Golden Horizons
CAPABILITY · VERTICAL-SPECIFIC
Case Summarizer (Law)
New matter files become a chronology, key-facts memo, and exhibit index in under an hour.
$10,000 build · $3,000–6,000/mo
Talk to us about a Case Summarizer (Law) build →What it does
Ingests case documents, deposition transcripts, and correspondence. Produces a structured chronology, key-facts memo, and exhibit index. Flags privilege hits and sends the package to the supervising attorney for review. Built for litigation and transactional firms.
Monday morning. Partner walks in to a new matter. Three-inch deposition transcript on the desk. Twelve exhibit volumes. Eighty emails spanning two years. Four prior memos from the associate who billed the preliminary work. The partner's job is to read all of it, distill it, and identify the three issues that actually decide the case — before the 10am call with the client.
That's an eight-hour job. Billed at partner rates, it's expensive for the client and it keeps the partner off every other matter that morning. Done fast, it gets missed. Done slow, it becomes a budget line the client questions on the next invoice.
The Case Summarizer runs the first pass. It ingests the transcript, exhibit volumes, email thread, and prior memos from the matter folder in the DMS. It knows your firm's case-strategy patterns — what you flag in a deposition, how you structure a matter brief, which exhibit attributes matter for your practice group. It runs privilege detection before output, not after. Thirty minutes later, the partner has a structured briefing: chronological event log with citations to page and line, key-facts memo organized by legal element, exhibit index with descriptions, and a flagged-issues section that surfaces the three or four friction points the documents reveal.
The partner reviews it. Adjusts it. Sends back one round of corrections the first time a new matter type comes through. The tool learns the adjustment pattern and applies it forward.
The associate still does substantive legal work. What they don't do anymore is spend a full workday building the scaffold the partner is going to rewrite anyway. Golden Horizons builds the ingestion layer, the privilege-detection pass, and the output template against your firm's actual brief format — not a generic legal-AI template that fits no one's workflow. Four weeks. One build. One practice group workflow that runs the same way every time.
Use cases
- Litigation discovery review: associate uploads deposition transcripts and exhibit indexes from a complex commercial dispute; tool outputs a chronological event log with page-and-line citations and a flagged-inconsistencies note for deposition prep.
- Transactional due-diligence summary: partner ingests a data room of 200+ documents for an M&A transaction; tool produces a structured summary organized by diligence category — reps and warranties exposure, open litigation, material contracts — with source citations for each finding.
- Intake conflict-check briefing: new matter inquiry arrives; tool cross-references the prospective client and adverse parties against the existing client list and produces a conflict memo with relationship flags for the intake attorney's review before the first call.
- Deposition prep package: trial attorney uploads opposing expert's prior testimony transcripts and published reports; tool extracts prior opinions, flags internal inconsistencies across transcripts, and drafts a cross-examination outline organized by topic.
- Regulatory investigation prep: partner receives a government document request; tool maps the request categories to matter files in the DMS, surfaces potentially responsive documents, and drafts a privilege log scaffold with document descriptions for attorney review.
- Insurance coverage analysis: coverage attorney ingests a claim file with policy language, tender letters, and correspondence; tool produces a coverage position memo that maps each claim element to the relevant policy provision with citations.
What’s included
- Fixed scope with written acceptance criteria before any build starts
- Customization layer for your brand voice and business rules
- Clean handover with documented runbook and live training
- Monthly ROI report for three months post-delivery
- Source code delivered to your GitHub on handover
What’s NOT included
- Third-party API subscription costs (billed to your accounts)
- Data migration from legacy systems
- Ongoing infrastructure costs after handover
Retainer
Monthly retainer covers monitoring, prompt tuning, config refinement, and minor integration additions. Range: $3,000–6,000/mo.
How clients use this
Fixed-scope build with clean handover, then an optional monthly retainer covering maintenance, monitoring, and minor changes. Most clients move to retainer within 60 days of delivery.
Part of
Used in: Law Firms
Questions Case Summarizer (Law) clients ask
Where does our matter data go and how long is it retained?
Matter documents are processed through enterprise API endpoints — Anthropic, OpenAI, or Azure OpenAI — under signed zero-retention data processing agreements. Prompts and document content are not used for model training and are not retained beyond the request lifecycle. The firm's DMS credentials used for ingestion are scoped read-only to the specific matter folders the build touches, using the official NetDocuments or iManage API with your existing ethical-wall and matter-level security in place. We map every data flow on paper during the scoping phase; the managing partner and general counsel review and approve the data handling architecture before any credentials change hands. Nothing leaves the firm's authorized data perimeter without explicit partner sign-off.
How does the build address ABA Model Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 5.3?
Rule 1.1 (competence) requires that attorneys understand the AI tools they use well enough to supervise them. The build documentation we deliver is written for that purpose — it explains what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and where attorney review is required before any output is used or shared. Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) is addressed through the zero-retention API contracts, scoped DMS access, and the ethical-wall controls described above. Rule 5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer assistance) is structural in the workflow: the tool produces a draft briefing package, never a final work product. Every output routes to a supervising attorney for review before it touches client-facing work or the litigation file. The AI is in the research-and-drafting chain, not the approval chain. The build documentation is written for the firm's ethics committee to review before go-live — we expect that review and design for it.
How accurate are citations to legal authority inside the briefing output?
The Case Summarizer cites source documents — page and line in a deposition transcript, document ID and section in an exhibit — not external legal authority like cases or statutes. It is not a legal research tool and does not generate case citations or statutory references. Every factual assertion in the output traces back to a specific document the firm uploaded, so the supervising attorney can verify any claim in under a minute. If your workflow requires legal authority research layered on top of the factual summary, that's a separate capability — and one where attorney review of AI-generated citations is non-negotiable before any brief or memo leaves the firm. The Case Summarizer's accuracy claim is narrow and verifiable: it pulls from what you gave it, with citations, and the attorney confirms.
Does this integrate with NetDocuments, iManage, or Clio?
Yes to all three. NetDocuments and iManage integrate through their official REST APIs using a dedicated service account that inherits your existing matter-level permissions and ethical-wall configuration — the tool can only access folders the authenticated user could already access manually. Clio integration uses the Clio API under a scoped OAuth token limited to the matters and documents the build is authorized to touch. The ingestion layer pulls new documents automatically when a matter folder is updated, or on a scheduled basis, depending on the firm's preference. If the firm runs on-prem iManage or a self-hosted DMS, the integration layer deploys inside the firm's network so matter documents never leave the perimeter for processing.
What does this tool not replace, and where does attorney judgment remain essential?
The Case Summarizer replaces the scaffolding work — building the first-pass chronology, indexing exhibits, pulling key facts from a long record. It does not replace attorney judgment on case strategy, legal theory selection, evidentiary arguments, or any client-facing communication. The output is a structured starting point, not a finished work product. The supervising attorney decides which issues from the flagged list actually matter, which facts are dispositive, and how the briefing gets shaped into a litigation strategy or client memo. The tool doesn't read between the lines of a deposition the way a seasoned trial attorney does — it pulls what's there and organizes it. The attorney provides the legal mind. If a firm is considering this as a way to reduce attorney headcount rather than redeploy attorney hours onto higher-value work, that's the wrong frame and we'll say so directly in the audit.