Write it yourself
You keep it accurate. Then a case runs long, the post slips, and the blog quietly stops.
EARLY ACCESS FOR SOLO & SMALL FIRMS
Law firm blog posts, written from real court decisions.
Sources attached. Review flags before you publish. Drafts in minutes, edited and published under your name.
$1 refundable reservation. Your key unlocks the live demo.
PUBLIC RECORDSREVIEWED BY YOUNO DATA RETENTION
Source-grounded previews from public decisions. Verified run records replace these previews before launch.
SOURCE-GROUNDED PREVIEW
Why discipline cases turn on the record, not the headline
California Highway Patrol dismissed an officer after an overtime investigation. The State Personnel Board reduced the penalty to a suspension, and the court left that decision in place. The dispute was not over whether the officer had made mistakes. It was about what the record showed about policy, notice, and the right penalty.
The usable takeaway is narrow: in a discipline case, the written record and the agency's findings matter as much as the accusation that starts the case.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
SOURCE-GROUNDED PREVIEW
When a manager's work is exempt, and when it is not
A former Safeway assistant manager sought overtime pay and argued that the jury had been given the wrong instructions about exempt work. The court clarified that a task does not become exempt just because it helps a store run smoothly. The instruction still did not require reversal in this case.
For employers and workers, job titles are only the start. The actual work, the instructions, and the reason the work was done all belong in the analysis.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
SOURCE-GROUNDED PREVIEW
What a resentencing appeal can and cannot reopen
In People v. McAlister, the court considered what happens when a resentencing statute removes a prior-prison-term enhancement. It rejected the argument that the court also had to revisit an upper-term sentence that had been imposed in the original case.
The decision is a reminder that resentencing statutes can be narrow. What the court may reconsider depends on the text of the specific statute and the procedural history of the sentence.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The report is there to catch the sentence you would not want a client to catch first.
Try the live demo with your own case · Compare a general-purpose draft with Precedent
THE CONTENT PROBLEM
Every option has a catch.
Use ChatGPT
It gives you a clean outline, then invents a citation. You cannot publish invented authority on your firm's site.
Hire an agency
$1,500 to $3,000 a month for content and SEO, with a lot of firms still unsure what they are getting back.
THE WORKFLOW
Less blank page. More source material.
Casework handles the first pass. You keep the professional judgment, the edits, and the byline.
Name the decision
Pick a practice area, or paste the decision you're actually writing about. The draft starts from your case.
Pull the record
We find recent public decisions and attach the source. Real cases, not a model's memory.
Draft from the record
One plain-English draft, built only from the decision, with the source attached. You edit. You publish.
Review the flags
Facts, readability, AI tells, and a disclaimer are called out before you publish.
You edit.You publish.Your name on the byline.
What disappears
Finding a recent decision (15-30 min), reading it (30-60 min), verifying every citation (30-60 min). The part nobody can skip, and nobody has time for.
What stays
Your edits, your voice, your byline. About 40 minutes per post instead of two and a half hours.
BUILT FOR THE PART THAT NEEDS TRUST
The useful details are the guardrails.
Real decisions
Every post starts from a public court record, with the source attached for you to verify.
No data retention
Nothing you paste is stored. Your firm's documents are not used to train a shared model.
Ethics scaffolding
A case-summary structure and standard disclaimer are built in. You decide what crosses the line.
Explainable review
Each draft gets a report on facts, readability, and AI tells, with the reason next to the sentence.
A REAL OUTPUT, NOT A MOCKUP
One decision. One useful angle. A report you can argue with.
The previews use California public decisions. Before launch, each preview will be replaced with its retained generation record, source link, five-axis report, and review flags.
Get early accessSource first
The case name and date stay visible beside the draft.
Flag before publish
The report calls out broad claims instead of quietly smoothing them over.
Human review stays in the loop
The tool gives you a draft. It does not give legal advice.
EARLY ACCESS
Reserve early access. Unlock the live demo.
A $1 refundable reservation gives you an early-access key for the live demo. Precedent will be $29/month after launch.
For context: solo firms routinely spend $2,500+ a month on marketing. $29 is about 1% of that, for the one task nobody has time for.
Try the drafts and the quality reports yourself before deciding about a subscription.
$1 refundable anytime. No subscription commitment.
Reserve early access for $1
After reservation, use the early-access key from your receipt email to unlock the live demo. No demo calls or sales team.
FAQ
Questions worth asking before you pay.
Is this legal advice?
No. These are writing drafts only. A licensed lawyer reviews everything before publishing. We are a writing tool, not a law firm.
Will the posts sound like AI?
Every draft gets an AI-tells report. If a sentence reads like a press release, it is flagged for you to revise before it reaches your site.
Which states and practice areas are supported?
We start with one state and the most common practice areas, then expand based on early-user demand.
How is this different from ChatGPT?
ChatGPT can make up citations. Casework only drafts from decisions it actually pulled, with the source attached so you can compare and verify.
If I generate a post, who owns it?
You do. We do not claim rights to what you edit and publish.
Can I delete my account and generated material?
Yes. We do not retain your drafts or sources after generation. Your email and basic session data are the only information used for the early-access list.
How do I know the citations are real?
Each citation includes a link to the public court record. You can click through and verify it yourself.
Can I generate batches or historical posts?
Not at launch. We are starting with one post at a time and will build around what early users actually need.
How does early access work?
A $1 refundable reservation gives you an early-access key for the live demo. When the product launches at $29/month, you choose whether to subscribe.
When does it launch?
The live demo is available to reservation holders now. The full product is still being built; waitlist subscribers will hear when it launches.
Will Google penalize content written this way?
We do not promise rankings, and we do not publish for you. The posts are original drafts, built from real sources, reviewed and edited by a licensed lawyer, and published under your name and byline. That is the same shape as the content Google's helpful content guidance describes. What you do with a draft is your call.
What happens to my drafts if I close the tab?
Nothing is stored server-side after generation. Drafts live in your session until you export or copy them, and we do not retain your drafts or sources. Export is manual for now; we will build around what early users actually need.
Who is behind this?
A small team building in public. You can follow the build on X at @JoraphW. Your $1 is refundable anytime, which keeps our incentives honest: if we do not deliver, you lose nothing.