Boldly make your case.

AI research, drafting, and citation checking for anyone working a California case. Every line traced to a real source, across California and federal law.

Start free Watch the 2-minute demo

Rivera v. Northline

San Francisco Superior Court / Contract dispute

Review the delivery record

Does the June 3 receipt establish that Northline delivered the complete project?

Lexabrief

It establishes a file transfer, not completeness. The receipt expressly limits what it confirms. That distinction matters because the agreement required all four exhibits.

Rivera's June 5 email identifies Exhibits C and D as missing. The manifest lists those exhibits in a June 6 supplemental upload, while Northline's declaration says all required items arrived on June 3.

Frame the factual argument around that conflict. Before finalizing, confirm whether another delivery channel or written extension appears elsewhere in the record.

Ask about your own case

Opposition outlineWorking draft

Superior Court of California County of San Francisco

Opposition to summary judgment

Rivera v. NorthlineFactual argument for review

I. Receipt of a package does not resolve completeness

The June 3 receipt establishes that Northline delivered the complete project package by the contractual deadline.

Two days later, Rivera identified Exhibits C and D as missing and requested the complete set. The record therefore distinguishes when the upload arrived from what it contained.

II. The missing exhibits were required deliverables

The agreement required the completed project files, including Exhibits A through D, by June 3, with any extension subject to Rivera's written approval.

The manifest lists Exhibits C and D in a June 6 supplemental upload, while Northline's declaration states that every required item was delivered on June 3.

The factual argument should address that conflict rather than equate a transfer acknowledgment with complete performance. The complete record and governing legal standard remain for counsel's review.

Fictional sample record

Built for California.

Research covers California and federal law. Pleading form and filing checks follow the California Rules of Court.

Every citation opened.

Case law and your own record, each read against what the draft says it says. Disagreements come to you first.

No sales call.

Start free and pay for the work in credits. No seats, no minimums, no annual contract.

How it works

From the record to a draft you can sign.

01
Bring the record.
Upload pleadings, discovery and exhibits into a case. Scanned filings are read too, and reading them is free.
02
Research and draft beside it.
Ask about your documents or California law. Lexa drafts in pleading form next to the sources it used, and exports to Word.
03
Review before you file.
Every citation comes back in one list: what needs your judgment first, then what looks right.

Watch a real run.

A fictional wage-and-hour case, start to finish: three filings uploaded, a question answered from the record, an opposition drafted in pleading form, and its citations read against their sources. Nothing is mocked; the waits are sped up and marked.

The real productOne real run, from the record to a checked draft.2 min · no sound · sample case29 sec · no sound · sample case

Citation review

Every citation, opened and read.

General-purpose AI will cite a case that says something else, or an exhibit that does not exist. Lexa opens each source your draft cites, case law or your own record, and reads it against the sentence that relies on it.

In Noland v. Land of the Free (2025), the California Court of Appeal sanctioned counsel $10,000 for AI-fabricated citations.

Quotations matched to their source.
A quoted passage is found in the opinion or exhibit it came from, and opens at the page.
Record cites tied to your documents.
A cite to a declaration or exhibit is matched to a document in the case, or flagged when no such document exists.
Unchecked is never shown as checked.
A source that could not be opened stays in front of you, marked for your judgment.
Works on briefs you did not write.
Upload your own draft, or the one served on you, and every citation in it comes back checked.
A record of your review.
Export a review certificate that separates what was machine-checked from what you reviewed yourself.

Citation review

Opposition to motion to compel

Needs your judgment1

Needs your judgment
An employer must ensure its employees actually take their meal breaks.
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1040
The opinion holds the opposite. The duty is to relieve the employee of all duty, not to ensure no work is done.
“…an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty… but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.”

Looks right2

Looks right
The Court of Appeal described the Internet as a classic public forum.
Chaker v. Mateo (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1146
Looks right
Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps.
Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384

Who it is for

For anyone working a California case.

Solo and small-firm litigators

Big-firm research and drafting depth without a big-firm budget or a seat contract.

Paralegals

Cite-check the brief at 6 p.m. and hand back a list of what needs a lawyer's eye.

In-house counsel

Read outside counsel's filing against the record before it goes out under your name.

Litigation too often comes down to who can afford more hours.

We fought (and won) battles of attrition against companies with bottomless legal budgets. Lexabrief puts that weight of research and drafting behind solo practitioners and small firms instead.

Built by a practicing copyright attorney and an ex-FAANG engineer

Pay for the work, not the seat.

Start free. Subscribe monthly, or top up with credit packs that never expire. Uploading, reading and storing your documents does not spend credits.

$0to start, plans from $10 a month

See pricing

Your client's file stays yours.

Encrypted in transit and at rest.
Never used to train models.
Export or delete your files on request.

How we handle your data

Questions.

What law does it cover?

Research covers California and federal law. Pleading form and filing checks follow the California Rules of Court.

Do I still have to check the citations?

Yes, and the review is built for it. Every citation comes back as looking right or needing your judgment, and you sign the filing.

Can I export to Word?

Yes. Drafts are written in pleading form and export to .docx.

What does it cost?

Credits meter the work, at about a cent each. Start free, then subscribe or buy packs that never expire. There are no seats.

Is this legal advice?

No. Lexabrief is a research and drafting tool used at the direction of a practicing attorney. It is not a law firm.

Bring your next matter into focus.

Start free