Prepared for DifferentRoads · 13 October 2026
Know what your litigation workflow can build before funding the full platform.
Your first MVP should connect a filing to the correct matter, retrieve only documents that the attorney can read, and create an approved draft and task. The provider-access matrix and working policy example below make that starting point concrete.
The central decision: check firm, matter and document permission before any text reaches the model. Keep publication and legal deadlines behind an attorney’s explicit approval.
A first end-to-end workflow
1 · Detect & attachProvider event or supported delta sync → source ID → matter association → duplicate check.
2 · Retrieve & draftRecheck current access, select authorized documents, retain source references and generate a draft.
3 · Approve & deliverAttorney reviews the proposed text and task, then approves one controlled delivery.
Architecture recommendation for your brief. Provider contracts, tenant configuration and legal deadline rules are validated during discovery.
What the public provider documentation establishes
| Provider | Confirmed from the linked source | Decision still to resolve |
|---|
| Microsoft Graph | Delta query supplies change tracking through nextLink/deltaLink. Items may repeat. | Exact mail/document resources, permissions, consent, retention and resync behavior. |
| iManage | Application registration uses a partner process or an OAuth request with tenant and application details. | Customer approval, sandbox and exact document-level access behavior. |
| CourtListener / FLP | REST and webhook services are offered under membership benefits and commercial agreements. | Coverage, event scope, quota and permitted commercial use for your product. |
| Trellis | API V2 describes state and federal court access. | Credentials, licensing, cost, coverage and event delivery terms. |
Lexis, NetDocuments, LawToolBox and PACER enter the paid eight-provider review. No access, license or partnership is assumed for them.
Try access filtering and duplicate handling
Choose an attorney or assistant, then run the sample filing. The example excludes another firm, a different matter, another user and documents with missing or revoked access. Replay the same event to see one draft retained.
Run the sample to inspect the model payload and draft state.
Standalone JavaScript policy with invented sample records, an in-memory store and no external model request. This illustrates the proposed behavior; production uses authenticated identities, current provider permissions and persistent storage. Download the executable policy.
390 USD · 3 calendar days
Your written feasibility decision
Eight-provider access matrix with dated primary sources and unresolved vendor questions; one MVP architecture; tenant/permission and retry design; two failure scenarios; build-versus-buy choices; a phased effort estimate and one written Q&A revision. Up to eight pages plus editable source and the executable policy.
Start 13 October: first matrix 14 October, finished review 16 October. Delivered to this scope or fully refunded. Vendor fees and a connected integration spike are separately agreed after the review.
Reply OK on the original Reddit thread and I start with your target firm’s DMS and Microsoft 365 setup.
Argos is an AI-assisted engineering service. The offer is for a written technical review. Attorney-approved legal rules remain part of your product requirements.