Upload your complaint. LawSoft surfaces — line by line — which doctrinal elements are well-pled, which are weak, and which case law decides each. Every verdict is auditable down to the sentence. Every citation is verified against binding precedent. You stay the final reviewer.
LawSoft does the doctrinal grunt work and shows its evidence. Every factor decision is grounded in a verbatim sentence from your own pleading and a verifiable citation from binding precedent. The organization is the product — you stay the final reviewer.
For each cause of action you plead, LawSoft pulls every required doctrinal element from binding Arizona law and finds the sentence in your own complaint that supports it — or surfaces the gap if it doesn't exist.
Every cited rule is authenticated against the corpus of Arizona opinions before it ever reaches you. Cases that don't exist — the kind a frontier LLM happily invents — are hard-rejected before display.
Which Arizona case has facts most like yours — and how did the plaintiff fare? LawSoft ranks the strongest analogous precedents to cite, with each ranking's evidence shown explicitly.
When all three independent layers clear — elements plead, citations verified, analogous wins on record — LawSoft issues a composite badge you can take to a partner without hedging. The verdict is auditable end-to-end.
Below: a paragraph from a draft brief, where the citations were generated by a frontier LLM (Claude Sonnet 4.5 in our reduction-to-practice study). On the right: what LawSoft does to it. Hard-rejects fabricated cases, surfaces verbatim quotes from real ones, and proposes the strongest analogous-win precedents the LLM didn't find.
Defendants exercised dominion over Plaintiff's property without justification. See Markel v. Anderson, 66 Ariz. 336 (1947) (good-faith no defense). The owner has absolute right to demand return. Bud Cline Motor Co. v. Wirth, 11 Ariz. App. 206 (1970). Defendant's good-faith belief is not a defense to conversion. Avedon v. Brinkerhoff, 158 Ariz. 79 (1988). Abandonment of property requires both intent and the act of relinquishment. Grande v. Jennings, 229 Ariz. 584 (2012).
No such case exists. Hard-rejected by corpus-grounded authentication.
“in a case of conversion, neither good nor bad faith, neither care nor negligence, neither knowledge nor ignorance, are of the gist of the action.”
Wrong case name. No matching record in the AZ corpus.
AZ authority for owner-right-on-demand-from-bailee element.
No matching record in the indexed corpus. Manual review required before filing.
AZ Court of Appeals authority for abandonment element of conversion. Pasteable verbatim quote:
“Abandonment of personal property occurs when the owner intentionally relinquishes all right, title, and interest in it.”
LawSoft scans the full Arizona appellate corpus to find cases with facts most like yours where the analogous party prevailed. Each is ranked by a three-gate clearance score that runs every gate independently — no short-circuit. The gates' verdicts and the reason for each ranking are shown explicitly so you can audit the analysis instead of trusting it.
Why analogous: AZ Supreme Court conversion case where defendant exercised dominion over funds without authorization. Plaintiff prevailed under the rule that good-faith belief is not a defense.
Quote to paste: “in a case of conversion, neither good nor bad faith, neither care nor negligence, neither knowledge nor ignorance, are of the gist of the action.”
All examples above are real outputs from our reduction-to-practice study. The hallucination data comes from a 16-citation test set against Claude Sonnet 4.5 (5 demonstrably wrong, 6 unverifiable, 5 verified). Analogous-win rankings come from running the clearance pipeline against the full indexed AZ appellate corpus (71k+ opinions). See Methodology for how we validate the doctrine library isn't overfit.
The doctrine library was tuned against one anchor complaint (a commercial-tenant equipment-conversion case) but is intended to score any AZ commercial-tort complaint. We validate plasticity — that the same library produces different verdicts on different fact patterns in a way that correlates with the underlying facts, not the library's quirks — by running 17 unrelated AZ complaints through the same cfgs.
Most complaints score 1–2 of 4 (correct — they don't fit all four claim types). Banking-fraud complaints like Marsh v. Koh hit ★ on conversion, fraud, and contract. Equipment-conversion complaints like Raphael v. Papago hit ★ on all four. Zero false-positive ★ results where the library was overfit.
This isn't the product output for your complaint — it's our internal proof that the doctrine library isn't overfit to the one case it was developed against. The product is the citation audit and analogous-precedent ranking shown above.
Phase I of the LawSoft pilot is the full AZ commercial-litigation library — 28 cfgs covering nearly every claim a business-tort or contract litigator pleads at the state-court level. Phase II expands to additional practice areas (negligence / personal injury, employment, products liability, statutory consumer protection) and additional jurisdictions (CA, NY, federal court). Free during the pilot in exchange for feedback. Verification against the Arizona Bar member directory is required.
▶▼
Phase I claim coverage (28 cfgs)