Table of Contents
In the past week, we’ve made a lot of great updates to our product, thanks to the help of the lawyers who kindly tested it out! We’re also really excited about the research and legal analysis quality of our agents. 👀 Without further ado, let’s start!
1. New Agents 🤖
This week, we’ve introduced 3 new agents to help you with your cases.
You can find “Redline” and “Translator” under Workers, and “Bluebook” under Checkers in our Agents tab. Add them now and test their capabilities yourself!
Redline: Compares two document versions. Summarizes material changes, flags risk, and suggests next steps.
Translator: Translates text, clauses, emails, and uploaded or retrieved documents from one language to another while preserving legal meaning, tone, and formatting (headings, paragraphs, bullets, numbering, clause structure).
Bluebook: Citation checker. Verifies that legal citations gathered by the Researcher Agent actually exist, using Free Law Project’s database. Flags any citation that does not resolve to a real opinion.
2. UI Changes 🖥️
We wanted our platform to feel a little more responsive, so we made a few detailed changes.
Our new processing animation!
3. New Integrations 🛠️
We’ve made it possible for you to integrate your Dropbox, box, or Calendly, so that our agents can work within your firm’s files and also create changes in your scheduling platform!
Here are all the integrations we’ve made available or will be added in the future.
Let us know what other platforms you want us to integrate, and we’ll get on top of it!
4. Firm-Wide Encryption 🔐
We’re always looking for ways to improve our security, so that you feel safe. With our current security measures, there is no way for us to see or access any of your data (integrated platforms, prompts, deliverables, finished tasks). For further details, you can read our blog below:
5. Case Study: Are We Comparable to WestLaw? ⚖️
One of our lawyers excitedly told us that she tested our agents’ research capabilities head-to-head with a colleague who uses WestLaw, and the results were comparable. Both models found exact same sources!
This is extremely exciting news for us. WestLaw is a reputable online legal research platform and proprietary database, used by attorneys across small law, mid-size firms, and big law. Subscriptions can cost up to $400+ a month. Meanwhile, our platform offers not only research capabilities, but also administrative capabilities—and we’re looking to charge a lot less for all of these tools.
So how well do our agents perform when it comes to research right now?
We’ve put this to the test ourselves. Using a prompt Abigail dug up from a Reddit thread on r/legaltech (link here). 2 attorneys were discussing whether Chat GPT was a good legal researcher. The skeptical one told the other to test this prompt with Chat GPT:
Identify the controlling precedent for the "fiduciary exception" to attorney-client privilege in a shareholder derivative suit specifically within the Ninth Circuit, and, this is the catch, confirm if the primary case it finds has been narrowed or negatively treated by subsequent en banc rulings in the last 24 months.
We submitted this prompt on Compact, and it yielded a similar output the other lawyer received from Chat GPT 5.4 Pro ($200 per month). While it took Chat GPT 26 minutes to put its output together, it took Compact 5 minutes and 26 seconds.
The link to our full deliverable can be accessed here.
Quick summary output generated by our AI agents on Compact.
But the problem with both Compact and Chat GPT’s output, as the skeptical lawyer pointed out, was that “The Ninth Circuit has no controlling precedent adopting the fiduciary exception in a shareholder-derivative suit.”
Both models failed to look for negative space in the law (the absence of a ruling) and could not validate whether a case declined to rule vs established a rule. Instead, both of them hallucinated a rule of law.
So what we decided to do next was to test out how well Compact can revise research deliverables, based on feedback and critique. So we copied and pasted the skeptical lawyer’s remarks, sent a follow-up to Compact, and the results were astonishing.
Summary of improvements and revisions made by Compact.
Our model produced a sophisticated piece of legal analysis, within 13 minutes and 34 seconds. And it even produced a flow chart, all on its own! To see the entire revised deliverable in full, click here. To access the formal, professionally formatted Word Document, click here.
Executive summary of the revised deliverable.
Flow chart, visualizing how district courts navigate this doctrinal gap.
We’re extremely proud to see that the architecture we’ve built and the ways we have set up our AI Agents have produced such great results. Of course, there are clearly gaps—as we have seen through this exercise—but we are excited about what we’ve accomplished so far!
6. We’re Still Looking for Beta Testers! 🚀
If you have 15 minutes to spare, we would love for you to try out the latest version of Compact. Any feedback is important to us! We want to offer small law attorneys a working product as soon as we can.
If you’re interested, please contact Abigail at [email protected]!
Thank you for reading till the end! We’re extremely grateful for your time.
If you would like to chat with us or have any additional comments and thoughts, please email Abigail at [email protected] or contact her through her LinkedIn.
We hope to see you again! ❤️