INTERACTIVE FEATURE DEMOS

Four Core Engines.
All Running Live.

The §1983 Analyzer, Timeline Builder, Records Engine, and Discovery Generator are not prototypes — they are the same logic currently powering real pro se federal litigation. Interact with each one below.

⚖ §1983 ANALYZER 📅 TIMELINE BUILDER 📂 RECORDS ENGINE 🔍 DISCOVERY ENGINE
MODULE_01

§1983 Civil Rights
Analyzer

A 5-step guided assessment that evaluates whether a constitutional violation has occurred under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — element by element, with risk scoring and Bluebook-cited supporting authorities.

  • ✓Element-by-element 14th Amendment analysis
  • ✓Color of state law determination
  • ✓Qualified immunity risk scoring
  • ✓Monell liability assessment (for entities)
  • ✓Recommended claims and supporting citations
  • ✓Outputs directly into Document Engine
01ACTOR
02RIGHT
03VIOLATION
04HARM
05RESULT
Who is the defendant (state actor)?
Law Enforcement OfficerPolice, sheriff, corrections officer acting in official capacity
Government OfficialMatter administrator, child services, court officer, public employee
Municipality / EntityCity, county, matter district, state agency (Monell claim)
Which constitutional right was violated?
Due Process (14th Amendment)Deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
Equal Protection (14th Amendment)Discriminatory treatment without rational/compelling basis
First AmendmentFree speech, religion, assembly, or petition retaliation
Fourth AmendmentUnlawful search, seizure, or excessive force
How was the violation carried out?
Official Policy or PracticeWritten or unwritten institutional policy caused the violation
Deliberate IndifferenceDefendant knew of risk and consciously disregarded it
Arbitrary / Conscience-ShockingConduct so egregious it shocks the judicial conscience
What harm resulted from the violation?
Physical / Bodily HarmPersonal injury, medical treatment required
Emotional Distress / Psychological HarmDocumented mental health impact, diagnosed conditions
Cliental Rights / Family SeparationInterference with client-child relationship or family-law rights
Economic / Property HarmFinancial loss, loss of employment, property damage
—
§1983 VIABILITY SCORE
GENERATE COMPLAINT →
0 EVENTS
NO EVENTS YET — ADD YOUR FIRST TIMELINE ENTRY ABOVE
MODULE_05

Case Timeline
Builder

Converts raw case facts into a litigation-ready chronological record — organized, labeled by category, and formatted for judicial submission or exhibits.

  • ✓Three-category tagging: Violation / Evidence / Court
  • ✓Date conflict detection and sequencing
  • ✓Auto-assigns exhibit labels (Ex. A, Ex. B...)
  • ✓Export to plain-text judicial narrative format
  • ✓Integrates with Document Engine as Exhibit A
  • ✓Supports 200+ event entries per matter
MODULE_03

Records Request
Engine

Generate legally-correct records requests for records-access, records access, FOIA, and IDEA — customized to the specific agency, your specific records need, and all required statutory language.

  • ✓Pennsylvania records-access (65 P.S. § 67.101)
  • ✓records access (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) — client rights
  • ✓Federal FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552)
  • ✓IDEA records requests and case plan access
  • ✓Deadline tracking with administrative appeal appeal window
  • ✓Auto-generates appeal if request is denied
records-access
records access
FOIA
IDEA
DISCOVERY ENGINE — AI-GENERATED LITIGATION TOOLS
INTERROGATORIES
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO ADMIT
// Select discovery type, enter your case topic, and click GENERATE
// All questions formatted to Fed.R.Civ.P. 33/34/36 standards
MODULE_06

Discovery
Engine

AI-generated interrogatories, requests for production, and requests to admit — formatted to federal and Pennsylvania rules, indexed to your specific claims.

  • ✓Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 interrogatories (25-limit tracking)
  • ✓Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 requests for production
  • ✓Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 requests to admit
  • ✓PA state court discovery rules (Pa.R.C.P. 4005)
  • ✓Deposition outline generator
  • ✓Motion to compel template if unanswered
LEGALITIZE MODULES

One platform. Multiple legal workflows.

Each module is designed to become part of the same matter graph, so documents, facts, deadlines, exhibits, and drafts stay connected instead of living in separate folders, inboxes, and disconnected tools.

01

Intake & Matter Core

Structured intake, party tracking, claims, issues, jurisdictional context, matter summaries, task routing, and case-stage management.

02

Document Intelligence

Record ingestion, entity extraction, chronology generation, metadata capture, source citations, and searchable matter context.

03

Draft Engine

Letters, pleadings, motions, responses, affidavits, demand packages, review packets, and attorney-controlled drafting workflows.

04

Evidence & Exhibit System

Exhibit labels, record grouping, communications review, production indexes, supporting documents, and litigation-ready evidence packages.

05

Deadline & Procedure Layer

Calendar rules, response windows, filing checkpoints, review reminders, procedural task lists, and case-stage gating.

06

Firm Knowledge Layer

Reusable templates, clause language, internal playbooks, matter history, review notes, and institutional knowledge retrieval.

FEATURE SYSTEM

Features are organized around repeatable legal workflows.

Legalitize should be presented as a modular platform: intake, ingestion, chronology, document intelligence, evidence control, draft automation, review gates, deadline tracking, and firm knowledge. Practice-specific examples are configurable workflows, not separate niche products.