AGENTIC LEGAL RESEARCH
From the Facts to the Law
Servient Legal Research starts where a case starts, with the facts. From a statement of facts alone, the agent identifies the legal issues and the claims they support, researches each one across curated primary law from 315 federal and state courts, and confirms every authority remains good law. The report is delivered cited, audited, and ready for review.
Research Designed Around the Agent
AI is the biggest change in legal technology since the search engine, and a change that large warrants a research system designed for AI from the ground up rather than bolted onto the tools of the prior era. Servient began with the law itself, curating millions of opinions for the agent to locate, analyze, and verify.
1875 – 1990s
Editorial Curation
Research attorneys at legal publishers mapped the law by hand. Digests, citators, encyclopedias, annotations, and practice guides were the tools every lawyer was trained on.
1990s – 2020s
Keyword Search
Keyword search put every opinion one query away. Lawyers became their own editors, choosing the terms, reading the results, and synthesizing the law.
NOW
The AI Agent
Works in legal concepts like the first era's editors. Finds authorities in seconds like the second era's search engines. Then goes deeper, following the law's connections to a depth beyond the reach of human lawyers.
The real test of agentic legal research is simple. Does the agent plan and conduct in-depth research, or does it just summarize the top results?
An AI Agent That Analyzes Every Case
A human researcher runs narrow searches because no one can read a thousand results, and narrow searches are a major cause of missed authorities. The agent runs the broad search that maximizes recall, then reviews every case that comes back, judging each on its legal meaning rather than its rank in a results list.
Thoroughness in legal research has always been rationed by human reading time. The agent removes the ration.
A human researcher · a few dozen cases per question
The Servient agent · thousands of cases, every one reviewed
Finds What Keyword Search Misses.
The agent retrieves by legal concept, so a governing precedent no longer hides because the judge phrased the rule in different words.
Reads the Full Result Set.
Hundreds or even thousands of authorities evaluated for a single question, where a researcher's realistic budget is a few dozen.
Follows the Research Trail.
The agent moves from a case to everything that cites, quotes, or distinguishes it, the way a careful researcher works outward from a leading decision.
The Full Body of American Case Law
Every report draws on Servient's curated repository of millions of judicial opinions, updated daily as courts publish. Coverage spans the U.S. Supreme Court, every federal court of appeals, the district and bankruptcy courts, the specialty courts, and the appellate courts of all fifty states and the District of Columbia. An agent that reads everything is only as reliable as the law it reads.
315
Federal and state courts, from the Supreme Court to every state's appellate courts
1875
Case law from 1875, or the court's formation, to the opinions published today
51
Jurisdictions: all fifty states and the District of Columbia
Daily
New opinions added as courts publish, treatment kept current
Federal Courts
U.S. Supreme Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
First Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- U.S. District Court for Maine
- U.S. District Court for Massachusetts
- U.S. District Court for New Hampshire
- U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico
- U.S. District Court for Rhode Island
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Maine
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Massachusetts
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for New Hampshire
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Puerto Rico
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Rhode Island
- U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit
Second Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- U.S. District Court for Connecticut
- U.S. District Court for Vermont
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Connecticut
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Vermont
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York
- U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Second Circuit
Third Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- U.S. District Court for Delaware
- U.S. District Court for New Jersey
- U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Delaware
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for New Jersey
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Virgin Islands
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Fourth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for Maryland
- U.S. District Court for South Carolina
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Maryland
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for South Carolina
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Fifth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas
Sixth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee
- U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit
Seventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Illinois
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Eighth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for Minnesota
- U.S. District Court for Nebraska
- U.S. District Court for North Dakota
- U.S. District Court for South Dakota
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Minnesota
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Nebraska
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for North Dakota
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for South Dakota
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Arkansas
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Iowa
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri
- U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit
Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for Alaska
- U.S. District Court for Arizona
- U.S. District Court for Guam
- U.S. District Court for Hawaii
- U.S. District Court for Idaho
- U.S. District Court for Montana
- U.S. District Court for Nevada
- U.S. District Court for Oregon
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Alaska
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Arizona
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Guam
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Hawaii
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Idaho
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Montana
