Draft Court Packet Preparation, Single Matter
Draft Court Packet Preparation, Single Matter
Draft Court Packet Preparation, Single Matter
Draft Court Packet Preparation, Single Matter
Draft Court Packet Preparation, Single Matter
Draft Court Packet Preparation, Single Matter

Draft Court Packet Preparation, Single Matter

$3,000

Full court-ready packet preparation for one criminal-defense matter, delivered as a bound exhibit binder ready to walk into court.

Price: $3,000 one-time.

Monday, 10:00 AM. A defense attorney has a contested hearing Friday. The platform has the evidence indexed. The packet engagement assembles the exhibits, prepares the bench book, builds the witness folder, and delivers a court-ready binder by Wednesday evening.

What it is

A one-time engagement to prepare a court-ready packet for a single criminal-defense matter. Exhibits selected and tabbed, bench book assembled with citations, witness folder prepared with prep notes, and the whole package bound and ready for court. Built for the attorney who needs trial-ready preparation without internal staff bandwidth.

What's in it

  • Exhibit selection and Bates-style numbering
  • Bench book assembly with statutory and case citations
  • Witness folder with preparation notes
  • Indexed exhibit binder with tabs
  • Digital backup of all materials
  • Attorney review and revision cycle

Who it's for

Defense attorneys preparing a single contested hearing, motion argument, or trial. Built for the attorney without internal trial-prep staff.

When to pick this one

Pick this for one-off court packets. For ongoing trial-prep work, see the platform subscription tiers which include packet preparation as part of the matter workflow.

How automation is used

Automation applies only to the workflows named in the accepted order. A person reviews and approves the work.

Engagements: Checkout places a refundable deposit. The studio accepts each project before work begins; your deposit applies to the project in full, or returns to you in full when the calendar is full. Prices exclude applicable tax.

Order details: Price, scope, timing, and any qualification requirements are stated on this page and confirmed at checkout.

Texas attorneys and the rules for AI

Texas permits a licensed attorney to use generative AI in practice, and it places the responsibility for that use squarely on the attorney. In Opinion 705 (February 2025), the State Bar of Texas set out four duties that apply to every matter that touches AI: competence, confidentiality, verification, and fair billing. Competence requires the attorney to understand how the technology works, including the limitations of each model and the way the platform routes between them; the attorney does not need to be an engineer, but does need to know enough to recognize when the tool is wrong. Confidentiality requires that client information be processed only through systems whose terms preclude redistribution and preclude training on client content without consent.

Verification requires that no AI output be relied on in client representation or in a court filing without independent review by the licensed attorney. This is the duty that has produced sanctions, and Texas attorneys have already been disciplined for filing unverified, AI-invented citations. Fair billing requires that any efficiency gained be passed to the client.

The IMC Machine is built around these duties. Every draft, worksheet, transcript, and dismissal pathway it produces is a proposal, not a filing: nothing files automatically, and the attorney of record signs and approves every release. Each court-facing draft is routed for independent review across OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini before it reaches the attorney, and every AI invocation is named and timestamped in the platform’s audit log.

When AI output is offered into evidence rather than used as work product, it must satisfy authentication under Texas Rule of Evidence 901, and the emerging Federal Rule of Evidence 707 will add reliability gatekeeping; the platform records model identity, configuration, and the human review pass so counsel can lay that foundation. The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, in force since January 1, 2026, is a civil framework that does not reach ordinary attorney work product. No statewide Texas rule requires disclosure of AI use in court filings, but federal districts and individual judges differ, so counsel should consult each judge’s standing order before filing. AI can make mistakes. The tool is permitted; the judgment, the verification, and the signature remain the attorney’s, and that responsibility is not transferable.