Specialized legal intelligence and automation platform
for plaintiff and mass tort firms.

Multiply your firm.
Without multiplying your overhead.

Defense firms bill by the hour. You don’t.
Your tools shouldn’t act like you do.

20-minute demo, live. Open the platform with us, bring the worst MTD on your desk, & we run it together.

EZ PZ · Architect: JDBlecher · Patents Pending
Juxtaposition

MTD Killer: Build the bulk of your opposition automatically

Plaintiff Zero reads the defense’s MTD (or any other document) against your complaint side by side and surfaces the contradictions of record, the unsupported citations, & the gaps in the other side’s arguments, with the verbatim passages and appropriate citations to the record to back each finding.

Saturated Rebuttal Stage 1 of 2 · Upload
Saturated Rebuttal
Bury the opponent under the weight of the record
Upload target and source to see runtime estimate
Target Document
Opponent’s brief: MTD, MSJ, court order, opposition brief
Drop target file
PDF, DOCX
PDF MTD — Tideline Bio
Source Evidence
The verified record: complaint, FAC, discovery, depositions, exhibits
Drop source files
PDF, DOCX — multi-file
PDF FAC · ECF 38
PDF Earnings Call · Ex. A
Internal Slack · Ex. B
PDF Board Deck · Ex. D
PDF 10-Q · Q3 2024 · Ex. E
Optional instructions
 
Receipts

A tool that audits your work, its work, and your colleagues’ work.

The leading legal AI hallucinates 17 to 33 percent of the time. Earlier this year, attorneys before the Sixth Circuit were sanctioned for hallucinated citations from CoCounsel-drafted briefs.

Plaintiff Zero ran a benchmark from a Stanford research paper on a deliberately weaker LLM than the ones we use in production. The result: 0 hallucinations across 100 queries. The point: it’s the software architecture, not the LLM, that carries the load.

Plaintiff Zero checks every proposition, every quote, and every authority (e.g., cases, statutes, professional rules, procedural rules) in your draft. As every cite is checked and every quote is compared word-for-word, Plaintiff Zero produces a Verification Audit Log on every output.

Receipts · brief.docx · 22 claims Stanford-designed benchmark
0
Queries
100 correct responses · drawn from the same Stanford dataset.
Hallucinations
vs. Lexis+ AI 17% · Westlaw AI 33% · GPT-4 baseline 43%.
Refusals to Generate a Response
Practical Law AI declined to answer 62% of questions to keep its hallucination rate down.
Audit complete · 22 claims · 21 verified · 2 gaps surfaced · 1 fabricated cite removed.
10:03:41claim 1"Causation may be inferred from temporal proximity."
extractbrief.docx · ¶ 14 · § III.A
cacheCompound Cache lookup · HIT
sourceAkers v. County of San Diego, 95 Cal.App.4th 1441 (2002) authority full text
quoteword-for-word · 100% match · pp. 1453
shepardizefollowed × 412 · jurisdiction match · CA App.
statusVERIFIED
10:03:46claim 2"Three-part FEHA prima facie test."
extractbrief.docx · ¶ 14 · § III.A
cacheCompound Cache lookup · MISS
agenticexternal database · 36 Cal.4th 1028
sourceYanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (2005) authority full text
quoteword-for-word · 100% match · pp. 1042
cache+added to Compound Cache · firm-wide
authorityCal. Sup. Ct. · BINDING in jurisdiction
statusVERIFIED
10:03:51claim 3"Defendants concealed material facts."
extractbrief.docx · ¶ 18 · § III.B
gap▲ GAP DETECTED · no source cited in draft
agenticsupplemental research · external database + Compound Cache
candidates7 cases on point · jurisdiction-correct · authority-tagged view all 7
statusGAP — 7 suggested authorities attached
10:03:55claim 4"Brown v. Smith, 4th Cir. 1998"
extractbrief.docx · ¶ 24 · § IV
exists?external database · NOT FOUND
exists?cross-reference fallback · NOT FOUND
statusFABRICATED — flagged for removal
Research Economics

Your research/token costs will be trivial. Westlaw/LexisNexis (or conventional research tools) aren’t.

