment clause in document. All IP created by founders must be assigned to the company as a condition of investment. Investor counsel will catch this β better to raise proactively.
π‘ GDPR Retention Policy Gap β DataCorp
HIGHDataCorp's retention policy does not address GDPR Articles 5(1)(e) and 17 (right to erasure). No automated deletion mechanism for customer data beyond the lawful processing period. Max fine: 4% of global annual turnover.
π‘ Privilege Log Incomplete β Hargrove Discovery
HIGHeDiscovery AI flagged 14 privileged documents; privilege log generated for only 9. Opposing counsel deficiency notice served. Remaining 5 must be logged within 10 days or privilege may be waived.
Total Docs
4,821
Relevant
1,247
Privileged
14
Duplicates Removed
892
π Document Corpus β Hargrove Estate
AI-classified document inventory
Email Correspondence (2019β2024)
REVIEWED2,841 items Β· Auto-classified
Estate Planning Documents
REVIEWED147 items Β· Highly relevant
Financial Records & Bank Statements
REVIEWED384 items Β· Partially relevant
Attorney-Client Communications
PRIVILEGED89 items Β· Privilege flagged
Medical Records β Testamentary Capacity
REVIEWING112 items Β· Key evidence
Text Messages & Voicemails
PROCESSING1,163 items Β· Culling in progress
π Privilege Review Queue β 14 flagged
Attorney determination required for each item
HAR-0847-EMAIL-0234NOT LOGGED
Email from J. Hargrove to counsel re: estate restructuring. Legal advice. AI confidence: 0.94.
HAR-0847-EMAIL-0891NOT LOGGED
Draft trust agreement with attorney track-changes. Work product. AI confidence: 0.97.
HAR-0847-DOC-1124NEEDS REVIEW
Letter to financial advisor cc'd to counsel. Primary purpose test unclear. AI confidence: 0.61 β attorney required.
HAR-0847-EMAIL-1456LOGGED
Attorney memo re: will contest strategy. Privilege confirmed. Logged as entry #9.
Due < 48 hrs
3
Due This Week
8
Due This Month
24
Auto-Calendared
847
Critical β Due Within 48 Hours
Tomorrow
9:00 AM
9:00 AM
Complaint Filing β Meridian Corp v. Apex Holdings
Today
5:00 PM
5:00 PM
Privilege Log Supplementation β Hargrove Estate
May 21
EOD
EOD
Techstack Term Sheet Counter-Proposal
This Week
May 22
SOL Expiry β Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim
May 23
NovaTech IP Assignment β Execution
May 24
DataCorp GDPR Audit Report β Client Deliverable
β° Deadline Engine β How It Works
AI-powered automatic deadline calculation and tracking
1
Matter Intake
Automatic deadline extraction
When a new matter is opened, the Deadline Engine reads the engagement letter, relevant statutes, court rules, and contract terms to automatically populate all critical dates.
2
Calculation
SOL + court rules + contracts
Computes statutes of limitations with tolling, FRCP timelines, local court rules, and contractual notice periods. Cross-references jurisdiction-specific rules.
3
Proactive Warnings
30-day Β· 7-day Β· 1-day Β· 0-day
Multi-stage warning system with escalating urgency. 30 days: email. 7 days: Slack + email. 48 hours: push + partner alert. 24 hours: partner called directly.
4
Guardrail
Cannot be dismissed without reason
Deadline alerts require a logged reason to dismiss. If a deadline is missed, the system logs the event, notifies the supervising partner, and creates a malpractice risk entry automatically.
Billable Today
$12.4K
AI-captured entries
Realization Rate
94%
vs 78% industry avg
Uncaptured (AI flag)
2.1h
Awaiting approval
Monthly WIP
$284K
Work in progress
π° Today's Billable Entries β AI-Captured
Suggested from work product analysis Β· attorney approval required to post
Contract review β Techstack term sheet (AI + attorney)2.5h$1,250
Legal research β SDNY motion to compel standards0.2h$100
Drafting β Motion to Compel (AI draft + review + revision)1.8h$900
Privilege review β Hargrove eDiscovery batch1.1h$550
Client call β Techstack Series B negotiation strategy0.8h$400
Risk analysis β Meridian SOL calculation and review0.5h$250
GDPR compliance research β DataCorp audit prep0.3h$150
J. Davies Total (today)7.2h$3,600
β 2.1 hours uncaptured β AI flagged
Email correspondence re: Hargrove estate strategy + DataCorp client update review detected but not yet logged. Approve to add $1,050 to today's entries.
π Matter Profitability β This Month
Revenue, hours, and completion by matter
Techstack M&A (flat fee $24K)82% complete
Meridian Litigation (contingency)$8.4K WIP
Hargrove Probate ($450/hr)$12.1K WIP
DataCorp GDPR (fixed $18K)67% complete
NovaTech IP ($400/hr)$3.2K WIP
The Uncaptured Time Problem
ABA Law Practice Survey 2025
The average attorney fails to capture 2.8 hours of billable time per day due to poor contemporaneous recording. At $500/hr that is $350,000/year per attorney in lost revenue. LegalOS captures it automatically from work product.
