Legal case management software that has already read the file

Both. A chat opened inside a matter is handed ten tools: four that read — the deadlines, the parties, the notes and the activity history — and six that write, which can file a deadline, save a note, record a party, save a draft into the file library, rename the matter, or extend the standing background it reads on every turn. It is instructed to read before asking, never invent a date, resolve relative dates and state the resolved date back to you, say what it did after a write, and never report a failed write as done.

It compares this matter's party names against the parties on every other matter in your account. Two deliberate limits: only party-side roles count — client, opposing counsel and opposing party — because sharing a judge or a court clerk across matters is normal and would be noise; and names are normalised, trimmed and lowercased before comparison, so spacing and capitalisation cannot hide a match. A match is a prompt to check, not a verdict that a conflict exists, and the interface says so.

Yes, and that is the point of the Chats tab. A conversation can be filed under a case or left loose, and moved either way afterwards. Once it is filed under a matter, the assistant in that conversation reads the matter's standing background on every turn and is given the case tools — so the thinking about a file stays attached to the file rather than scattered across unrelated chats.

Six tabs. Overview carries the status and priority controls, the full field list and the notes rail. Tasks holds this matter's dates, overdue first, each typed as a filing, hearing or discovery deadline. Parties lists everyone on the case with a typed role. Documents is the case file library, including drafts the assistant wrote and saved straight in. Chats holds every AI conversation filed under the matter. History is an append-only record of what changed and when. The workspace header itself carries identity only — a read-only status badge, the title and the timestamps — so it stays a header.

No, and not because it is asked nicely. The case is fixed when those tools are constructed, and not one of them accepts a case identifier as an argument — there is no parameter through which the model could name a different matter even if it tried, and there is a test asserting no tool exposes a case-id-shaped input. Every write also goes through your own user-scoped database session, so row-level security applies as a second layer underneath.

It is an append-only record of everything that happened to the matter — status moves, new parties, filed deadlines, uploaded documents. It cannot be edited or deleted: the table has insert and select policies and nothing else, so there is no code path that rewrites a past entry. Entries store a key and a payload rather than a frozen English sentence, so the timeline reads correctly in whatever language you use. Writes are fire-and-forget — a failure is logged, never thrown, because the record is valuable but not worth failing your actual operation over.

Cases is on the Business plan, which needs an active paid subscription — a trial in progress does not unlock it. The free plan and the lower tiers cover legal Q&A, document review and drafting, but not the matter workspace or its tabs. Every paid plan has a free trial, so you can see the workspace on your own matters before committing.