The Issue Spotter, Single Matter
The Issue Spotter, Single Matter
The Issue Spotter, Single Matter
The Issue Spotter, Single Matter
The Issue Spotter, Single Matter
The Issue Spotter, Single Matter

The Issue Spotter, Single Matter

$3,000

Attorney-reviewed motion drafting for a single criminal-defense matter, delivered as ready-to-file filings.

Price: $3,000 one-time.

Thursday, 4:00 PM. A defense attorney has a motion deadline next Tuesday. The platform reads the matter folder, drafts the suppression motion, the Brady challenge, and the Article 39.14 discovery motion, scores them through the three-AI quorum, and presents them to the attorney for approval and filing.

What it is

The Issue Spotter, Single Matter is a one-time engagement for motion drafting on a single case. The platform reads the evidence-engine matter folder, drafts the relevant motions (Article 39.14, Brady, Miranda, suppression, dismissal), runs them through the three-AI quorum (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini), and delivers them to the attorney for approval. Attorney review and signature are required before any filing.

What's in it

  • Motion drafting for one matter: Article 39.14, Brady, Miranda, suppression, dismissal motions
  • Three-AI quorum review (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) on every draft
  • Attorney-approval gate with annotation tracking
  • Filing-ready PDFs delivered for attorney signature
  • 30 days of platform access for the matter team

Who it's for

Attorneys taking on a single matter who need motion-drafting support without a full platform subscription. Often a fit for court-appointed cases with tight motion deadlines.

When to pick this one

Pick this for one-off matters. For ongoing motion-drafting work, the platform subscription (Solo / Small Firm / Firm) is more economical after the third single-matter purchase.

Deposit reserves your place. Studio acceptance precedes work; the deposit applies to your project or refunds in full. Prices exclude applicable tax.

Attorney Review: The IMC Machine is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. The responsible attorney reviews and approves every deliverable. No legal outcome is guaranteed.

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.