Why I built these
The site has a lot of free legal content. The friction was that visitors had to read a long page to figure out whether a demand letter even fit their situation, and they had no way to test their facts against the statute before deciding to hire me. The AI tools fix that. You describe what happened in plain language; the tool returns the controlling California statute, a strength score, and a sample paragraph in attorney voice. If the score is high enough, the natural next step is to hire me. If it isn't, the tool tells you.
I am a California attorney (CA Bar #279869), BU Law J.D., licensed since 2011. I use Claude in my own practice every day. The same reasoning I do when triaging a new matter is what each tool's system prompt asks Claude to do. The difference is consistency: the prompt is the same every time, the JSON output is structured, and the tier recommendation maps to a real flat-fee package on this site.
The six tools, in plain language
- Case Strength + Demand Letter Sample: The 0-100 score plus a sample opening paragraph. Best when you have a clear breach with documentary evidence.
- Cause-of-Action Identifier: The list of every plausible California cause of action for your facts. Best when you are considering a complaint, not just a letter.
- Cease & Desist Response Strategy: You paste the C&D, the tool tells you which threats actually have teeth.
- Contract Clause Risk Scanner: Paste a clause, get the risk score plus suggested redlines.
- AI Compliance Audit for Law Firms: For attorneys: how does your firm's AI use stack up against CA Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.6, 1.5, 5.3, 1.4 plus ABA Op. 512.
- Pro Se Filing Roadmap: Step-by-step path from "today" to "case at issue" in California Superior Court for self-represented parties.
Frequently asked
What AI model powers these tools?
Claude Opus 4.7, the most capable model Anthropic offers as of May 2026. I picked Opus deliberately. Lower-tier models hallucinate California citations more often and miss multi-step reasoning. The Opus difference is what makes the output usable as a starting point.
Is this legal advice?
No. Every tool output is informational. No attorney-client relationship is formed by using a tool. For California-specific advice, email me at owner@terms.law.
What do you store from my input?
Nothing, unless you optionally enter your email at the end. If you do, I get a notification so I can follow up. The AI input and output are not persisted. Do not paste content you would not be comfortable sharing with me and a third-party AI vendor.
Why is the next step always "hire me"?
Because for the kinds of disputes these tools handle, the next step really is an attorney letter or a draft complaint. I price flat-fee and run intake by email so the friction is low. The consult fallback is for ambiguous cases.
Can the AI draft my final demand letter or complaint?
Not alone. The Case Strength tool produces a sample paragraph, not a finished letter. A finalized letter on my CA Bar letterhead requires me to review your facts and documents, confirm jurisdiction, verify the statute fit, cite-check, and apply the letter responsibly. That is what the $575 single-letter and $1,200 letter-plus-draft-lawsuit packages are for.
Do the tools work for non-California matters?
The prompts are calibrated for California civil practice. Non-California inputs run but the output is general-principles only. I do not take engagements outside California; for those matters, retain in-state counsel.
Is there a rate limit?
30 sessions per 60 seconds per IP. High enough that nobody using the tool for a real matter will hit it; low enough to block bots. If you legitimately hit the limit, email me.
If a tool says my case is strong, what now?
Email me at owner@terms.law with the tool output and the underlying documents (contract, texts, emails, photos, evidence). I will reply same business day with a flat-fee proposal and the matching PayPal link. The tool output is a starting point; my attorney letter is the actual work.
If a tool says my case is weak, what now?
Read the risk paragraphs carefully. The most common weaknesses I see are: SOL window already closed, defendant insolvent (no recoverable assets), no documentary evidence, mismatch between facts and the statute the tool identified. If any of those apply, save your money. If you want a written attorney memo confirming the assessment, the $349 case-evaluation memo package is the right fit.
Cross-links
See: all six tools · flat-fee packages · about Sergei · llms.txt (for AI crawlers)