Practice areas
The examples below are illustrative of the kinds of questions the platform is built to handle. They are not a closed list, and they do not represent the full range of work the platform handles. They are written the way a practitioner actually asks them.
Important. Output from the platform must be independently reviewed and supervised by an attorney licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. See the disclaimers for the full notice.
Appellate
Doctrinal questions on the kind of issues the platform was built for. Each links to a dedicated landing page with the full question, framing, and treatment notes.
-
Cert petitions
Preservation and the cert petition stage
-
Patent & special verdicts
Special verdicts and partial reversal
-
Administrative law
Administrative law across the circuits
-
State procedure
State procedural law and the law-of-the-case doctrine
-
Qualified immunity (§ 1983)
Qualified immunity at the appellate stage
-
Federal habeas
Habeas and state-court deference
-
Statutory interpretation
Statutory interpretation and competing canons
-
Sentencing on appeal
Sentencing on appeal
-
Class certification
Class certification on Rule 23(f) review
High-stakes regulatory questions
Cross-cutting regulatory questions where the governing rule is unsettled, the agencies overlap, or the doctrine has not caught up to the technology. Examples below are illustrative, not a closed list.
HIPAA business associate liability for AI vendors processing data the covered entity claims is de-identified.
BIPA private-right-of-action exposure for biometric data processed through foreign-hosted models, including extraterritoriality and standing.
FERC jurisdiction over behind-the-meter compute facilities co-located with generation, and the line between retail and wholesale sale.
NEPA scope-of-review obligations for federal approvals tied to large data centers, including indirect water and grid impacts.
OFAC secondary sanctions exposure when smart contracts autonomously route value through designated addresses.
Tax questions where the Code-and-reg pairing matters
Tax questions where the operative answer requires a Code section paired with its Treasury regulations and the relevant sub-regulatory guidance. Examples below are illustrative, not a closed list.
Section 1031 treatment of crypto-to-NFT exchanges after TCJA's narrowing to real property, and whether any safe harbor or pre-2018 authority survives.
Section 199A QBI deduction availability for businesses whose principal product is AI-generated, including the SSTB analysis.
Foreign tax credit creditability under section 901 for digital services taxes characterized as gross-basis levies.
Section 162 vs. 263 treatment of model training costs and the interaction with section 174 capitalization post-TCJA.
Partnership vs. association classification under the check-the-box regs for DAOs with on-chain governance.
Corporate, securities, and transactional
Examples below are illustrative of the kinds of corporate, securities, and transactional questions the platform handles.
Rule 10b-5 liability for materially misleading disclosures about AI capability, training data, or model performance metrics.
Fiduciary-duty analysis when a target's diligence reveals undisclosed model bias or training-data provenance issues mid-deal.
AI-generated work product under Bankruptcy Code §§ 365 and 541 whether it qualifies as an executory contract or property of the estate.
DGCL § 141 delegation limits when boards rely on AI tools for material determinations.
Employment and labor
Examples below are illustrative of the kinds of employment and labor questions the platform handles.
Disparate impact under Title VII for AI-driven hiring tools, and the burden-shifting framework's interaction with the EEOC's recent guidance.
ABC-test reclassification risk where gig-platform algorithms exercise functional control comparable to direct supervision.
Reasonable accommodation under the ADA for conditions surfaced by workplace monitoring software the employee did not consent to.
Cross-border and procedural
Examples below are illustrative of the kinds of cross-border and procedural questions the platform handles.
Extraterritorial reach of GDPR and state privacy statutes over US-based foundation model training, and the conflict-of-laws posture in private litigation.
Rule 23(b)(3) predominance where AI personalization produces individualized exposure across the putative class.
Forum non conveniens analysis for foreign-plaintiff AI-harm claims against US model developers.
The common thread
What ties these together is that none of them resolve cleanly with a single search. Each requires a calibrated set of queries, parallel runs across primary-source databases, frequency-weighted ranking of authorities, per-case analysis, and a paired statutory and regulatory pull. That is the kind of work this agent is designed for.