Pre-scan every brief, memo, contract, demand letter, and motion before it leaves your hands. Sentence-level highlights show exactly which lines react AI on argument sections, recitals, bespoke operative clauses, and newly drafted addenda. Calibrated for the formal register and IRAC structure of legal prose. Aware of ABA Model Rule 1.1 competence and Rule 1.6 confidentiality duties. Adjunct to legal judgment, never a substitute for it. No training on submitted drafts. Free to try. No card.
Solo practitioners, litigation associates, transactional attorneys, paralegals running the first cut of memos, and in-house counsel reviewing outside-counsel work product all face the same question by 2026: did this filing, this contract, or this client letter pass through an AI tool, and can the lawyer of record defend what was filed under their name. The pre-submission scan is the cheapest answer.
The legal writing stack runs from the demand letter to the appellate brief. Pre-scanning fits every stage because judges, opposing counsel, partners, and sophisticated clients now read with the AI question in mind, and several federal district judges issued standing orders during 2024 and 2025 requiring disclosure of AI assistance on filings.
Solo attorneys and small-firm associates carry the broadest document mix: briefs and motions in litigation matters, contracts and NDAs in transactional work, client emails and demand letters on every active matter. AI assistance has crept into every stage of that workflow during 2024 and 2025. Pro at $19.99 a month, or $14.99 a month on yearly, unlocks 10,000 character pastes and unlimited scans for the iteration weeks before a filing deadline.
Litigation associates draft motions, briefs, and discovery responses under partner supervision. Paralegals run the first cut of legal memos and research summaries that feed senior writers. Both roles routinely use AI as an outline tool or first-pass drafting aide. The pre-submission scan catches AI-shaped phrasing in argument sections before a partner reads the draft, and before the partner files anything under their signature.
In-house counsel review outside-counsel work product, draft policy memos, and own the internal client communications that travel across business stakeholders. Sophisticated corporate clients increasingly require disclosure when generative AI assisted any portion of paid legal work product. In-house teams use pre-submission scanning to set internal voice baselines and to give outside counsel a clear bar to clear.
State and national bar associations have issued AI guidance documents touching competence, confidentiality, candor to the tribunal, and supervision of non-lawyer assistants. The duty of competence in 2026 is widely read to include understanding the tools used in representation. Pre-scanning is one piece of that understanding; it does not replace any ethical duty.
ABA Model Rule 1.1 on competence is widely read by state bars to include understanding the tools used in representation, including the propensity of large language models to fabricate citations, to hedge on factual claims, and to produce confidently formatted prose that is structurally indistinguishable from researched legal writing. A lawyer who uses AI without understanding those limitations may not be meeting the competence duty as state bars are now interpreting it.
Rule 1.6 confidentiality duties apply when client matter is fed into any third-party system. State bar guidance generally points lawyers toward enterprise tools with appropriate data terms, redaction of identifying details before submission, and informed client consent where applicable. TextSight does not train on submitted drafts, but the lawyer still owns the decision to paste privileged content into any external tool. Redaction of party names, docket numbers, and confidential facts is the safe default.
The duty of candor under Rule 3.3 sits behind the citation-verification expectation. A lawyer is responsible for the accuracy of everything filed under their signature regardless of the drafting tool. Pre-scanning surfaces AI-shaped passages but does not verify citations; the two checks are independent and both are required for any filing touching AI-assisted research.
The duty to supervise non-lawyer assistants under Rule 5.3 extends to anyone using AI on a matter, including paralegals, contract reviewers, and document subscribers. Partners running litigation teams and general counsel running in-house functions are both responsible for what their non-lawyer staff produce. The shared scan history on Business tier gives the supervising attorney a contemporaneous view of who scanned what and when.
State and local bar associations including several practice-section groups have negotiated group discounts for member firms on Business tier. Contact sales for the current list. The compliance posture this supports is the same across every state bar: pre-scan, disclose honestly when required, and never let detection substitute for an attorney's professional judgment on competence, confidentiality, or candor.
Pro at $19.99 a month standard, $14.99 a month on yearly billing, fits solo practitioners and litigation associates. Business at $39.99 a month, or $29.99 a month on yearly, fits law firms, in-house teams, and corporate legal departments with 5 seats. Bar-association group discounts available on Business. Full details on the pricing page.
Billed $89.88/year — Save $30
Billed $179.88/year — Save $60
Billed $359.88/year — Save $120
Most litigation firms and in-house teams see Pro or Business pay for itself the first time a flagged filing gets caught internally rather than in a sanctions hearing. Bar-association group discounts on Business. View full pricing →
Every legal document genre carries a distinct AI risk profile and a distinct calibration target. The headline score on a contract is not the headline score on an appellate brief, and the editing posture differs accordingly. Read the sentence map by section type, not the single percentage across the document.
