AI-Powered Dispute Resolution Support — From Evidence to Settlement
Commercial disputes generate thousands of documents across emails, messaging apps, contracts, financial records, and call recordings. A junior lawyer reviewing this evidence works one channel at a time. Cross-channel contradictions go unnoticed. Key admissions buried in message #2,400 get the same attention as message #1 on a good day and none on a bad one.
We built something that solves this.
A multi-agent AI system that performs the evidence work of a 3–5 person junior legal team — from raw document ingestion through settlement negotiation support — in hours instead of weeks.
This is not a legal chatbot. It is a litigation war room that ingests every piece of evidence in your case, cross-references it across channels, finds the contradictions your opposing party doesn’t know you can prove, and produces counsel-ready analysis with source citations on every finding.
Ingests and cross-references evidence across all communication channels simultaneously — emails, WhatsApp exports, contracts, financial records, call transcripts, and court filings. The system overlays channels, finding where the same event appears in multiple sources on the same day.
Automatically identifies where Party A told Party B something different from what Party A told Party C. Maps false statements against documentary evidence to build impeachment-ready profiles with three independent sources across three channels proving one false statement.
Categorizes findings into “deploy now” for position papers and negotiation, or “hold for arbitration” for cross-examination and impeachment. Each recommendation includes strategic rationale for maximum impact timing.
Calculates damages across multiple legal theories: unpaid contractual obligations, lost revenue, circumvention and unjust enrichment, consequential damages, and exemplary/punitive damages ranges. Every figure traces back to a specific document.
Drafts, strengthens, and fact-checks legal position documents. Structured argument development across multiple causes of action, every claim verified against primary evidence sources, corrections flagged before submission.
Claim-by-claim dissection of opposing position papers and demand letters. Identifies non-denials as implicit admissions, maps topics they avoided entirely, and cross-references against held-back evidence for impeachment opportunities.
Every offer and counter-offer logged with full context. Walk-away floor always visible. Concessions tracked, response scenarios pre-built for every possible offer range. Red lines enforced — critical terms can’t slip through.
Continuous readiness audit across evidence inventory, witness preparation, legal theory development, procedural requirements, and financial cost estimates. Your counsel always knows exactly how ready you are to file.
Four phases from raw evidence to counsel-ready reporting.
Upload evidence in any format: email exports, chat logs, PDFs, spreadsheets, audio transcripts. The system indexes everything by date, parties, and topics, then builds a master timeline across all sources.
Multiple specialized agents work simultaneously: Admissions Agent scans for opposing party acknowledgments, Contradictions Agent finds mismatches across channels, Pattern Agent detects behavioral patterns, Financial Agent maps payment flows and values.
A synthesis agent cross-references all findings, ranks evidence by impact, and recommends deploy or hold strategy for each game-changing item.
Executive summary, evidence rankings, contradictions with exact quotes, chronological timeline, damages analysis, legal theory mapping, weaknesses and risks, and recommended next actions — all with source citations.
Built and battle-tested on a live multi-jurisdictional commercial dispute — not a demo environment, not a simulation, not a law school exercise.
| Task | Junior Lawyer | Litigation Intelligence Engine |
|---|---|---|
| Review thousands of messages + email threads | 40–100 hours, sequential, fatigue-prone | Single session. Cross-channel. Zero fatigue. |
| Build chronological timeline | 10–15 hours, manual spreadsheet | Automated with source citations |
| Find contradictions across parties | 15+ hours, requires vast context in memory | Instant cross-reference across all channels |
| Draft position paper | 15–30 hours, multiple revision cycles | Draft + strengthen + fact-check in one cycle |
| Analyze opposing response | 10–20 hours | Same-day with evidence mapping |
| Calculate damages | 15–20 hours with financial support | Complete with source citations |
| Research case law | 15–30 hours on Westlaw/CanLII | Multiple theories with precedents, single session |
| Track settlement negotiation | Ongoing paralegal time | Automated, every offer logged, floor enforced |
What it does better than any human: The last message in the evidence set gets the same attention as the first. No human can hold that volume in working memory simultaneously.
It makes your lawyer 10x faster. It doesn’t make your lawyer optional.
The system does NOT replace: senior counsel judgment, oral advocacy, client relationship management, witness testimony coaching, court filings, or professional responsibility obligations.
5–50 lawyers handling commercial disputes who can’t justify $30K+ annual subscriptions for enterprise AI tools but need the analytical capacity those tools promise.
Facing disputes where evidence is scattered across channels and the cost of junior associate evidence review is ballooning.
Who need structured evidence analysis and damages quantification without enterprise infrastructure.
Where commercial arbitration is growing rapidly and no specialized AI litigation tools exist. Proven in a live cross-border case with multi-jurisdictional research.
Harvey, CoCounsel, Relativity — none of them ingest WhatsApp exports alongside emails, contracts, and call transcripts in a single analysis. This is the defining capability.
Finding where Party A said one thing to Party B and the opposite to Party C, across different channels, on the same day. Sequential review misses it.
Categorizing evidence into “deploy now” vs. “hold for arbitration” is case strategy, not document processing. No other tool operates at this layer.
No $30K annual minimums. No enterprise implementation. You have a dispute — you engage the system for that dispute.
Following a Feb 2026 federal court ruling that AI prompts using public tools may not be privileged, the system supports on-premise deployment where client data never leaves your infrastructure.
For comparison: a junior associate at $200–$400/hr over the same evidence volume costs $12,000–$54,000. At a large firm ($600–$900/hr), $36,000–$100,000+.
| Mode | How It Works | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Cloud | Evidence uploaded securely; analysis runs on cloud infrastructure | Speed, convenience, non-sensitive matters |
| On-Premise | Runs entirely on your infrastructure; no data leaves your network | Privileged work product, regulatory requirements, maximum security |
| Hybrid | AI engine on cloud; sensitive evidence stays local; only anonymized queries sent externally | Balanced cost and privacy — recommended default |
We believe transparency about limitations builds more trust than overpromising.
When a case requires capabilities beyond the system, we recommend the appropriate specialist — and if needed, we operate alongside them.
Every finding includes a source citation. If the system can’t verify a claim against primary evidence, it says so. No unsourced conclusions. No hallucinated case law. No fabricated quotes.
Let’s talk about what the evidence looks like and whether the system fits.
No long-term commitment required. Per-engagement pricing available. Your data stays yours.
Get Started