Two demands, one matter
Litigation work runs on two demands at once. Cases need deep structural analysis: claims to standards, evidence to elements, gaps and contradictions surfaced rather than buried. Cases also need workflow continuity across months or years of intake, organization, drafting, and preparation.
Today's AI tools force a choice between them. Generic assistants will answer anything, but their results depend on how the operator prompts them and they carry no understanding of legal practice. Specialized legal AI tools narrow to a single task: search, summarization, contract review. None covers case work end to end.
Kacti AI was built around a different premise. A complete solution, not a tool. Two systems working together, both running locally, built for legal practice from line one.
What we offer
Legal Intelligence is one solution. It runs as two modules: an Assistant lawyers work with day to day, and an Analyzer the Assistant calls on for structural case reasoning. Same product, same install, same case model.
The Assistant.
An AI assistant pre-configured with the workflows, processes, and guidelines that litigation practice runs on. Case intake. File organization. Deadline tracking. Drafting. Deposition and hearing preparation. Each workflow is captured as process documents the Assistant follows. Results do not depend on the user's prompting skill. The attorney verifies, edits, and owns each output.
The result is closer to a workflow-aware practice tool than to a chat interface waiting for instructions.
The Analyzer.
A structured case reasoning engine. The Analyzer builds a connected model of the case: parties, witnesses, events, documents, claims, elements, evidence, and the relationships between them. Analyses run on top of that model. Claims map to legal standards. Evidence is traced to the elements it strengthens and weakens, in both directions. Gaps and contradictions are surfaced rather than buried, and arguments are stress-tested against what undermines them. Every conclusion is traceable to the source material.
The Analyzer is the depth layer the Assistant calls on when work shifts from procedure to analysis.
Together.
The Assistant orchestrates the work; the Analyzer does the structural reasoning. Both run on the firm's computer. Case files are never uploaded. The only content that crosses to the LLM is the small text segments the current prompt requires, sent under Anthropic's commercial API terms (no training on customer content; 30-day default deletion). All persistent case state stays local. The Security page covers the contractual and architectural boundary in detail.
What changes on a real matter
Case ramp-up becomes structured instead of overwhelming. New matters start with a connected model layered over the firm's existing case folders: a claim-and-evidence view on top, traceable back to the underlying files.
Gaps surface on the firm's timeline rather than opposing counsel's. Contradictions show up in preparation rather than in deposition, on the stand, or in opposing counsel's brief.
Strategy displaces document review. The model surfaces which thin elements and unresolved contradictions matter next; the lawyer decides what they mean.
Drafting and deposition prep start from the case model, not from a fresh outline. Memos, motions, and outlines carry traceable citations to the evidence underneath.
Client conversations change shape. Lawyers answer faster, with traceable evidence behind the answer. Status updates reflect a current model of the case rather than a reconstruction from memory.
Where Legal Intelligence draws its line
Legal Intelligence is not a replacement for attorney judgment. It supports work such as drafting, structural analysis, and preparation. The lawyer reviews, edits, signs, and owns each output. Privilege is not a status conferred by software.
Legal Intelligence is not a privilege-determination, conflicts-checking, billing, or practice-management system. The firm continues to run on its existing tools for those (Clio, NetDocuments, time-and-billing software, conflict-screening tools). Privilege calls stay with the firm, through its own privilege review and privilege-log preparation.
Legal Intelligence is not a legal-research database. The firm continues to use Westlaw, Lexis, Fastcase, or its existing research tools to find authority. Legal Intelligence reasons over the cases, statutes, and secondary sources the firm pulls into the case workspace.
Built with practitioners on active matters
Legal Intelligence is being built with a select group of litigation teams. Design partners shape which workflows the Assistant runs and which analyses the Analyzer performs, anchored to how case preparation runs in their offices.
If the architecture above maps to how your team actually works a case, the founder is open to a direct conversation.