Motions, briefs, complaints, and appellate filings are the highest-stakes category in the post-Mata era. Hallucinated citations are the headline risk; AI-flavored argumentation around real citations is the secondary tell that often correlates with weaker independent verification. Pre-scan every section before filing. Aim above 75 on argument prose, and remember the sentence map is the diagnostic, not the headline score.
Settled boilerplate scores low on detectors regardless of who drafted it because defined terms and standard clauses recur verbatim by design. The signal worth chasing concentrates in recitals, bespoke operative clauses, and any newly drafted addenda or schedules. AI flavor in those passages reads as lazy lawyering rather than misconduct, but it also raises the quiet question about whether the bespoke language reflects considered judgment.
Internal memos summarising case law, deposition transcripts, or discovery production are common AI tasks because input volume is large and output format is consistent. The risk is the memo inheriting the model's hedging cadence and tidy parallel structure, then becoming the input for a more senior writer who relies on the summary. Pre-scan the memo before it leaves the paralegal's hands.
Client communications and demand letters now travel through AI tools at the first-draft stage for many practitioners. Clients reading a letter that scans as AI lose confidence in the attorney faster than they lose confidence in a sloppy edit, because the AI signal reads as bot-substitute rather than human attention. The pre-submission scan on outgoing client letters is the lowest-cost trust insurance available.
Law students writing under permitted-AI policies use detection to confirm their own voice carries the final draft. Students writing under prohibited-AI policies should not be using AI at all; a detector does not retroactively cure an honor code violation. The pre-submission scan helps an honest writer confirm their work reads as theirs and gives the moot court board a clear external signal.
Most legal documents clear three checks before they reach the tribunal or the counterparty: the drafter's own pass, the partner or supervising-attorney review, and the conflict and citation verification before filing. The pre-submission scan fits before the first internal review, so the version your partner reads is already AI-clean.
Write in your usual editor: Word, Docs, or your firm's document automation system. Using AI for an outline pass, a research synthesis, or to break drafter's block on a difficult argument section is the realistic 2026 default under most firm policies. Compose the prose itself in your own voice or the firm's voice from your research notes, prior filings, and conversations with the supervising partner.
Before the AI scan, verify every citation against an authoritative reporter or research platform: Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg Law, the underlying federal reporter, or the state equivalent. Detection does not verify citations; that check sits on its own track and is the non-negotiable step before any filing. Mata v. Avianca made the consequence of skipping it stark.
Open app.textsight.ai, paste each section, and scan. Free tier handles 5,000 characters in one paste. Pro handles 10,000, which fits a typical motion section or a long contract clause. For a 20-page brief, split by section: statement of facts, argument headings, application sections, conclusion. The scan returns in well under a minute with an Authenticity Score and a sentence-by-sentence colour map.
Rewrite flagged sentences in your own voice while preserving legal precision, defined terms, and citation accuracy. A brief or memo typically needs three to eight sentence rewrites to move from a 65 score into the 85 range. The sentence map tells you which lines need attention; the headline score confirms the rewrite landed.
Send the consolidated draft to the supervising partner, in-house GC, or court clerk for the substantive review. Pro history keeps every section scan for 90 days. PDF export gives you a contemporaneous record. A typical motion section round-trips in about fifteen minutes; a full appellate brief in about ninety. If your jurisdiction requires disclosure of AI assistance on filings, include it according to the standing order; the scan itself is internal hygiene, not a disclosure document.
Several federal district judges issued standing orders during 2024 and 2025 requiring disclosure of AI assistance on filings. State courts followed in California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Pre-scanning every filing and disclosing honestly on the record is the defensible 2026 posture for any litigator.
In 2023, in a federal case widely referred to in shorthand as Mata v. Avianca, lawyers were sanctioned after a filing was found to contain case citations generated by ChatGPT that did not correspond to any real opinion. The case crystallised a problem that had been theoretical: a large language model will produce confident, plausibly formatted citations to authorities that simply do not exist. A lawyer who relies on them without independent verification puts their license on the line. Treat any citation that originated in or passed through an AI tool as unverified until you have read the underlying opinion yourself.
Loomis v. Wisconsin and the surrounding 2024 to 2025 discussion of algorithmic tools in criminal sentencing pushed the bench to ask explicit questions about AI provenance on filings. Several state appellate courts now ask AI-assistance questions on the record at oral argument when the underlying briefs read AI-shaped. Disclosure on the record matters more than it did even twelve months ago.
