Product galleryShown with synthetic demo data

See the system, up close.

The rest of the site tells you what JustineAI™ does. This is what it looks like doing it — captured from the working product, with synthetic demonstration matters (no client information). One reasoning core, six editions: Personal Injury and Workers’ Comp (applicant-side, California) are in market and shown here; each other edition’s gallery follows as it ships.

Personal Injury — in market

The War Room — Your Case (liability, Strong, traced to a fact on the record) versus The Other Side (defense attack on causation, High), with Justine’s reasoned work and a settlement range. — Justine traces your case theory to the record — each element linked to a fact on file — and, right beside it, simulates the defense and the adjuster: the attacks, the weak points, the posture. A settlement range, and authorities checked against CourtListener. You read the counter-argument before you’re in the room.

The demand-letter generation pipeline reasoning in the open — Dossier Assembly and Case Analysis complete with grounded notes (“a strong liability case with minimal apparent comparative fault”), Legal Strategy actively mapping statutes to facts, with Narrative Construction and Composition queued. — Justine drafts as a multi-pass agent — assembling the dossier, analyzing liability, building the legal strategy, constructing the narrative — each pass reasoning in the open and grounded in the record before a word of prose is written. You watch the thinking, not a spinner.

A streaming demand letter beside a four-layer quality-assurance panel — Validation, Strategic Review, Auto-Revision, Red Team — with grounded checks: economic-damages math ($10,725 + $18,500 = $29,225) and treatment-gap consistency across sections. — As the letter composes, a four-layer quality pass runs live: validation of the damages math, chronology, and internal consistency; a senior-attorney strategic review; targeted auto-revision; and a red team that plays the defense adjuster. The draft you open has already been through the gauntlet.

Ask Justine answering a statute-of-limitations and liability question with grounded reasoning. — Justine plans, reasons, and calls grounded legal tools — statute-of-limitations, valuation, medical chronology, citation verification — then answers in the matter’s own context. You steer; you attest.

Justine declining to assess treatment gaps because the record contains no evidence of them. — Asked about treatment gaps the file doesn’t document, Justine says so plainly instead of inventing them: “without evidence of treatment gaps, there is no basis to assess their impact.” No hallucinated facts, no invented case law.

The matter workspace with essentials, stage workflow, and reasoning panels. — Intake through settlement in a single, matter-centric workspace — essentials, stage workflow, evidence, valuation, and Justine’s reasoning, all in one place.

The medical-records ledger — emergency, orthopedic, and physical-therapy providers, each with ICD-10 diagnoses, per-visit CPT codes, and billed / paid / balance / lien tracking. — Each treating provider with its ICD-10 diagnoses and per-visit CPT lines — billed, paid, balance, liens, and authorization status. The specials that drive settlement value, organized the way an adjuster reads them.

Case valuation and strength — an AI-calculated settlement range ($50,000–$80,000, medium confidence) and a 76% case-strength score with a grounded analysis of liability, the cervical injury, the statute of limitations, verified specials, and the treatment gap. — An AI-calculated settlement range and a case-strength score, each grounded in the record and the governing law: liability, the cervical injury, the verified medical specials, the statute of limitations, and the treatment-gap risk the defense will raise. Justine reasons over the matter — and shows her work — rather than guessing.

The dashboard with case pipeline, AI insights, and Justine’s autonomous activity. — Justine works the caseload continuously — a daily review that flags the treatment gaps, deadlines, and risks that move a matter, so you start the day on the case that matters.

The case list with stage, strength, priority, and deadlines per matter. — Every matter with its stage, case-strength read, priority, value, and next deadline — the firm’s book of business in one view.

Workers’ Comp — applicant-side, California — in market

The same reasoning core, calibrated to California workers’ comp: the permanent-disability Value Engine, apportionment reasoning under Escobedo and Almaraz/Guzman, the QME read, the Deadline Guardian, and C&R-versus-Stips settlement math. Captured from the live product on a synthetic demonstration matter — the ratings and dollar figures are projections the attorney verifies, and Justine’s work is analysis for the attorney, not legal advice.

The Value Engine — a California permanent-disability rating computed two ways on a synthetic cumulative-trauma matter: as reported (strict AMA with the QME’s 35% apportionment) at 18% PD / $20,880, versus apportionment struck under Escobedo at 27% PD / $46,980, with a “+9 PD points and roughly +$26,100” value-at-stake line and a “verify against current schedule” caveat. — Justine rates the claim as reported — strict AMA with the QME’s 35% apportionment — and, right beside it, the rebutted path with that apportionment struck under Escobedo, so the swing is explicit: here roughly +9 PD points and +$26,100. The rating strings (WPI → FEC → Combined Values Chart, LC 4663/4664) are shown in full, and every figure is flagged to verify against the current DIR/DWC schedule and PD rate — projections the attorney confirms, not a final award.

Justine streaming her apportionment reasoning on the Value Engine — testing whether the QME’s 35% apportionment is substantial medical evidence under Escobedo, weighing an Almaraz/Guzman rerating and whether Ogilvie is available, and citing Milpitas Unified School District v. WCAB (Guzman) — with a live “Analyzing…” trace and a “Valuing the claim” work step. — Ask for the reasoning and Justine streams it: is the QME’s 35% apportionment “substantial medical evidence,” or conclusory and vulnerable under Escobedo? She weighs an Almaraz/Guzman rerating, questions whether Ogilvie is even available on this record, quantifies the swing, and works toward a C&R-versus-Stips call — authorities cited as she goes. You watch the thinking, not a verdict; the attorney decides.