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Nevada
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Oregon
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington
- U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit
Tenth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for Colorado
- U.S. District Court for Kansas
- U.S. District Court for New Mexico
- U.S. District Court for Utah
- U.S. District Court for Wyoming
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Colorado
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Kansas
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for New Mexico
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Utah
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Wyoming
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
- U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit
Eleventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Alabama
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Florida
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia
DC Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia
Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Specialty Courts
- U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- U.S. Court of International Trade
- U.S. Customs Court
- U.S. Tax Court
- U.S. Board of Tax Appeals
State Courts
Alabama
- Alabama Supreme Court
- Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
- Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
- Alabama Court of Appeals
Alaska
- Alaska Supreme Court
- Alaska Court of Appeals
Arizona
- Arizona Supreme Court
- Arizona Court of Appeals
Arkansas
- Arkansas Supreme Court
- Arkansas Court of Appeals
California
- California Supreme Court
- California Court of Appeals
- Superior Court of California, Appellate Division
Colorado
- Colorado Supreme Court
- Colorado Court of Appeals
Connecticut
- Connecticut Supreme Court
- Connecticut Appellate Court
Delaware
- Delaware Supreme Court
- Delaware Court of Chancery
- Delaware Superior Court
District of Columbia
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- Florida District Court of Appeals
Georgia
- Georgia Supreme Court
- Georgia Court of Appeals
Hawaii
- Hawaii Supreme Court
- Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
Idaho
- Idaho Supreme Court
- Idaho Court of Appeals
Illinois
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Appellate Court of Illinois
Indiana
- Indiana Supreme Court
- Indiana Court of Appeals
- Indiana Appellate Court
Iowa
- Iowa Supreme Court
- Iowa Court of Appeals
Kansas
- Kansas Supreme Court
- Kansas Court of Appeals
Kentucky
- Kentucky Supreme Court
- Kentucky Court of Appeals
Louisiana
- Louisiana Supreme Court
- Louisiana Court of Appeals
Maine
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Maryland
- Maryland Supreme Court
- Maryland Appellate Court
Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
Michigan
- Michigan Supreme Court
- Michigan Court of Appeals
Minnesota
- Minnesota Supreme Court
- Minnesota Court of Appeals
Mississippi
- Mississippi Supreme Court
- Mississippi Court of Appeals
Missouri
- Missouri Supreme Court
- Missouri Court of Appeals
Montana
- Montana Supreme Court
Nebraska
- Nebraska Supreme Court
- Nebraska Court of Appeals
Nevada
- Nevada Supreme Court
New Hampshire
- New Hampshire Supreme Court
New Jersey
- New Jersey Supreme Court
- New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
New Mexico
- New Mexico Supreme Court
- New Mexico Court of Appeals
New York
- Court of Appeals of the State of New York
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
North Carolina
- North Carolina Supreme Court
- North Carolina Court of Appeals
North Dakota
- North Dakota Supreme Court
- North Dakota Court of Appeals
Ohio
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Ohio Court of Appeals
Oklahoma
- Oklahoma Supreme Court
- Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
- Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Oregon
- Oregon Supreme Court
- Oregon Court of Appeals
Pennsylvania
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court
- Pennsylvania Superior Court
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
South Carolina
- South Carolina Supreme Court
- South Carolina Court of Appeals
South Dakota
- South Dakota Supreme Court
Tennessee
- Tennessee Supreme Court
- Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
- Tennessee Court of Appeals
Texas
- Texas Supreme Court
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
- Texas Court of Appeals
- Texas Court of Civil Appeals
Utah
- Utah Supreme Court
- Utah Court of Appeals
Vermont
- Vermont Supreme Court
Virginia
- Virginia Supreme Court
- Virginia Court of Appeals
Washington
- Washington Supreme Court
- Washington Court of Appeals
West Virginia
- West Virginia Supreme Court
Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Supreme Court
- Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Wyoming
- Wyoming Supreme Court
A Legal Knowledge Graph Built for the Agent
Servient curates millions of opinions into its legal knowledge graph. Within each opinion, it tags the determinative facts, rules of law, topics, holdings, and key quotations, each located to its passage. Across opinions, the graph records the citation, quotation, and treatment relationships as data. The agent researches connected, verified law rather than running searches over raw text.
This is the editorial work the legal publishers spent more than a century building, remade for a new era. A digest distilled the law into headnotes for a lawyer in a library. An agent needs the same distillation in a different form, as structured data it can consume, traverse, analyze, and cite.
Pinpoint curation gives the agent depth, following concepts, quotations, and citation connections from case to case. It also makes the work defensible, because a statement tied to an exact tagged passage can be checked mechanically against its source.
Distilled for the Agent.
Facts, rules of law, and key quotations tagged in every opinion, with the connections among authorities recorded as data the agent can traverse.
Verify to the Passage.
Every statement links to the exact language in the opinion that supports it, not just the case citation.
Built to Be Audited.
Because the agent pinpoints the material it relies on, the system checks each statement against its source before the lawyer sees the report.
From the Facts, or a Legal Question, to a Cited Report
Given a statement of facts or a focused legal question, the agent runs the research process end to end, with every step visible. From the facts alone, it identifies the legal issues and the claims they support, then researches each one. The report is delivered ready for review, with the validation audit already run.
