Frequently asked questions

We assess exposure, build enforceable AI policies, train attorneys, and deploy verification at the perimeter. The goal is defensible workflows, not more software subscriptions.

Many E&O and CGL policies do not automatically cover third-party AI liability. Carriers are adding ISO endorsements CG 40 47 and CG 40 48 that can exclude AI-related claims on renewal. Without auditable AI governance and verification, firms may effectively self-insure malpractice and sanctions risk. Rule26 infrastructure and training document supervision for insurer and bar scrutiny.

You own it. We deploy sovereign AI infrastructure inside your own cloud perimeter, built on open-source footprints your firm controls, rather than renting per-seat access to an external platform.

Not reliably. Generative models can produce plausible-sounding citations that never existed. Asking a second model to “check” the first often produces false confidence, not proof. Rule26 verifies against indexed court records deterministically, the same standard courts expect when citations are challenged.

No. GhostCite confirms that the building blocks of your brief actually exist in the public record, citations resolve in CourtListener, case names match, and quoted language appears in the opinion. It does not tell you whether a case is still good law, overruled, or negatively treated. For doctrinal validity, continue using Shepard’s and KeyCite (or your existing citator) and treat GhostCite as the hallucination-detection layer between AI drafting and a final citator check.

Not for verification. GhostCite’s primary verification is deterministic: it checks citations and quotes directly against CourtListener’s indexed court records. No generative AI is involved in that step.

When a deterministic lookup fails, GhostCite may use CourtListener’s semantic search as a fallback. Semantic search uses embedding models to find cases by meaning, not exact text. It is not generative AI, it does not create new text or summarize opinions.

We do not train models on your briefs. Guest mode does not save history; accounts store metadata for your audit trail only. See our Privacy Policy for full data handling details.

Bar sanctions come from two places: unverified citations in filings and failure to supervise staff AI use. We address both. GhostCite verifies every citation against court records before you file. And we replace unmonitored consumer AI accounts with a secure corporate perimeter and enforceable AI use policies.

A focused working session that maps where your firm’s AI use creates citation, supervision, and insurance exposure, before you commit to a full governance program. You leave with a prioritized readout of which workflows put the firm at risk and what to address first. Schedule a snapshot to see if it fits your timeline.

Managing partners, general counsel, risk committee members, and practice leaders who set AI policy, not every associate. The workshop maps NIST AI RMF controls to litigation workflows and produces an enforceable firm-wide AI use policy. Practitioner desktop training is a separate course. See Training for details and flat-fee pricing.

Rule26 is vendor-neutral. We do not replace Harvey, CoCounsel, Westlaw, or Lexis, we add the independent verification and governance layer those platforms do not provide. GhostCite checks output before filing; training and infrastructure document supervision for insurers and bar inquiries. Use our comparison tool to model cost and custody tradeoffs across your stack.