Try Claude
Academic ResearchSearch papers, authors, citations
AI Tools for Legal Analysts
AI tools that help legal analysts research case law, summarize documents, track legislative changes, analyze regulatory filings, and prepare data-driven legal memos.
Get started for free
Works in Chat, Cowork and Code
Authors Guild v. Google (2d Cir)
Mass digitization for search is transformative — fair use affirmed
Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. 2023)
AI-generated work without human authorship not copyrightable
Andersen v. Stability AI (9th Cir 2024)
Training on copyrighted images — remanded, fair use not resolved
Getty Images v. Stability AI (D. Del.)
Pending — direct copying of watermarked images at issue
Verdict
9th Circuit most plaintiff-favorable; avoid training on watermarked works
Case law research and citation gathering
Search court decisions by legal issue, statute, or factual pattern. Find the controlling precedents, build citation lists, and identify the strongest authorities for each side of a legal argument — all in minutes instead of hours.
Find the 5 most important federal circuit court cases on the "discovery rule" for tolling statutes of limitations in fraud cases. Which circuits follow the broadest version that favors plaintiffs?
Top 5 cases identified. 9th Circuit: Pincay v. Andrews (2004) — broadest application, inquiry notice triggers tolling only when plaintiff has reason to suspect fraud AND investigates. 2nd Circuit: Dodds v. Cigna Securities — stricter. 4th Circuit: Pocahontas Parkway — follows constructive notice (narrower). For plaintiff: 9th Circuit most favorable; file or argue for 9th Circuit standard.
ToolRouter search_cases
9th Circuit — Pincay v. Andrews (2004)
Broadest: inquiry notice + actual investigation required
2nd Circuit — Dodds v. Cigna Securities
Moderate: inquiry notice alone triggers limitations clock
4th Circuit — Pocahontas Parkway
Narrow: constructive notice standard — less plaintiff-friendly
5th Circuit — Tenet Healthcare
Inquiry notice standard, consistent with 2nd Circuit
Recommendation
Argue 9th Circuit standard if applicable — most favorable for plaintiff
Legal document extraction and summarization
Extract key facts, dates, admissions, and provisions from lengthy legal documents — deposition transcripts, contract exhibits, regulatory submissions, and expert reports. Turn 200-page documents into 2-page actionable summaries.
This 145-page FDA inspection report covers a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility. Extract all Form 483 observations, the most serious violations, and any language indicating willful non-compliance.
Extracted 14 Form 483 observations. Most serious: Observation 3 — failure to validate sterility testing methods for 3 product lines (critical). Observation 7 — altered batch records found (potential willful non-compliance indicator). FDA used language "recurrent violation" for 4 observations — signals potential 483-to-warning-letter escalation. 2 observations were repeats from 2021 inspection.
ToolRouter summarize_pdf
Observation 3 (Critical)
Sterility testing validation failure — 3 product lines affected
Observation 7 (Critical)
Altered batch records found — potential willful non-compliance
Recurrent Violations
4 observations marked "recurrent" — escalation risk to Warning Letter
Repeat from 2021
2 observations uncorrected from prior inspection cycle
Total Observations
14 Form 483 observations across 145-page report
Legislative and regulatory tracking
Monitor proposed legislation, final rules, and agency guidance across federal and state levels. Build a comprehensive picture of what's pending, what just passed, and what's coming — faster than any manual review process.
Research the current status of federal data privacy legislation — is there a federal privacy bill pending in Congress, and which states passed new comprehensive privacy laws in 2023–2024?
Federal: APRA (American Privacy Rights Act) passed out of committee July 2024 — full Senate vote pending. Unlikely to pass 2024 lame duck. States with new comprehensive privacy laws 2023–2024: Texas (TDPSA), Florida (FDBR), Oregon (OCPA), Montana, Tennessee, Indiana, Iowa, Delaware — all effective 2024–2026. Total: 18 state privacy laws now in effect or enacted.
ToolRouter research
State / billStatusEffective date
APRA (Federal)Passed committee — Senate vote pendingTBD
Texas (TDPSA)EnactedJul 2024
Florida (FDBR)EnactedJul 2024
Oregon (OCPA)EnactedJul 2024
Montana / Indiana / Iowa / DelawareAll enacted2024–2026
18 state privacy laws in effect or enacted total
Regulatory filing analysis
Analyze SEC comment letters, agency rulemakings, and regulatory submissions. Identify patterns in how regulators challenge company disclosures and prepare response strategies grounded in how similar comment cycles have played out.
Find SEC staff comment letters sent to biotech companies about their clinical trial results disclosures in 2023. What disclosure improvements did the SEC most commonly request?
Reviewed 31 SEC comment letters to biotech companies in 2023. Top comment categories: (1) Risk factor specificity — 68% of letters requested more specific clinical trial failure risk factors. (2) Non-GAAP reconciliation for R&D milestones — 44% flagged. (3) Revenue recognition for milestone payments — 37% questioned. Template response: add quantitative probability ranges for clinical trial success rates and detailed GAAP-to-non-GAAP bridges.