The Vasquez matter workspace — injured worker, ADJ number, date of injury, carrier, cervical and lumbar body parts, average weekly wage, WCAB venue, PD posture, the next objection deadline, and a “Justine’s take” reading the strict path against the rebutted path. — Every workers’-comp essential on one applicant-side matter — worker, ADJ, date of injury, carrier, body parts, average weekly wage, venue, PD posture, and the next statutory deadline — with Justine’s take reading the strict path against the rebutted path and naming the core settlement driver. Intake through settlement in a single, matter-centric view, on a synthetic demonstration matter.

Justine’s structured read of the panel QME permanent-and-stationary report — whole-person impairment by body part (lumbar spine 13%, cervical spine 8%), 21% combined strict, causation (AOE/COE accepted), and the defense’s 35% non-industrial apportionment flagged as the live dispute, with Justine’s note that a conclusory opinion is vulnerable under Escobedo and a §4062 rebuttal is the next move. — Justine structures the panel QME’s P&S report — whole-person impairment by body part, causation, work restrictions — and isolates the live dispute: the defense’s 35% non-industrial apportionment. Her read is grounded and blunt: a percentage that doesn’t explain the reasoned “how and why” of causation is vulnerable under Escobedo, so a §4062 rebuttal is the next move. Analysis for the attorney — not a medical opinion.

The settlement pipeline — C&R versus Stips across the synthetic book, each matter card showing target gross, the 15% firm fee, reasonable liens, and net-to-client, with a “Medicare check” or “WCMSA required” flag on files that implicate Medicare. — The book’s C&R-versus-Stips pipeline: for each matter, the settlement target, the 15% firm fee, reasonable liens, and the resulting net-to-client — the number the injured worker actually feels. Files that implicate Medicare carry a WCMSA flag so the set-aside question is raised before signing — a prompt to analyze, not a set-aside calculation. Anchors are estimates for the attorney to confirm.

Ask Justine scoped to the Vasquez matter, streaming a grounded answer on the Escobedo apportionment attack — reasoning over the case file, verifying authorities on CourtListener and transparently flagging the citations it could not verify, and listing the authorities relied on (panel QME report, Escobedo, Milpitas/Guzman, Brodie). — Scoped to one matter, Justine reasons over just that file — here, the strongest basis to strike the QME’s apportionment under Escobedo and the PD and dollar effect if it falls. She retrieves the record, checks her authorities on CourtListener, and shows what she relied on — transparently flagging the citations she could not verify rather than asserting them. You steer; you attest.

The Deadline Guardian — every statutory workers’-comp clock across the book grouped by urgency (Act now, This week), showing DOR, MSC, §4062 objection, QME, IMR and SOL windows with Labor Code citations, the responsible matter, and days remaining. — The deadlines that sink a WC file — Reconsideration, IMR, §4062 objection, QME, and SOL windows — tracked across the whole book and grouped by urgency, each linked to its matter with the governing rule (e.g., LC §4062(a)) and days remaining. Justine watches them so nothing lapses; the attorney still owns the calendar.

The WC morning briefing — “You’re covered,” with the count of matters watched overnight, what needs the attorney today ranked by urgency and value, a whole-book Ask Justine box, the Deadline Guardian, and the book’s economics. — Justine works the applicant-side caseload continuously and opens the day with what actually needs the attorney — ranked by urgency and value — beside the Deadline Guardian and the book’s economics. You start on the file that moves the claim, not the inbox.

Justine drafting a bilingual client status update — English and Spanish templates for common California workers’-comp milestones, streamed with her reasoning and caveats that the facts and current law must be verified before sending, framed for the attorney’s review before it sends. — Injured workers wait in the dark; Justine drafts the plain-language status update — bilingual where the worker prefers Spanish — for the attorney’s review before it sends. She keeps it neutral and client-friendly, avoids legal admissions, and notes that the facts and current deadlines must be verified first. A draft for review — never advice to the client.

The WC economics view — the contingency book as a P&L: open matters, capital fronted, probability-weighted expected fees at ~15% contingency, average matter age, and Justine’s estimated time saved itemized by task and by attorney with review time subtracted. — Capital fronted, probability-weighted expected fees at the ~15% contingency, average matter age, and settlement velocity — the plaintiff-side view of the book as a profit-and-loss. Alongside it, an estimate of the hours Justine saved, itemized by task, with review time subtracted. Estimates for planning, not billing.

More editions on the way

The same reasoning core, calibrated to each practice. Each edition’s gallery populates when the edition ships — we don’t show a screenshot of a system that isn’t live yet.

MT — Mass TortComing next
Mass tort attorney
MM — Medical MalpracticeOn the roadmap
Medical malpractice attorney
IB — Insurance Bad FaithOn the roadmap
Bad-faith attorney
EL — Employment ClassOn the roadmap
Employment-class attorney

Screenshots reflect the live product on a synthetic demonstration matter; individual features vary by edition and plan.

See the system, up close.

Both sides of the case, before the other side.

Watch the demand letter reason itself into existence.

Every letter survives the other side before it reaches you.

Ask a question. Watch her reason, and cite.

She reasons from the record — and tells you when it’s silent.

One matter. One reasoning context.

Every provider, every visit, every code.

A number — and the reasoning behind it.

Your practice, read overnight.

The whole portfolio, at a glance.

The permanent-disability number, computed two ways.

Watch her test the apportionment — live.

One claim. One reasoning context.

The QME, read the way the other side will read it.

Net-to-client, after the fee and the liens.

Ask about the claim. Watch her reason, and cite.

Every statutory clock, watched.

Your book, read overnight.

The client update, in the worker’s language.

Your contingency book, as a P&L.