By late 2025, dozens of federal district judges had issued standing orders requiring attorneys to certify on filings that AI tools were either not used or, if used, that every citation was independently verified. The exact phrasing varies by chambers; the substantive expectation is consistent. Check the standing orders for every judge you appear before, and update your firm's filing checklist accordingly.
State bar disclosure expectations are tightening alongside the federal standing orders. New York, California, Florida, Texas, and the District of Columbia have all issued bar guidance touching AI disclosure during 2024 and 2025. Smaller state bars are following. The defensible posture across every jurisdiction is the same: pre-scan, disclose honestly when required, and never let detection substitute for the lawyer's verification step or for professional judgment on the substance.
Sophisticated corporate clients increasingly require disclosure when generative AI assisted any portion of paid legal work product. Beyond the formal disclosure, clients reading a demand letter or a closing memo that scans as AI lose confidence in the attorney faster than they lose confidence in a sloppy edit. The AI signal reads as bot-substitute rather than human attention.
Clients pay for an attorney's professional judgment, not for prose generation. A demand letter or closing memo that reads as AI-shaped sends the implicit signal that the lawyer did not engage with the matter, regardless of how much substantive work happened upstream of the writing. The signal is wrong in most cases but the perception sticks. Pre-scanning outgoing client communications is the lowest-cost client-retention investment available.
Litigation matters and large transactions routinely ship from three to seven attorneys across associates, partners, and co-counsel. Each contributor enters AI assistance at a different point and the combined draft can read uneven, which itself reads as AI to a careful judge or sophisticated counterparty. Business tier with 5 seats and shared scan history lets the team see the same Authenticity Score and flagged sentences. The supervising partner runs the consolidated scan before the filing or the closing.
Several large corporate legal departments now require outside-counsel firms to disclose AI use on any work product billed at the partner rate. The exact form varies: some clients ask for a line item on the engagement letter, others ask for a per-matter disclosure. The pre-submission scan history on TextSight gives the firm a contemporaneous evidence trail supporting whatever disclosure the client requires.
Business tier with 5 seats and shared history lets the supervising partner, the lead associate, the contract reviewer, and the paralegal all see the same scan and flagged sentences. The Authenticity Score becomes the team threshold rather than a per-author judgment. The audit log records who scanned what and when, useful when a junior associate delivers a section that flags higher than the rest of the brief.
Legal work is privileged and Rule 1.6 confidentiality duties apply to every third-party tool in the workflow. TextSight is designed to honour those rules out of the box, not as a paid setting you have to find. For privileged matters, the firm IT and the bar guidance for every jurisdiction where you practice are the binding context, not this page.
Briefs, memos, contracts, client letters, and demand letters submitted for scanning are never used to train the classifier or any other model. This is a contract clause, not a configuration toggle. It applies on the free tier the same way it applies on Pro and Business. The scan runs against the existing model and returns a score and sentence highlights without feeding the training pipeline.
Many practitioners scan redacted drafts where party names, docket numbers, addresses, dollar figures, and confidential facts are replaced with placeholders before pasting into any external tool. The detector reads prose cadence, not party identity, so redaction does not affect the score. For privileged matters and for any matter under a protective order, consult firm IT before pasting any content into a third-party system.
Free tier scans are not stored beyond the result session. Pro tier history is retained for 90 days; individual scans are deletable on request. Business tier offers configurable retention with team controls and a standard DPA on request for in-house procurement. Match the tier to your firm's external-tool retention policy, and align retention settings with the bar guidance for every jurisdiction where you practice.
None of this page is legal advice and none of it substitutes for the bar guidance issued by the jurisdictions where you are admitted. Before using any third-party detector on client matter, confirm with firm risk and IT teams. The professional judgment on competence under Rule 1.1, confidentiality under Rule 1.6, candor under Rule 3.3, and supervision under Rule 5.3 remains with the attorney of record. TextSight is an adjunct to legal judgment, never a substitute.
More for lawyers and legal teams.
The regulated-writer sibling page with funder attestation context, calibrated for grant narrative.
For grant writers →The professional-writer page with deliverable-level workflows for outside marketing content.
For writers →The integrated AI rewriter that rewrites stubborn argument and recital passages without losing legal precision.
Read the guide →Free, Starter, Pro, Business. Yearly billing saves 25%. Business tier with 5 seats for legal teams.
See pricing →Free to try. No card. Pro at $19.99/mo, or $14.99/mo on yearly. Business with 5 seats for litigation firms and in-house legal teams.