Four phases. Starting with the tools that matter most to defendants facing criminal charges right now, and expanding into the infrastructure that makes this work at scale.
In development — waitlist open
Brief is the foundation. Upload your police report, charging documents, and discovery materials. Get back a case-specific analysis: what the prosecution must prove, where the evidence is weak, what motions you might file, and a plain-English explanation of every charge against you.
Following Brief launch
Stand activates in the room. It ingests everything Brief already knows about your case and adds judge-specific intelligence: how this judge handles pro se defendants, what objections they sustain or overrule, how they've ruled on suppression motions in similar cases.
During proceedings, Stand listens and surfaces the response that fits: the objection to raise, the case law to cite, the procedural point to note. Not legal advice — legal preparation, in real time.
Ongoing expansion
Stand launches with coverage of Texas courts, with particular depth on Justice of the Peace courts where First Amendment auditor cases frequently land. Phase 3 expands that database nationally — federal district courts, state circuit courts, and the justice courts that most legal tech ignores entirely.
The methodology: public court records, published opinions, transcript analysis, and verified behavioral data from actual proceedings. Not scraped summaries — structured profiles built from primary sources.
Long-term vision
The long-term goal is a civil rights infrastructure layer: tools specifically built for Section 1983 claims, First Amendment retaliation patterns, and the civil side of cases that start as criminal arrests.
This is where the First Amendment auditor community becomes particularly important to us. These are people who understand their constitutional rights, document police misconduct systematically, and often face retaliatory prosecution. The intersection of criminal defense and civil rights litigation is where our tools have the most to offer.
A note on JP courts: Most legal tech ignores Justice of the Peace courts because they produce few written opinions and are considered minor jurisdiction. We built the opposite priority. JP courts are where most first-contact criminal encounters end up — the traffic stops, the disorderly conduct charges, the arrests following public filming. The people who need the most help are disproportionately in front of judges who are not required to be attorneys in Texas. We start there.
Civil matters, family law, and landlord-tenant disputes are not on our roadmap. We are building specifically for the criminal defense and constitutional rights context. Other AI tools handle civil matters. We do one thing.
Document drafting and filing is not a near-term feature. Understanding your situation and preparing your defense is the goal. The infrastructure question of how to get filings into the court system is a different problem.
Immigration law is outside our scope. Immigration defense has its own specialist ecosystem, its own rules, and its own high-stakes context. We are not the right tool for it and we will not pretend otherwise.
Join the waitlist. Waitlist members get early access to Brief, early pricing, and input into what we build next.
Join the WaitlistSee also: Brief product details · Stand product details · About us