The quality of your legal research should not depend on the size of your firm. Leveling the field.
We take your opponent's filing apart. Every citation checked against the actual source, every quotation compared word for word, every proposition of law tested against the holding it claims to support. You receive a report identifying every deficiency, mischaracterization, phantom citation, and unsupported proposition in the filing.
We draft your responsive filing from the ground up, on verified authority.
We deliver your research arsenal. Verified authorities, verbatim quotes with pin cites, organized by issue and ready to use. You build the brief; we hand you the materials.
Two-phase flat-fee structure. Phase one: $100 deposit on submission. Phase two: flat fee quoted within 24 hours, individually priced per engagement, deposit applied to the total. If a conflict is identified during the 24-hour window, the deposit is refunded in full and the engagement is declined. Each submission is a discrete engagement with a discrete price. Revisions or follow-on work require a new submission.
Veracity Engine, the verification architecture behind the work, scores 100/0/0 on the Stanford Legal AI benchmark.
In more than three-quarters of state civil cases, at least one party appears without counsel, almost always because counsel is financially unreachable. Level-Field delivers verified, cite-ready legal research to attorneys and self-represented litigants alike.
Heppner set the standard.
In February 2026, the Southern District of New York held in United States v. Heppner that attorney-client privilege fails when an AI platform's terms permit the operator to access the user's data. The court was explicit: it is the capability to access, not the fact of access, that defeats confidentiality.
Kovel preserves one path for AI as a privileged agent of counsel, but only where the operator structurally cannot read the material it processes. A court ruling on that question will look first at the platform's published terms.
The same week, the Eastern District of Michigan reached a different result on similar facts in Warner v. Gilbarco, but only under the work-product doctrine, which waives on disclosure to an adversary. The privilege analysis in Heppner is untouched. A filer planning beyond the Second Circuit should plan against the more demanding standard.
Level-Field's verification work runs on Veracity Engine. Veracity Engine was designed against the Heppner standard: the operator has no path to read the content of a submission. Where Harvey relies on a disclosed subprocessor chain, where CoCounsel authorizes third-party sharing, where Lexis+ AI and Westlaw Precision AI route through foundation models the vendor cannot bind, the pipeline here closes the gap by architecture.
The guarantee is hardware-enforced. Operator access to a submission's content is structurally impossible. Subprocessors with access to substance: zero. Retention: cryptographically attested to zero. Privilege is preserved by the architecture, not by the contract.
Comparison current as of June 2026. Vendor terms can and do change. The method shown here — direct quotation of a specific dated clause — is the same method a court applies in a privilege challenge.