Frequently asked questions

Firm accounts are stored in a US-region Postgres database and a US-region file store, isolated per firm at the row level. Only your firm's authenticated users can reach your matters, and no other firm can ever see them. Sign-in is passwordless and tied to a named individual.

No, and not by us either. Supreme Mind runs on the leading general-purpose models, chosen for legal work on measured accuracy, under zero data retention agreements with inference pinned to the US: prompts and completions are not stored after the response is returned and are not used to train any model. A backup route in our own cloud account runs on the same terms. Your matter content is not used to train any model, ours included. Every provider is named in the Privacy Policy.

You decide what to upload. Content is firm-isolated and US-stored, model calls run under zero data retention with US inference, so nothing is retained, and every call writes a metadata-only audit record (who, when, which task, which model and region). Privileged content is never written to logs.

Yes. Deleting a matter removes it, its uploaded documents, and the deliverables generated from it after a 30-day recovery window. Within that window the matter can be restored, by the person who deleted it or by a firm administrator, so a mistaken delete is reversible.

You get at least 60 days’ notice by email. In that time every brief stays downloadable and we send each firm an export of its matters and documents on request; afterwards all matter content is deleted within 30 days and we confirm it in writing. A sale of the company does not change these commitments. The detail is on Security & trust.

No. Each one is a de-identified composite representing a class of expert witness, anchored to publicly documented methods and prior testimony. It is not any specific named individual and is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by any real expert or firm. More on what a class is in How it works.

A probabilistic synthesis of how a class of expert testifies, for example a defense event-study econometrician or a cartel-overcharge damages economist, bounded to the public record. Supreme Mind uses it to model the opposing expert's likely opinion, cross-examination weaknesses, and Daubert exposure on your matter. How it works sets out what a run reads and returns.

The next layer, and it is in development. Today a run covers one expert on one fact pattern and returns a brief. The settlement engine argues the same matter out across a thousand scenarios, your experts against the other side’s, and returns one strategic recommendation: the spread of outcomes rather than a single read. The top five percent shows where your leverage is and what to build strategy from; the bottom quarter shows the paths that go wrong, so you can avoid them before settlement. If you want a say in how it is built, see pilots.

Antitrust, securities litigation (Section 10(b) and Delaware Chancery), mass tort, personal injury and commercial litigation, each with its own library of expert classes, from the event-study econometrician to the causation toxicologist. Intellectual property, medical malpractice and other practices follow the matters firms bring. The expert agent library describes the classes of expert by practice, and the quickest way to see how we would approach your matter is a demo.

Predicted blind on real expert reports, Supreme Mind reproduced 78% of the expert’s key findings on the event dates found, against 28% for a general-purpose model given the same case file. The difference is grounding in real data: event-study econometrics on market prices for securities matters, a cost pass-through analysis on public FRED input-cost series for antitrust, and Daubert and prior-testimony records from public court filings. Supporting quotations are verified against the public source, and any that cannot be verified are dropped. The results are on the benchmark; the full method is in How it works.

Treat it as decision-support, not legal advice. Counsel of record retains full professional responsibility, a credentialed human still testifies, and you should independently verify every fact, citation, quotation, and figure before use.

The line courts are drawing is between judgment and substitution, not between using AI and not using it. In Kohls v. Ellison, No. 24-cv-3754 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025), ECF 46, an expert’s declaration was struck because he had used a model to draft it and it carried fabricated citations. In Ferlito v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-05615 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2025), ECF 48, the court denied a motion to exclude an expert who wrote his report from decades of experience and then used a model to confirm it, finding “no indication that Lehnert used ChatGPT to generate a report with false authority.” The same order that struck the declaration in Kohls was explicit that it did “not fault Professor Hancock for using AI for research purposes.”

Supreme Mind sits on the permitted side by construction, and deliberately. Nothing we produce is filed, disclosed under Rule 26, or offered as a testifying opinion. Your retained expert forms their own opinion, writes their own report and signs it. What we produce is internal preparation: what the other side’s expert is likely to argue, and where it is weak. Every supporting quote is checked verbatim against the public record and dropped when it cannot be verified, so there is no path by which a fabricated citation reaches a filing through us. How each court of appeals now applies the amended rule to experts generally is tracked on our Rule 702 tracker.

Discovery into how an expert used a model is an open question in at least one active case, so the safer position is a tool whose output traces back to a public source a reader can open, rather than one whose reasoning exists only in a prompt history. That is how ours is built.

Two ways, and they are worth keeping apart. Every brief shows the data it is grounded in, and its quotations and citations trace back to a public source you can open; figures and the analysis itself you should still check. The quote and citation check is verifiable today, on your own matter, and it is the one we would ask you to judge us on now. The detail is in How it works.

Accuracy against outcomes is harder to prove honestly. A model trained on the public record may already have read how a decided case ended, so scoring it on decided cases measures recall as much as judgment. We run those comparisons internally and we do not present them as a track record. What we do instead is record a prediction on a pending public docket before it resolves, timestamped by the database rather than by us, and score it when the docket ends. Nothing there can be quietly revised or dropped after the fact. That record is young, so we are not quoting an accuracy figure from it yet, and we would rather say that than offer you one we cannot defend. What we do publish is a model of what better expert preparation could be worth in a close case, built on public research, with every input and how strong it is on the research page. It is an estimate, not a track record.

Matters are firm-scoped by design: your team shares one case file and collaborates on it, rather than each person keeping a private copy. Firm administrators manage users and firm-wide controls such as bulk deletion and recovery.

Three ways in. Example cases are free on a firm email address. An Annual Matter Plan gives unlimited runs on one matter for a year, per matter, per side, invoiced, from $20,000 a year in securities, antitrust and IP damages and from $10,000 in other fields. Anyone on your firm's email domain can work on the matter. Report Builder, expert-led report preparation, is in a pilot programme; our goal is 50% lower expert costs. The full list is on the pricing page rather than provided on request.

No. Isolation is per firm, and the outputs generated for you are yours. We may generate similar outputs for other users from the same public record, but your content is never exposed to anyone outside your firm.

Start on an example case, which is free and needs nothing but a firm email address: choose an expert and read a complete brief on a real public matter. When you want to run your own, a pilot on one live matter sets out the shape: 60 days, named matters, and the criteria for success agreed before the first run. Book a demo to scope it.

The public case materials you already have, such as the complaint, the opposing expert's report, and key filings, plus the basic facts of the case. Supreme Mind extracts the facts and grounds the analysis from there.