The Dismissal Engine, 12-Month Subscription
The Dismissal Engine, 12-Month Subscription
The Dismissal Engine, 12-Month Subscription
The Dismissal Engine, 12-Month Subscription
The Dismissal Engine, 12-Month Subscription
The Dismissal Engine, 12-Month Subscription

The Dismissal Engine, 12-Month Subscription

Unlimited motion-drafting support for one year for a single attorney or small team, with platform access and ongoing dismissal-engine usage.

Price: custom quote; subscription amount is confirmed before checkout.

What it is

The Dismissal Engine 12-Month Subscription is the standalone product subscription for motion drafting without the full platform. Unlimited motion-drafting support across all matters for one year, with the same three-AI quorum review and attorney-approval gate as the per-matter product, billed annually for cost predictability.

Driven by the Good Creative Media Automation Engine

The subscription instantly instantiates a proprietary network of 90 custom workspace automations engineered by Julie Good to eliminate manual operational sludge and enforce absolute data truth.

Operational Multipliers for Civil Litigation Firms

  • The Billable Hour Reclaimer: automated Whisper pipeline turns raw client media and multi-gigabyte discovery into searchable transcript grids, saving paralegals dozens of manual hours.
  • The Temporal Audit Timeline: engine constructs chronological, timestamped document reports from raw video/audio files to drop directly into demand packages, mediation briefs, and trial notebooks.
  • Compliant Firm Scaling: deterministic Creative Studio layout system eliminates sensationalism, adheres to regional attorney-advertising regulations, and locks graphics to strict WCAG contrast standards.

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.