Put legal claims to the test.

LegalJev helps you test whether a cited case supports a statement in your document. It looks for the underlying opinion, asks Jev to compare the claim with the available evidence, and shows the result with sources for your review.

To find case law, state the claim you want to support or ask an open legal question. Include the important facts and select the relevant jurisdiction. An example case is optional. Ask for supporting opinions and for decisions that limit or contradict your argument; a relevant case is not necessarily a favorable one.

Jev screens search snippets for relevance, then compares retrieved opinions with your claim. “Search snippets screened” counts the first step, not completed opinion reviews. Each case shows whether its opinion review finished, is pending, or was unavailable. You can collect authorities in a motion-support packet. It is a research starting point, not a filing-ready legal opinion or a check that every case remains good law.

Choose Quick search for a focused first pass, or Deep research for broader searches and related cases. Cases appear as they are found; an “audit pending” preview is not an audited recommendation. Deep research can also expand a completed Quick search using the same question and jurisdiction, with up to 50 authorities displayed—not a guarantee that 50 relevant cases will be found. Quick search retrieves opinions for up to one minute and Deep research for up to five minutes, including queue waits. Jev reviews opinions as they arrive and finishes reviewing every retrieved opinion after searching stops. Temporary Jev failures are retried automatically. If a source or Jev is unavailable, that check is marked unfinished—not passed. Found cases remain available, with unfinished checks marked.

A citation identifies a case. A claim is the statement your document says that case supports. Finding the case does not establish that the statement is accurate. One case may support several different claims, which need separate checks.

Citation-only references, such as a table of authorities without an accompanying claim, are excluded from claim-check totals. The report distinguishes completed, unavailable, and unattempted checks.

LegalJev is experimental. It can miss citations, retrieve the wrong or incomplete source, misread an argument, or reach an incorrect conclusion. A confidence score is a model signal, not a measured probability of legal correctness.

There is no guarantee of accuracy or completeness. Independently verify the case, quoted language, reasoning, and legal status before relying on an answer or filing anything. This is not legal advice. You use the service at your own risk, subject to the Terms of Service.

No. A search failure can mean missing coverage, an unavailable source, a citation typo, or a technical problem. It is not proof that a case was invented.

“Potentially fabricated citation” is a separate flag based on affirmative conflicting identity evidence—for example, publication details that identify a different case. Even then, it may be a citation error rather than fabrication. Inspect the source checks; the flag is not an accusation or proof that a case never existed.

Claim checks use retrieved opinion evidence, not just search-result snippets. When a complete opinion is available, Jev checks the claim in that context. Support in the opinion and support on the cited page are separate questions.

A pinpoint is the specific page or paragraph cited. Page-level checks need recoverable page markers in the source. If those markers are missing, the claim may still be checked against the opinion, but that page cannot be confirmed. Review the evidence and details for the scope of each check.

Opinions also quote earlier authorities. LegalJev looks for that quoted authority and distinguishes rules the cited opinion adopts, merely discusses, rejects, or declines to apply to the case before it. An earlier case named in the report is identified from the cited opinion, not independently retrieved or verified as the ultimate source of the wording.

“Internal citations omitted” means citations inside a quotation were removed; that is not automatically an error or an unsupported claim. The quotation must still preserve the meaning and must not falsely attribute the language. The report shows these editing markers separately from the claim-support result.

No. Support means the available opinion evidence was assessed as supporting that statement. It does not establish that the case is binding on your court or has not been reversed, overruled, distinguished, or limited by later decisions.

LegalJev is not a comprehensive citator or a substitute for checking subsequent treatment, governing law, court rules, and jurisdiction with appropriate legal research tools and professional judgment.

No connected source contains every available case. Coverage, access restrictions, provider limits, incomplete opinion text, extraction errors, and timeouts can all prevent a check. LegalJev supports research across U.S. jurisdictions, but does not promise complete coverage of any court or period.

An unavailable check is not a pass or a finding that the claim is wrong. Use the source links and search details to continue your own research.

Yes—PDF, DOCX, TXT, and Markdown files, subject to the limits shown in the form. Original files are read locally in your browser. PDF pages with missing or suspicious text layers can go through local OCR to recover readable text.

OCR can misread case names, citations, and quotations. Encrypted, badly damaged, or unreadable files may not be recoverable. Review extraction warnings and compare recovered text with the original before trusting a result.

LegalJev does not keep saved copies of your documents, pasted text, research questions, or audit results. We have no document database or saved account history. The app does not intentionally log your submitted text. Copy any results you want to keep—we cannot recover a previous audit for you.

The content exists temporarily in your browser and in server/provider memory while a check runs. This is not a promise that no data exists anywhere: hosting and AI/search providers may retain input or technical logs under their own policies, and abuse prevention temporarily uses an IP-derived hash and request count. See our Privacy Notice for the details.

Vercel Web Analytics counts visits to public pages. Documents, filenames, research questions, and results are not sent as analytics data. We remove query strings and URL fragments from tracked page URLs and respect Do Not Track and Global Privacy Control for analytics.

Original file binaries and filenames are not sent by the app. Documents are read in your browser, including local OCR when needed. That does not mean the whole audit stays on your device.

When you run an audit, extracted or pasted text is sent to our Vercel-hosted server. Claims, surrounding context, and opinion evidence go to TypeSafe for Jev’s checks, through Vercel AI Gateway when that route is enabled. CourtListener may receive citation-containing excerpts to find sources; TinyFish receives public case names and citation details, not your document text. Authority research also sends your issue query to the relevant search/model providers. The Privacy Notice describes the full data flow and other providers.

No. LegalJev does not sell your submissions, use them for advertising, keep a training dataset, or train or fine-tune models with them. We process your text to carry out the research run you request.

AI and search processing still involves the providers described in our Privacy Notice. Their own policies and applicable agreements govern how they process and retain data. Our no-saved-history design is not a blanket third-party zero-retention guarantee.

Do not submit privileged, confidential, sealed, or sensitive personal information to this public beta. Not saving a document does not make sending its text to an AI or search provider confidential or preserve attorney-client privilege.

Use public or appropriately redacted material. Stopping a run or closing the tab cannot recall text already sent to a provider or erase its records. LegalJev is not currently a confidential document-management service.

The public beta is currently free to try. Abuse safeguards and provider limits still apply. Features, limits, pricing, and access may change, and there is no uptime or continued-availability guarantee. Do not depend on the service for a filing deadline or other time-critical obligation.

When processing slots are busy or a provider asks us to wait, your request can queue and start or resume automatically. Keep this tab open: the submission and any resume checkpoint stay in browser memory, not a saved document queue. Closing or refreshing the page can end the queued run. You can cancel at any time.

Queue positions describe waiting requests, not cases. Waiting and processing time are shown separately. Retry guidance describes another possible attempt, not a promised start time or completion estimate. Unverified pauses do not show a countdown. Long provider limits stop the attempt while keeping your draft and completed findings in this tab, instead of leaving a timer running for hours. Queue access and resumption remain subject to provider availability and ticket expiry.

Your use is governed by the Terms of Service.