The AI Litigation Platform

The best-prepared lawyer in the room.

Every document read. Every issue and witness mapped. In minutes.

The production
Ellery v. Veldane Chemical Works94,317 documents
Mapping documents94,317 documents·33 minKey evidenceTox_Screen_Summary_1998.pdfFlagged liver effects.Key evidence, not producedBay 4 lab notebooksNamed in 14 produced documents.

The production.

Reads every document.

Maps all the evidence to issues and witnesses.

Identifies key evidence they never produced.

Built on the judgment of litigators with billions in outcomes.

This is what attorneys should be doing but aren't.
Am Law 10 litigation partner

From the first document to trial.

Great litigation is not a workflow. It is a thousand judgments. Falco brings a litigator's judgment to every one of them, without being prompted.

  1. DiscoveryThe case, mapped.
  2. DepositionsPrepared for you, before you start.
  3. Trial prepA running start on trial.

The difference

Other tools return work to do.Falco returns the work, done.

eDiscovery ranks the pile and hands you months of reading. An assistant answers only what you think to ask. A drafting tool waits for you to type in the strategy.

Falco reads everything and maps the evidence to every issue and witness. The map comes back assembled.

Search and reviewMonths

Some of the documents, in no order, and no way to know which are missing.

FalcoMinutes

The evidence that proves the case, in order, and the evidence that was never produced.

Documents that decide the caseNever produced

Discovery

eDiscovery, solved. In months minutes.

The other side hands you the production and you do not know where to start. Falco reads all of it, finds the few documents that decide the case, and names what should be in there and is not.

Case File
Ellery v. Veldane Chemical Works94,317 documents read

Issues found 19

  • Notice and knowledge412 · 3 disputes
  • General causation388
  • Duty to warn274 · 2 disputes
  • Regulatory reporting196
  • Punitive damages143
  • + 14 more

Notice and knowledge412 relevant · 3 contradict · 1 never produced

  • RE: North well field, Q3 samplingDetections above the internal action levelWitness taggedDana Whitfield
  • Tox_Screen_Summary_1998.pdfInternal screen flagged liver effectsCorroborates issueDana Whitfield · M. Torres
  • EHS_Notification_Protocol_v6.docxNotice required within thirty daysDispute flaggedM. Torres · R. Vance
  • Bay 4 lab notebooks, 1996-1999Never produced by VeldaneMissing from production

+ 408 more, ranked by relevance

Every relevant document is cited. No prompting required.

What Falco did

  • Read all 94,317 documents, cover to cover
  • Found all 19 issues in the case, pleaded or not
  • Mapped every relevant document to its issue
  • Tagged each document with its witnesses
  • Flagged the documents that contradict each other
  • Caught what is missing from their production

Falco finds the sequences that prove the case.

Finding this yourself means reading all three, noticing that not one of them says anything on its own, and working out what they mean together. Falco reads them against each other and shows you the chain.

Documents that prove it together
Notice and knowledgeOn its own
  1. Tox_Screen_Summary_1998.pdfA routine internal screen. Draws no conclusion.Dated 1998
  2. EHS_Notification_Protocol_v6.docxStandard policy language. Names no chemical.Adopted 2001, sets the reporting threshold
  3. RE: North well field, Q3 samplingFour numbers in a table.Three of the four are above that threshold
Together

The 1998 screen predates the protocol by three years. The Q3 numbers exceed the level that protocol requires be reported. No report was filed.

Falco found this combination unprompted, and cited all three.

Missing from the production
Notice and knowledge3 gaps
  • Bay 4 lab notebooks, 1996-1999Referenced by name in 14 produced documents. Never produced.
  • Q4 1998 sampling roundQ3 1998 and Q1 1999 were produced. The quarter between them is absent.
  • Attachment to the 1998 screenThe cover memo names an attachment. No attachment was produced.

Falco drafted the deficiency letter, with all three requests cited.

The documents you did not know to ask for.

Falco reads what was produced, works out what should exist alongside it, and tells you what never arrived.

Your deposition is already written.

Each outline is built from the documents Falco mapped to that witness. You walk in ready. No all-nighter.

Depositions

Prepared for you, before you start.

Outline, prep, and a live second chair, all from the same documents and witnesses Falco mapped in discovery.

Deposition outline
Deposition of Dana Whitfield, Director of Environmental Health and SafetyGoal · Establish the company knew years before it warned residents
  • FoundationWho had authority to set an action level at the North well field?
  • FoundationWalk me through what happens when a sample exceeds one.
  • Build on itYour protocol requires notice within thirty days, correct?Ex. 12 · p.4
  • Build on itThe 1998 tox screen carries your initials, correct?Ex. 8
  • Lock it downSo Veldane held these results eleven years before the first notice?Locks the goal
  • Lock it downAnd the Bay 4 notebooks that would show the earlier runs were never produced, correct?RFP 12
Every question cited to a document in the record.