Westlaw, LexisNexis, and other conventional research tools hand you a stack of cases to read. Plaintiff Zero hands you the quotes, pulled verbatim from the opinion text, jurisdiction-filtered, treatment-checked, ready to paste (along with the actual authority for your review).

When the defense sends 100 interrogatories, your cost to respond is near zero. Theirs is $800 an hour. The pressure flips onto the defense.

Document Analysis Workspace

Hundreds of documents in. Structured findings out.

Drop a wave of production, a stack of depositions, or the full case file. Plaintiff Zero ingests every page, indexes every party, builds the timeline, surfaces the red flags, and writes the strategic guidance. Tab through the lenses for the partner-ready read.

The Compound Cache

Every verified authority is cached. Every subsequent lookup is free.

Every brief gets faster to write the longer your firm uses the platform. Plaintiff Zero automatically caches every verified case, statute, and rule anyone pulls (full opinion text, treatment history, jurisdiction tags, drop-in quotes) and serves it back at near-zero token cost on every subsequent lookup, across matters, across attorneys, across time. The platform also learns your firm’s writing style and strategic preferences as you work, so each new draft starts closer to where you’d take it. Research costs compound down. Firm-specific intelligence compounds up.

Firm-wide intelligence · Acme Plaintiff Group
Day 1 of 30
Costs compound down
tokens / brief
Smith v. Acme Foods · Opp. to MTD Sarah · Day 1
14,820 tok
Jones v. Beta Logistics · Opp. to MSJ Marcus · Day 14
8,340 tok
Lee v. Gamma Holdings · Reply ISO MTC Sarah · Day 22
5,310 tok
Patel v. Delta Health · Opp. to Demurrer Marcus · Day 30
3,240 tok
Intelligence compounds up
0 new entries this week
Cost / brief 14,820 tok
Firm memory 0 authorities · style · strategy
Westlaw bills you the same on day 1,000 as on day 1.
Plaintiff Zero gets more efficient.
How it Works

The work writes back.

Upload whatever’s on your desk: a defense motion, a stack of intake records, a deposition wave, a complaint to draft from scratch, an opposition due in the morning. Plaintiff Zero generates the strategic angle, a section-by-section outline, and the draft. Run it autonomously when you want speed (and freedom from your keyboard), or paragraph-by-paragraph under your tight control.

What follows is one example workflow. Run any subset, in any order, or skip straight to one-shot drafting.

Ingest

The file goes in.

Whatever you upload is parsed: pleadings, productions, transcripts, intake packets, exhibits. Paragraphs split, citations extracted, parties indexed, exhibits attached, every record cataloged with metadata (court, date, docket, filing party, source). Nothing summarized. Everything indexed.

Juxtapose

Your record against everything else.

The platform reads what you uploaded against the rest of the case file, the controlling authority, and the procedural posture. Misstatements, gaps, contradictions, unsupported claims, missing documents, and inconsistent testimony surface with the receipts to back them.

Outline

An argument tree assembles.

A response structure forms around what we found. Argument tree, authority slots, factual hooks, gaps to exploit, strategy notes. Yours to edit before the draft starts.

Draft

Section by section.

Every authority Shepardized. Every quote checked word-for-word. Every Bluebook rule applied. No fabricated cases, no abrogated holdings, no out-of-circuit slip-ups, no claims unsupported by the record.

Verify

The audit log signs off.

Full veracity pass. Citation health score. Gap detection across your draft and anything it answers. The Verification Audit Log is generated automatically. A receipt you can hand to a partner, to opposing counsel, or to a judge.

Whatever lands on your desk — indexed, juxtaposed, outlined, drafted, verified, ready for your review.

Plaintiff Zero

The Goliath-Slayer.

Specialized legal intelligence and automation for the side that doesn’t bill by the hour. Built for plaintiff and mass tort firms.

