Phoebe for Legal
Research that
you can actually
stand behind
Stop second-guessing AI-generated research. Phoebe searches your firm's actual documents and case files — and shows you exactly where every answer came from.
82%
increase in legal workloads in the past 3 years
83%
of attorneys already use unsanctioned AI tools
6h
average time saved per attorney per week with verified AI research
The Problem
Why lawyers can't trust
generic AI
01
Hallucinated citations
ChatGPT invents case citations that look real but don't exist. Attorneys who rely on them without checking face serious professional risk — and it happens more than anyone admits.
02
Client data leaving the firm
When associates paste contract language or case strategy into a public AI tool, that content may be used for training or stored on third-party servers. Most firms don't have a policy yet.
03
No way to verify the answer
AI gives you a conclusion. You still have to find the source, read the document, and confirm it yourself — defeating most of the time savings. There's no shortcut if you can't trust the output.
04
Tools that don't know your precedents
Generic AI doesn't know your firm's settled positions, your client history, or the deals you've already negotiated. Every question starts from zero — your institutional knowledge is invisible to it.
How Phoebe Works for Legal
From document to
verified answer
01
Upload your firm's documents
Contracts, case files, briefs, research memos — everything goes in once and stays private on your server.
02
Ask in plain language
No query syntax, no boolean operators. Ask the way you'd ask a colleague — Phoebe handles the search complexity.
03
Get a cited, verified answer
Every answer shows the source document, page, and passage — so you can spot-check in seconds, not minutes.
04
Use it with confidence
If the answer isn't supported by your documents, Phoebe won't guess. It tells you what it found and what it didn't.
Query →
"What were the limitation of liability clauses in our Q3 SaaS contracts and did any deviate from our standard template?"
"What were the limitation of liability clauses in our Q3 SaaS contracts and did any deviate from our standard template?"
Of the 14 SaaS contracts executed in Q3, 11 used the standard 12-month liability cap. Three deviated: Acme Corp (uncapped for IP claims), Brightfield (6-month cap negotiated down), and Novatech (mutual indemnification added)...
Acme_Corp_MSA_2024.pdf · p.7, §8.3
Brightfield_SaaS_Agreement.pdf · p.12, §10.1
Novatech_Contract_Final.pdf · p.9, §9.4
Get Started
Ready to research
without the risk?
We're working with a small group of legal teams during our beta. If your firm needs reliable AI research on its own documents, we'd love to talk.
Request Beta Access