Hallucination-free AI for law firm research and drafting.
Research memos, first drafts, and document summaries grounded in your firm’s files and trusted legal sources. Hallucination-free means every citation is checked against its source before an attorney sees it, and anything that cannot be verified is flagged, not drafted. It works in Word and Outlook, and a lawyer decides what leaves the firm.
Illustration of hallucination-free legal AI built by Baybloom: a draft memo grounded in the firm’s documents, its practice system, and trusted legal sources, with every citation checked against its source and unverifiable citations flagged for the attorney rather than drafted.
Firm documentsBriefs, memos, agreements
Practice systemClients and matters
Legal sourcesCases and statutes
Citation checkEvery citation against its source
Exceptions3
CitationNot found in source · flagged, not draftedNeeds review
QuotationWording differs from the opinionNeeds review
HoldingSource does not support the statementNeeds review
Send to attorney review
Memo ready for attorney review
What is different in this industry
The requirements that change the work.
A wrong citation is not a typo
Lawyers have faced sanctions for filing briefs that cited cases that do not exist. In legal work, a plausible citation that cannot be found is worse than none, so the system has to check its sources rather than trust how fluent its writing sounds.
The firm’s past work belongs in the answer
A firm’s briefs, memos, and agreements show how it argues and drafts. General tools rarely know that work. Grounding answers in the firm’s document system means a draft starts from the firm’s approach, with each source listed beside it.
Confidentiality comes first
Client files cannot go wherever a tool happens to send them. Where data is stored, which model provider processes it, how long anything is kept, and that firm data is not used to train models are agreed in writing before a single document is connected.
Lawyers stay responsible
ABA Formal Opinion 512 expects lawyers to verify AI output, protect client confidentiality, and supervise how AI is used. The system drafts and checks; a lawyer reviews, edits, and decides, and nothing is filed or sent without one.
What we build
AI development and integration, applied here.
Research memos
A question answered from trusted legal sources and the firm’s prior work, with every citation linked to the passage it relies on.
First drafts
Letters, motions, and agreement clauses drafted from the firm’s templates and past documents, opened in Word for the lawyer to revise.
Document summaries
Depositions, productions, contracts, and correspondence summarized with page references, so a lawyer can confirm each point in the original.
The citation check
Every case, statute, and quotation looked up in its source before the draft is shown. Citations that do not match are flagged, and statements the sources do not support are left out with a note.
What a first release could include.
In the first release
One practice group and one task: research memos, first drafts, or document summaries
Connections to the documents and matters that task needs, with ethical walls respected
The citation check on every draft, with unverifiable material flagged
Use inside Word and Outlook
Where data is stored, how long it is kept, and no training on firm data, agreed in writing
A record of every request, the sources used, and the reviewing attorney
Usually later
Further practice groups and document types
The firm’s clause library and templates built into drafting
Drafting connected to intake and matter opening
Systems in play
Microsoft Word and Outlook
Document management: NetDocuments, iManage, and similar
Practice management: Clio, Filevine, Smokeball, MyCase, and similar
Legal research services the firm subscribes to, where their terms permit
The firm’s sign-in system, for access by person and matter
Model providers under terms agreed in writing
Features
What the software can include.
Sources beside every answer
Each statement in a memo or summary shows the document or authority it came from, opened at the passage.
Flagged, not drafted
When a citation cannot be confirmed, or a source does not support the statement, the draft carries a visible flag instead of the text.
Access by matter
Requests reach only the documents the person may already see, with ethical walls applied from the document or practice system.
Firm templates and style
Drafts follow the firm’s templates, defined terms, and formatting conventions, so revision starts from familiar language.
Request history
A record of each question, the sources used, the checks run, and the reviewing attorney, for supervision and later questions.
Model choice under written terms
The model provider is chosen with the firm and can change later without rebuilding the connections to its documents.
Litigation firm
An associate asks a research question and receives a memo with every citation checked.
At a litigation firm, an associate preparing a motion often starts from a blank page or a memo found by asking around. A first release lets the associate ask the research question in Word. The system searches the firm’s prior briefs in its document system and the research service the firm subscribes to, drafts a memo, and checks every citation against its source before showing it. Two citations it could not confirm appear as flagged notes rather than as text in the memo. A partner reviews and edits the memo before anyone relies on it. Drafting from the firm’s motion templates is a sensible next phase.
Questions
Before you start.
What firms in this industry ask about this work.
What does hallucination-free mean here?
It means the system does not hand an attorney a citation it has not checked. Every case, statute, and quotation in a draft is looked up in its source before the draft is shown, and anything that cannot be verified is flagged as a note instead of being written into the draft. An attorney still reviews every draft, because a real citation can still be the wrong authority for the point.
Is our client data used to train AI models?
It should not be, and that is put in writing. No training on firm data is an agreed term, set out with the model provider’s terms before any document is connected. The written agreement also covers where data is stored, which provider processes it, how long anything is kept, and who at the firm can see what.
Where is our data stored?
In a location agreed with the firm before work starts, on hosting the firm approves. The firm’s document system remains the record; any search index built from it is stored in the agreed location and follows the same access rules by person and matter.
How is this different from Harvey or CoCounsel?
Those are licensed products, and many firms use them. This is a system tailored to one firm: built on its documents, templates, and practice system, with the checks the firm specifies. If the firm already licenses a legal AI tool, an AI rollout for that tool may be the better place to start.
Does it work in Word and Outlook?
Yes. Lawyers ask questions and receive drafts in Word, and can summarize correspondence or draft replies in Outlook, with the sources listed alongside.
Can it file or send anything by itself?
No. It drafts, summarizes, and checks. Filing, sending, and any advice to a client stay with a lawyer, who reviews every draft before it is used.
Does this meet our professional obligations for us?
Software cannot meet those obligations for a firm. It can make them easier to meet: checked citations, recorded sources, access by matter, and data handling agreed in writing. The firm decides how AI is used under the rules where it practices, and its lawyers remain responsible for the work.