Before You Buy

Four questions you ask before signing anything. Four answers, from us.

Does it give us our hours back?

Intake review, document production, deposition prep all scale without another associate on the org chart. Every associate you already have becomes the version of themselves that has read every record, every deposition, every produced document, and remembers all of it on demand. A four-hour drafting block collapses to minutes, verified and Shepardized before it hits your desk.

4-hour MTD response to minutes

Does it pay for itself?

Drafting at near-zero marginal cost. Conventional research tools (typically $100 to $500 per attorney per month) replaced for pennies on the dollar. A completely bespoke brief in an hour. 95% cost and time compression across opposition drafting.

95% cost and time compression on opposition drafting

Is the work product stronger?

Every cite verified. Every Bluebook rule applied. Every quote matched word-for-word. Every gap surfaced, whether in your draft, in your associate’s draft, or in opposing counsel’s filing. A Verification Audit Log under every output, ready for the bench.

100 / 0 / 0 on the Stanford Legal AI benchmark

Do we win more?

Case selection becomes a reading exercise, not a gut call. Effectively infinite context and superior data handling mean the entire intake file, every record, every prior pleading, every produced document, sits in working memory at once. You know which matters to take before you sign the engagement letter. Discovery review, privilege logs, and production sets that used to swallow weeks get triaged in an afternoon. The holes in your theory and the holes in theirs, surfaced before either side gets to use them.

Leverage through software.

No Forms

Designed for the nontechnical.

Plaintiff Zero is built to be forgiving. Bullet points, half-formed thoughts, sentence fragments, gibberish will still get you a good answer. Invoke any tool the way that suits you — point and click in the GUI, or just describe what you want in plain English (have the agentic associate summarize the entire matter for me and suggest strategic next steps). No forms to fill out, no workflow to pick, no ontology to learn. The platform meets you where you are and figures out the rest.

The legal profession is already drowning in forms.
Plaintiff Zero (PZ) is not going to add another one.
Agentic Associate

Give it the directive. It explores, analyzes, executes, and reports back.

The Agentic Associate is an autonomous agent that researches, analyzes, and executes at project scale. Drop thousands of intake forms and a deadline; it scores viability, surfaces bellwethers, and flags the strongest factual patterns by morning. Tell it to read the defense’s production and tell you what isn’t there; it comes back with the draft suggested motion. It handles the entire workflow end to end. It does what a junior associate would do, except a plaintiff firm can’t carry juniors the way the defense bar does. This one reads every page, misses nothing, works in parallel, and never logs a billable hour.

Privilege

Terms of service are not privilege.

In February 2026, Heppner (S.D.N.Y.) admitted a defendant’s AI dialogues into evidence. The leading legal AI vendors stake their confidentiality on terms of service. In Heppner, terms-of-service confidentiality wasn’t enough. Plaintiff Zero is built on hardware-enforced isolation, cryptographic attestation, and zero retention by design.

Both decisions expose the same gap, and it is not doctrinal. It is architectural.

Heppner & Warner · What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About AI and Privilege
The Privilege Test architectural comparison
Standard / Leading Legal AI
Plaintiff Zero · Sovereign Mode
Confidentiality basis
Vendor terms of service Inputs flow through “subprocessors” and are governed by privacy policies that permit data collection, training, and regulatory disclosure. Confidentiality is contractual, not architectural.
Hardware attestation Confidentiality becomes a physical constraint, not a policy promise. Attested at the silicon level.
Provider access
Technically possible “Abuse monitoring” and support-access clauses keep human access on the table. Heppner read the mere capability of the operator to view inputs as defeating confidentiality.
Mathematically impossible Inputs are decrypted only inside a hardware-isolated Trusted Execution Environment. The operator cannot read them.
Training on your inputs
Policy-disabled (opt-out) “Improve our services” and “feedback” clauses keep the data path live. De-linking is policy; the path remains.
Architecturally impossible No path from your inputs to a training set exists in the system. Training capability is engineered out, not policy-disabled.
Kovel agency
Disputed: third-party waiver risk ToS frames you as the “End User,” not as counsel’s agent. Heppner held that a defendant’s solo use of Claude (a “third party”) was not a Kovel agent.
Counsel-directed agent Operates under attorney direction as part of representation, the necessary-agent role Kovel contemplates.
Heppner / Warner exposure
Uncertain Same architectural footprint Heppner read as a “third party” disclosure. The vendor disclaims under “as-is, no warranty.” Outcome turns on whether the next court adopts Heppner’s reasoning.
Built to the architectural test Hardware-isolated, cryptographically attested, zero retention by design. The safest standard that can exist, short of air-gapped inference (also available).
Pricing

