The Evidence Orchestrator, 12-Month Subscription
The Evidence Orchestrator, 12-Month Subscription
The Evidence Orchestrator, 12-Month Subscription
The Evidence Orchestrator, 12-Month Subscription
The Evidence Orchestrator, 12-Month Subscription
The Evidence Orchestrator, 12-Month Subscription

The Evidence Orchestrator, 12-Month Subscription

$10,000
/ 1 yr

IMC-2002 · Standalone evidence workflow

Twelve months of structured evidence work for one attorney or small team, without buying the complete IMC Machine platform.

Gallery: Current privacy-safe Evidence Orchestrator and casework screens from the controlled legal pilot, not decorative mockups.

Annual price: $10,000 before applicable tax. Renews annually under the terms shown at checkout until canceled.

What the annual subscription provides

  • Access to the standalone Evidence Orchestrator workflow.
  • Body-camera and source-media intake, transcription, indexing, and organized matter folders.
  • Human review and approval gates for professional work.
  • No Issue Spotter or marketing modules.

The usage limit must be explicit

Usage volume is governed by the accepted order and the terms shown at checkout. This page does not promise unlimited matters, files, storage, or processing. Any unusual cleanup, rush work, custom integration, or third-party cost requires a separate written scope.

The IMC Machine is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. The responsible attorney remains accountable for facts, privilege, legal judgment, approval, filing, and final reliance. No legal or business outcome is guaranteed.

Checkout reserves an account. Good Creative Media reviews and accepts the subscription before onboarding begins; if the calendar cannot accommodate it, the payment is refunded in full.

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.