ToolRouter search_filings
Risk Factor Specificity
Flagged in 68% of letters — add quantitative trial failure probabilities
Non-GAAP R&D Reconciliation
Flagged in 44% of letters — GAAP-to-non-GAAP bridges required
Milestone Revenue Recognition
Flagged in 37% of letters — variable consideration policies questioned
Response Time
Average 45 days for initial response — 90-day resolution most common
Total Letters Reviewed
31 biotech SEC comment letters analyzed — 2023
Enforcement action pattern analysis
Analyze enforcement actions by agency, industry, violation type, and penalty to identify enforcement trends. Prepare risk assessment memos that show clients where regulators are focusing and what conduct they're most likely to investigate.
Analyze FTC enforcement actions in the past 3 years involving deceptive advertising claims on social media. What industries were targeted most, what were typical civil penalty amounts, and what were the most common violations?
FTC social media deceptive advertising actions 2021–2024: 38 actions. Top sectors: dietary supplements (34%), financial services (21%), skincare (15%). Typical civil penalty: $1.5M–$8M. Most common violations: (1) influencer disclosures omitted — 82% of cases. (2) Unsubstantiated health claims — 61%. (3) Fake reviews — 29%. FTC now pursuing CEOs individually in 40% of cases. Recommend immediate influencer disclosure policy audit.
ToolRouter search_actions
Total Actions
38 enforcement actions over 3 years
Top Sector: Dietary Supplements
34% of actions — unsubstantiated health claims dominant
Influencer Disclosure Omission
Present in 82% of cases — most common single violation
Typical Civil Penalty
$1.5M–$8M per action
Individual CEO Liability
Pursued personally in 40% of cases — new trend
Ready-to-use prompts
Statutory interpretation research
Find federal cases from 2015–2024 applying Chevron deference (or its successor standard after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) to EPA regulatory interpretations. How has the standard changed for challenging agency rules?
State law comparison
Compare the criminal penalties for insider trading across California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Include maximum prison sentences, fines, civil penalties, and any private right of action provisions.
Document key fact extraction
Extract all dates, monetary amounts, named parties, and contractual obligations from this supply agreement. Flag any provisions that differ from standard commercial terms, such as unusual IP assignment or exclusivity clauses.
Enforcement trend analysis
Analyze CFPB enforcement actions from 2022–2024 against mortgage servicers. What servicing practices received the largest penalties and what remediation was required?
Legislative history research
Research the legislative history of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). What was the original congressional intent, and how have courts expanded or contracted the statute's scope in the last decade?
Standard of review research
Find cases from 2019–2024 applying the Federal Arbitration Act's manifest disregard of law standard to vacate arbitration awards in securities disputes. Which circuits are most willing to vacate awards on this ground?
Regulatory comment letter analysis
Find all SEC comment letters about cybersecurity incident disclosures sent to technology companies in 2023–2024. What specific improvements did the SEC request and how quickly did companies typically respond?
International law comparison
Compare the legal frameworks for whistleblower protections in the US (Dodd-Frank, SOX), EU (Whistleblower Directive), and UK (PIDA). Which provides the strongest protection against employer retaliation?
Tools to power your best work
SEC FilingsSEC EDGAR filings & financial data
Deep ResearchAI research reports with citations
PDFRead, analyze & merge PDFs
Regulatory ActionsSEC, CFPB, FDIC & Federal Register
Legal ResearchCase law, statutes, regulations & legislation worldwide
165+ tools.
One conversation.
Everything legal analysts need from AI, connected to the assistant you already use. No extra apps, no switching tabs.
Legal research memo preparation
Quickly build a complete research memo on a legal question with controlling authorities, minority views, and a recommendation.
Discovery document review preparation
Before a document review, build a complete factual and legal framework to guide reviewers on key issues and relevant facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the case law tool filter by specific courts or circuits?
Yes. You can specify federal circuits (1st–11th, D.C., Federal), specific district courts, state supreme courts, or federal agency tribunals like the PTAB or Tax Court in your research queries. The tool returns results with court name, decision date, and citation.
How does the PDF tool handle scanned document PDFs vs. native PDFs?
The PDF tool processes both native text PDFs and scanned documents. For scanned PDFs (image-based), it uses OCR to extract text before analysis. Extraction accuracy is highest for native PDFs — for critical scanned documents, verify key figures manually.
Can I use deep research to track pending legislation in real time?
Yes. Deep Research synthesizes information from congressional databases, agency rulemaking portals, and legal news sources. For pending federal legislation, it can pull committee status, co-sponsors, and vote counts. For state legislation, coverage is strong for major states.
How do I use the regulatory actions tool for enforcement pattern analysis?
Regulatory Actions can aggregate enforcement data by agency, industry, penalty amount, and violation type. Search by agency (FTC, SEC, EEOC, EPA) and filter by date range and industry SIC code. Export results to build enforcement pattern analyses for client risk assessments.
Can these tools help with international legal research?
Case Law covers 15+ jurisdictions including US, UK, Canada, Germany, India, and EU courts. Deep Research can research international treaties, directives, and national laws in major jurisdictions. For deep dives into specific foreign law, always verify with local counsel in that jurisdiction.
Give your AI superpowers.
Get started for free
Works in Chat, Cowork and Code