Plan the Inquiry.
Starting from a statement of facts or a framed question, the agent identifies the legal issues and claims, maps the doctrinal frames they implicate, and plans its lines of inquiry, all visible to the lawyer.
Retrieve Good Law.
Wide searches, semantic as well as lexical, deliberately favoring recall, with every authority checked against the built-in citator as it is retrieved. Law that has been reversed or overruled is set aside before it enters the analysis.
Read and Evaluate.
The agent reads every candidate authority, assessing each on its content, its reasoning, and its relevance to the issues.
Expand the Research.
The agent follows citations, quotations, and treatment relationships from case to case, reaching relevant law no query would surface.
Synthesize.
A structured draft report takes shape, organized by issue and claim. Every proposition carries a pinpoint citation to the passage that supports it, and the analysis states the governing rule, the key authorities, and how they apply to the facts.
Audit.
Before the lawyer sees the report, validation checks compare each statement against its cited source and flag anything that does not hold. The audit is what makes review efficient instead of a re-performance of the research.
THE DELIVERABLE
A Cited Draft Report, Ready for Review
The synthesized analysis, every authority verified as good law, every proposition displayed alongside its supporting passage, and the agent's research plan and steps available for inspection.
80% Less Research Time.
From a statement of facts to a cited draft report, ready for review.
100% Cited and Verified.
Every proposition carries an authority the system has already checked.
Lawyer in the Loop.
Total visibility into the agent's process, with review at every step.
A Fraction of the Cost.
Priced as fixed-fee virtual hours against the estimated time the research would take a lawyer.
A Validation Audit on Every Report
Language models can misstate what a source says. Servient treats that as an engineering fact to design for, never as a defect to promise away. Because the primary law is tagged down to facts, rules, and quotations, the system requires the model to identify exactly which source material supports each statement, and then checks. Servient checks first, mechanically, and then presents the work in a format built for swift, reliable review.
Deterministic Checks.
When the report presents a quotation as appearing in a case, the pinpoint citation lets the system confirm word for word that the quotation is actually in the case, the same way every time.
Reflection.
Model-based review then asks whether the cited material genuinely supports the statement, and whether the statement is a sound expression of the legal principle.
Built for Review.
The audit report is built into the work product. Roll over any proposition to see the pinpoint passage that supports it, so review becomes judgment applied to pre-audited work product.
PROPOSITION
Sanctions for lost evidence require a finding that the party “acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.”
✓ Quotation verified word for wordSUPPORTING PASSAGE
“The court may impose these sanctions only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.”
Smith v. Jones, 512 F.3d 407, page 412, sentence 6
Every proposition, checked before you see it.
The lawyer directs the inquiry and exercises the judgment that turns research into advice. Guide, don't grind.
Research That Knows Your Case
On the Servient platform, legal research runs through the work itself rather than in a system of its own. The primary law feeds a significant share of the tasks an agent performs in litigation, from case analysis to motion practice to drafting.
Servient unifies the evidence, the transcripts, the pleadings, and the firm's work product with the curated primary law in one workspace, so every task draws on all of it. A standalone research tool answers a question. The Servient platform works the whole case, applying agentic AI to every phase of the litigation.
LEGAL RESEARCH DRAWS ON
The Evidence
Controlling authorities for the facts eDiscovery identified
The Transcripts
Grounded in what witnesses said, to the page and line
The Pleadings
The dispute as the parties have framed it
Your Work Product
Starts from the firm's accumulated research and drafting
Legal Research
on the matter record
AND FEEDS EVERYTHING AFTER
Case Analysis
Test every claim and defense against facts and law
Legal Writing
Motions and briefs from research tied to the evidence
Depositions and Trial Prep
Authorities organized by issue, ready where it's argued
Fixed-Fee Research in Virtual Hours
Legal research has always been an uncertain line in the litigation budget. The hours a question will actually take are unknown when the work begins, and they are not always billable in full. An experienced lawyer can still estimate the range the work should take, and Servient sets the price against that estimate. Each research project is a fixed fee in virtual hours, certain before the research starts and stated in a unit of value clients already understand.
TRADITIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH
Open Hours, Uncertain Cost
Open-ended researcher hours, unknown until the work is done.
A budget number the client cannot rely on.
Hours written off when the time invested runs past what the budget can bear.
SERVIENT AGENTIC RESEARCH
One Fixed Fee per Project
Priced before the research begins, set against the estimated hours the work would take a lawyer.
A certain cost the lawyer passes through in a unit of value clients already understand.
The client gets deeper research at a predictable fee, and the firm keeps the margin that agentic efficiency creates.