Also prepared

Falco built an outline for every deponent in the case.

  • M. Torres
  • R. Vance
  • + 11 more deponents

Live Depo ModeA second chair that catches what one person cannot track alone.

Live Depo ModeLive, running time 00:43:07
Ellery v. Veldane Chemical WorksNo. 3:24-cv-01188 · Toxic tortWitness: Dana Whitfield, Director of Environmental Health and Safety
  1. Q.Who set the action level for the North well field?

  2. A.I don't specifically recall being involved in setting that number.

    InconsistencyConflicts with 00:14:22: “no threshold moves without my sign-off.”
    Follow-upSo a change to that action level would have crossed your desk, correct?
  3. Q.Did you review the 1998 tox screen before the notification decision?

  4. A.We follow a careful, consistent review process. Everything runs through the Bay 4 notebooks.

    EvasionReads evasive. She answers with the process, never whether she read the screen.
    Pin downDid you personally read the 1998 screen before the decision, yes or no?
  5. Document never producedThe witness just named a document that is not in their production: the Bay 4 lab notebooks. Nothing matching them was produced.
  • Inconsistency

    Flags testimony that conflicts with the witness's prior words, timestamp included.

  • Follow-up

    Drafts the next question while you are still listening.

  • Evasion

    Catches a dodge and shows what the record has against it.

  • Pin down

    Hands you the question that closes the door.

  • New document

    Reads an exhibit the moment it is handed to you, and catches one the witness names that was never produced.

  • Admission

    Locks in the answer that advances your theory.

Trial prep

A running start on trial.

From the discovery record and the testimony you already have.

  • Disputed and undisputed facts

    Every fact, split by what is genuinely in dispute. Each one cited.

  • Case timeline

    Every event in the record on one chronology, with disputes flagged.

  • Document sets that prove the case together

    No single document proves the point. Falco finds the set that does: emails, a policy, and a signature that mean nothing apart and everything together.

  • Evidence of damages

    The documents that quantify the harm: usage, sales, revenue. So your assessment is grounded, not guessed.

Disputed & undisputed facts
Undisputed

Veldane discharged to the Cold Spring aquifer until 2009.Ex. 12 · p.4

The 1998 internal screen flagged liver effects.Ex. 8

Residents were first notified in 2009.Ex. 21

The Bay 4 notebooks were never produced.RFP 12

Disputed

Whether the action level was ever formally set.Dep. 43:12 · Ex. 13

Whether the 1998 screen reached management.Dep. 43:37 · Ex. 8

When the plume reached the North well field.Dep. 42:15 · Ex. 7

Whether the discharge caused plaintiffs' injuries.Dep. 42:58 · Ex. 12

Case timeline
  1. 1996

    Bay 4 begins fluorosurfactant runsEx. 4

  2. 1998

    Internal tox screen flags liver effectsKeyEx. 8

  3. 2001

    Notification protocol adopted, thirty-day ruleEx. 12

  4. 2004

    North well field exceeds the action levelKeyEx. 7

  5. 2007

    Sampling program narrowed to two wellsDisputed

  6. 2009

    Discharge ends; residents notifiedEx. 21

  7. 2016

    State issues a drinking water advisoryEx. 30

  8. 2019

    Bay 4 notebooks requested, never producedNot produced

Coverage is not the test. Judgment is.

Attorneys can use 95% of Falco's outline as written.

Can you train my associates to do this until this is ready?
Am Law 10 litigation partner

The rest of the platform.

Discovery

  • Every document mapped to issues and witnesses
  • Disputes and contradictions
  • Corroborating documents
  • Document sets that prove the case together
  • Discovery requests
  • Deficiency letters
  • Evidence of damages
  • Case timeline
  • Ask Falco about the case

Depositions

  • Outlines for 30(b)(6), fact, and expert witnesses
  • Client and witness prep
  • Live Depo Mode
  • Cross-transcript insights and analysis
  • Disputed and undisputed facts
  • Post-deposition reports
See it on a demo

Built for privileged work.

Falco listens in the room where privilege lives. The controls are a feature, not fine print.

Trust center
  • No training on your data
  • Encrypted · TLS 1.3 in transit, AES-256 at rest
  • Multi-tenant isolation
  • US data residency
  • Role-based access control with audit logging
  • Delete on request
Very cool. I want to deploy this with our litigation team.
Partner at a national litigation firm
Request a demo

See it run on your case.

Bring a matter you are working. We will map the discovery, build the deposition, and run Live Depo Mode on your record.

Built for every matter a litigation team runs. Boutique to AmLaw.