Create legal documents even for complex cases in no time. It's like having a junior lawyer in your pocket!
Our AI delivers incredible legal documents that will save anyone in a legal profession endless hours without sacrificing quality. Get access to enterprise level AI trained at billions of pages of legal text at rock-bottom prices.
Please note we never provide legal advice - none of our documents are created or reviewed by an attorney at law.
Create incredibly detailed and factual legal documents. Join hundreds of professionals that already use our 'junior lawyer' on a daily basis. Get started for free!
How Does it Work?
Upload your files
Provide us with your source text files (i.e. case files, evidence files and prior written exchanges). Then provide us with the task (i.e. provide a letter to the opposing party that summarizes my main arguments). Our AI will take the role of a junior lawyer you just hired and compile incredible high quality legal pdfs. Keep in mind we only provide documents - we do not provide any legal advice. This website is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content on this site is provided as general information and should not be interpreted as legal guidance. You should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice regarding your individual situation. Viewing or using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
Let our AI do some magic.
Say goodbye to hours of discovery and reading legal documents and writing drafts. Instead have our our AI do all the hard work and you can simply say yes/no at the end just like you would task a Junior Lawyer.
Download and use your documents & Privacy expectations
When your text files are created, you can easily download and use the text in whatever way you need. We process your data onsite, but depending on the document type and length will share it with third parties for analysis. Your data will be fully deleted after 48 hours.
See for yourself
Argued February 22, 2005—Decided June 23, 2005
Read how legalpdf.io would have prepared the lawyers for Susan Kelo to argue their case
What the critics say:
This document thoroughly researches and cites the original meaning of 'public use from sources like Blackstone, state constitutions, early Supreme Court cases. This provides a strong basis to argue for a narrow interpretation. Contrasts the original meaning with the flawed precedents of Berman and Midkiff. It raises important criticisms like lack of principle/logic, risk to property rights, vulnerability of the poor, incentives for corruption and appeals to basic principles like natural rights and limited government. Overall it is a forcefully argued position from an originalist standpoint, but may need to anticipate counterarguments and pragmatic concerns to persuade skeptical judges.
Read how legalpdf.io would have prepared the lawyers for GETTYSBURG ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY to argue their case
What the critics say:
The letter builds a strong legal argument against the condemnation by structuring it around the main issues like lack of public use, inadequate appropriation, and improper taking of railway property. Each issue is broken down into sub-points that methodically explain the reasoning with citations to case law precedents. The letter maintains an authoritative yet respectful tone appropriate for a court filing. It makes effective use of rhetorical techniques like reasoning from precedent, questioning vague legislative intent, and appealing to constitutional rights and protections. The concerns over disrupted railway service and lack of due process are persuasive moral arguments. Overall, the letter presents a cohesive, supported case that the condemnation overreaches federal power and violates property rights.
Read how legalpdf.io would have prepared the lawyers for ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION to argue their case
What the critics say:
The letter builds a strong legal argument for fair use by methodically explaining how Warhol's works were transformative. It cites artistic details like the changes in color, contrast, cropping, and background to show Warhol altered the original aesthetics. It analyzes how Warhol's works conveyed a different message about celebrity and culture. The letter anchors its analysis in past court decisions recognizing Warhol's works as transformative. It connects transformative uses to copyright's goal of promoting creativity. The tone is authoritative yet reasonable. Overall, the letter cohesively argues Warhol's works were highly transformative and deserve fair use protection based on legal principles and public policy.