Research Agent
AI-powered legal research that breaks questions into tasks, verifies each independently, and traces every claim to a source. Not a chatbot — a system that checks its own work.
In practice: Find the case law, the statute, the procedural rule — with citations you can actually verify.
What problem it solves
Procedural and legal research burns hours when you are already under pressure. The Research Agent is designed as a pipeline: decompose the question, retrieve sources, verify claims against text, and surface uncertainty. It is not a substitute for counsel; it is a way to compress research time while keeping every assertion tied to a source you can check.
Who it is for
Self-represented litigants and advocates who need structured research with traceable citations—not a single unvetted paragraph.
What you need before starting
- A specific legal or procedural question (not general life advice).
- Jurisdiction and court level when relevant.
- Patience to verify citations; this is a research aid, not authority.
Step-by-step (condensed)
This listing uses a shorter checklist. A full six-part guide (needs, uploads, automation, review, outputs, when to stop) ships first on the three “available” launch tools.
- 1
Write your question in plain English in one short paragraph.
- 2
Run the research job and wait for the structured response.
- 3
Click through to every cited source and confirm it says what the summary claims.
- 4
Flag anything that looks wrong and re-run with a narrower sub-question if needed.
- 5
Stop and involve counsel before filing anything that could prejudice your case.
Deployment and how it runs
Technical sequence (for operators)
- 01Ask a clear procedural question (court, jurisdiction, and relief sought help narrow results).
- 02Review the task list the agent produces before it runs deeper retrieval.
- 03Open citations in the original sources; treat the output as a draft for you and your lawyer to validate.
- 04Export a research memo with linked sources for your filing or your attorney.
Example outputs and proof
- A sectioned memo with headings: question, holdings, statutes, rules, open issues.
- A table of citations with source URLs or reporter cites.
- A short list of conflicts or gaps where sources disagree or are silent.
Sample excerpt (illustrative, not from a live case)
Research memo (illustrative excerpt — not from a live case) ===================================================== Question: What notice is required before a contempt hearing in [state] family court? Holdings (verify in full text): - [Citation] — describes minimum notice period … Statutes / rules cited: - [Rule cite] — local rule on motion timing … Open issues: conflicting intermediate cases; confirm with counsel before filing.
Visual proof
No wireframe or screenshot is attached to this listing yet—honest gap, not a hidden demo.
Limitations and safety boundaries
- Not legal advice; not a substitute for licensed representation where you need it.
- Model and retrieval errors can occur—human review is mandatory before court use.
- Rate and depth limits may apply on the public path; heavier use may require verified access.
- Product screenshots and a full end-to-end demo: launch blocker—not yet published.
Public vs verified vs compute-limited
In development. Uses AI or heavy compute; the public path may be rate-limited or partial. Verified access may offer higher limits when ready. Nora's Law is a platform and framework—not legislation. These are software tools, not votes or statutes.
Public tools stay public first. Join is for trust, heavier workflows, and collaboration—not a substitute for counsel.
Public tools require public support. Fund Public Access →