Compliance Score
94%
Firm-wide
Open Issues
3
Requires resolution
Rules Monitored
847
ABA, state bar, court
Conflicts Cleared
12
New matters this month
π‘ Active Compliance Rules β Real-time Monitoring
ABA Model Rules, state bar rules, FRCP, local court rules
πConflicts of interest β every new matter intakeACTIVE Β· 0 issues
β°SOL and deadline monitoring (Rule 1.3)ACTIVE Β· 3 alerts
π°Trust account compliance β IOLTAACTIVE Β· compliant
πEngagement letter on file β all mattersACTIVE Β· all clear
πClient confidentiality β data handling (Rule 1.6)ACTIVE Β· encrypted
πCLE requirements β all attorneys1 attorney due in 30 days
π€Communication with clients (Rule 1.4)ACTIVE Β· 4 updates queued
πGDPR / data privacy obligationsDataCorp audit open
π Conflicts Check β New Matter Intake
Runs automatically on every new engagement before acceptance
SEARCH β Prospective client: Riverside Dynamics Inc.
CHECK β Current clients: 0 direct matches
CHECK β Former clients (3yr): 0 matches
CHECK β Related parties: scanning officers...
FOUND β CFO John Marsh β former client (2021)
ASSESS β Positional conflict: low risk
ASSESS β Matter unrelated to prior engagement
RESULT β β No disqualifying conflict found
LOG β Search logged to conflict file Β· timestamped
CHECK β Current clients: 0 direct matches
CHECK β Former clients (3yr): 0 matches
CHECK β Related parties: scanning officers...
FOUND β CFO John Marsh β former client (2021)
ASSESS β Positional conflict: low risk
ASSESS β Matter unrelated to prior engagement
RESULT β β No disqualifying conflict found
LOG β Search logged to conflict file Β· timestamped
Ethical Screen Enforcement: When a conflict or screen is in place, LegalOS automatically restricts document access, billing visibility, and communication routing. Screens are version-controlled and auditable. Cannot be removed without supervising partner approval.
Active Clients
47
Satisfaction
4.8/5
Updates Pending
4
Awaiting attorney review
Avg Response Time
2.1h
AI-assisted drafts
π§ Client Communications Queue
AI-drafted β attorney approval required before every send (Rule 1.4)
Techstack Inc. β Weekly M&A Status Update
REVIEWS. Patel, Esq. Β· MATTER-2024-0912 Β· Ready to send
Hargrove Family β Discovery Progress Update
REVIEWM. Chen, Esq. Β· MATTER-2024-0934 Β· Ready to send
Meridian Corp β Filing Preparation Urgent Update
URGENTJ. Davies, Esq. Β· MATTER-2024-0847 Β· URGENT
DataCorp β GDPR Audit Interim Report
REVIEWS. Patel, Esq. Β· MATTER-2024-0902 Β· Ready to send
Rule 1.4 Compliance: The Client Comms Agent ensures regular communication with all active clients. Every AI-drafted update is held for attorney review β LegalOS never sends client communications autonomously. Model Rule 1.4 is enforced as code.
π Secure Client Portal β What Clients See
Real-time matter transparency without calling the firm
π Document Vault
Executed documents, invoices, filed papers, correspondence β all in one encrypted portal. No email attachments.
π Matter Status Dashboard
Real-time matter stage, upcoming deadlines, and budget vs. actuals β visible to client 24/7 without calling the firm.
π¬ Encrypted Messaging
Attorney-client privilege preserved. No metadata leakage via commercial email. All messages logged to matter file.
π° Invoice & Payment
Itemised billing with AI-generated plain-English descriptions. One-click payment. Average collection: 8 days vs 47-day industry average.
π€ AI Assistant (read-only)
Client can ask questions about their matter. AI answers only from matter data. Attorney-supervised. Cannot advise, only inform.
Agents Active
12
All legal agents live
LLM Calls / hr
284
Guardrail Events
7
1 escalated
Faithfulness (RAGAS)
0.97
Legal corpus accuracy
π‘ Live Agent Trace
Real-time calls, tokens, guardrail events across all 12 agents
π° Token Cost vs Billable Captured (today)
ROI of AI across all 12 legal agents
Contract Review Agent48.2K tok$0.038
eDiscovery Agent124K tok$0.089
Legal Research Agent31.4K tok$0.024
Drafting Agent22.1K tok$0.017
All other agents (8)42.7K tok$0.032
Total AI cost (today)268K tok$0.20
AI cost today: $0.20 β Billable captured: $12,400
Return on AI spend: 62,000Γ
Return on AI spend: 62,000Γ
π‘ Legal Guardrail Events (today)
Every AI output validated before attorney sees it
β
Citation verification β Research Agent
3 case citations verified as good law via Westlaw API before output. 0 overruled cases surfaced today.
π«
Hallucination blocked β Drafting Agent
Draft included fabricated case citation. NLI score 0.68 β below 0.85 threshold. Reflection loop removed it and inserted correct authority.
π
PII scrubbing β Client Comms Agent
SSN detected in draft client letter. Auto-redacted before attorney review. Flagged for data handling audit.
π€
Human escalation β Privilege Review
AI confidence 0.61 on primary purpose test β below 0.70 threshold. Routed to attorney. Resolved in 4 minutes.
π RAGAS Quality Scores β Legal Corpus
Why accuracy is non-negotiable in legal AI
Faithfulness0.97
Answer Relevancy0.94
Context Precision0.91
Citation Accuracy0.99
Clause Risk Score0.93
Why this matters: A hallucinated case citation in a court filing is attorney misconduct under Model Rule 3.3 (candour to the tribunal). A missed clause in a $42M term sheet is malpractice. Every LegalOS output passes citation verification and NLI faithfulness checks before reaching an attorney.