Built for contingency. Not for AmLaw seat licenses.

Plaintiff firms front the costs. Pricing has to match. Plaintiff Zero charges by case volume and data ingested, not by per-attorney seat. Every invoice is granular, court-compliant, and built to flow through as a direct case expense.

Pass-through case expense.

Bill it as a recoverable cost under fee-shifting and contingent-fee agreements. Plaintiff Zero is designed to be paid out of the case, not the firm’s overhead.

matter ID hours-equivalent narrative fee-shifting recoverable
Solo Plaintiff
$1,500/ month

Single-attorney shops

For solos and 2–3 lawyer firms running a focused docket.

  • Full platform access · all 38 features
  • Plan Mode · parallel autonomous drafting
  • Verification + Audit Log
  • Firm-wide Compound Cache
  • Mass intake & bellwether triage
  • Pass-through invoicing
  • Sovereign Mode · TEE-isolated inference (Private Mode, Heppner-grade)
Firm
Contact for pricing

Plaintiff firms

For PI, employment, civil rights, mass tort, MDL, and class action firms.

  • Full platform access · all 38 features
  • Plan Mode · parallel autonomous drafting
  • Verification + Audit Log
  • Firm-wide Compound Cache
  • Mass intake & bellwether triage
  • Pass-through invoicing
  • Sovereign Mode · TEE-isolated inference (Private Mode, Heppner-grade)
Firm adds
  • Air-gapped inference option
  • Higher token allotment per attorney
Further Reading
Substack · Privilege
Heppner and Warner: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About AI and Privilege

Two federal courts, one week apart, reached opposite conclusions on whether AI-assisted legal work is privileged. Plaintiff Zero is built for the architecture that protects it.

Substack · Architecture
Mythos Under NDA

Why frontier capability + centralized billing + partner-gated distribution favors incumbents — and what it takes to build outside that gravity well.

Substack · Doctrine
Reading the Tea Leaves: Justice Jackson’s Japan Wallet Hypothetical

How a mocked hypothetical in the birthright-citizenship case quietly maps the constitutional basis for global prosecutorial reach.

Whitepaper · Security
inference-relay: Enterprise Security Whitepaper

For CTOs, CISOs, and security auditors weighing a third option between adopting a new AI vendor and banning AI outright. Covers how the library brings shadow AI into compliance by routing through already-vetted organizational subscriptions, the three deployment architectures (Direct Subscription Utilization, Zero-Interception Routing, Zero-Knowledge Orchestrator), and why none of them creates a new data processor.

Analysis · Ethics
Plaintiff Zero and the Unauthorized Practice of Law

Why professional-grade legal automation respects the ethical boundaries of the profession, and serves its deeper purpose. Why a tool built for verified, citation-grade legal work is the opposite of UPL: it raises the floor on what counts as authorized practice.

Reference · Infrastructure
inference-relay

The local library that routes AI inference through an organization’s existing subscriptions. No new data processor. No shadow AI. The relay never sees a developer’s system prompts, tool schemas, or proprietary logic. Secret sauce and data alike are protected by structural impossibility, not policy.

Take the bet they didn’t think you’d take.

20-minute demo, live. We open the platform, you bring the worst MTD on your desk, & we run it together.

Bring an MTD →

Or email contact@plaintiffzero.com directly.

Architect: JDBlecher