Brady / Article 39.14 Discovery Review
Brady / Article 39.14 Discovery Review
Brady / Article 39.14 Discovery Review
Brady / Article 39.14 Discovery Review
Brady / Article 39.14 Discovery Review
Brady / Article 39.14 Discovery Review

Brady / Article 39.14 Discovery Review

$5,000

Comprehensive Brady and Texas Article 39.14 discovery review for one criminal-defense matter, with motion drafting for any deficiencies found.

Price: $5,000 one-time.

Tuesday, 2:00 PM. A defense attorney receives a discovery production from the prosecutor. The review engagement reads every page, every video, every audio file looking for Brady material and Article 39.14 deficiencies, drafts the supplemental discovery motion for anything missing, and delivers the review with attorney sign-off.

What it is

A one-time engagement for a comprehensive Brady and Texas Article 39.14 review of a single matter's discovery production. Every produced item is reviewed for exculpatory material, impeachment material, and discovery-rule compliance. Any deficiencies trigger a drafted supplemental discovery motion held for attorney approval.

What's in it

  • Comprehensive Brady review of all produced material
  • Article 39.14 compliance audit per Texas rules
  • Discovery-deficiency log with specific citations
  • Supplemental discovery motion drafting (if needed)
  • Three-AI quorum review on any motion drafts
  • Attorney sign-off on the completed review

Who it's for

Defense attorneys with a complex or large-production matter where Brady and 39.14 compliance review is critical. Built for the case where missing material could be the case.

When to pick this one

Pick this for matters with complex or large discovery productions. Often paired with Court-Ready Packet Preparation for the same matter.

How automation is used

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

Deposit reserves your place. Studio acceptance precedes work; the deposit applies to your project or refunds in 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.