Find the motion before you draft it.
MSJ Qualifier identifies and tests dispositive summary judgment theories across every claim. It maps elements and burdens, finds the material facts, tests the strongest opposing evidence, evaluates remaining discovery, and shows exactly why a pathway survives or fails.
No win probability. No black-box score. Every conclusion traces to the law and the record.
Unlike systems that ask AI for an overall judgment, MSJ Qualifier breaks the decision into auditable questions, resolves each against the law and record, then deterministically tests whether a dispositive pathway survives.
Counsel still decides whether to file. MSJ Qualifier makes that decision inspectable.
Deciding whether to move is harder than drafting the motion.
Should we move at all, on which theory, and when? That decision asks a lawyer to hold four structures in mind at once. A single prompt that says “analyze whether we should file summary judgment” collapses all four into one persuasive narrative, and when it is wrong, nobody can say where.
Legal structure
Elements, burdens, defenses, prerequisites, causation, remedies and the governing standard at this stage.
Factual structure
Documents, testimony, admissions, expert opinions, disputed and undisputed facts, and missing proof.
Procedural structure
What discovery has occurred, what remains available, and whether the opponent can credibly call the motion premature.
Adversarial structure
The strongest evidence and legal theory the other side will use to defeat the motion.
Only one pathway has to survive.
A plaintiff can have overwhelming evidence on three elements and none on the fourth. Averaging that into a “71.5 claim strength” hides the legal structure. MSJ Qualifier does not add points. It tests dispositive pathways: legally sufficient chains of propositions that, if established, permit the court to enter the requested judgment.
| Candidate pathway | Core question |
|---|---|
| Legal insufficiency | Even accepting the nonmovant’s strongest supported facts, is a required element still legally unsatisfied? |
| No evidence | Has the party bearing the burden had adequate opportunity and still lacks evidence sufficient to establish an essential element? |
| Undisputed material fact | Is a fact that independently controls the outcome established without a genuine evidentiary dispute? |
| Affirmative defense | Can every required component of a complete defense be established without a material dispute? |
| Threshold or timing | Does limitations, notice, exhaustion, standing, coverage or another prerequisite independently resolve the claim? |
| Causation break | Is there conduct and injury but no legally sufficient causal bridge between them? |
| Damages or remedy | Can a category of damages or a requested remedy be removed even if liability remains? |
| Theory-record mismatch | Does the asserted theory require a material proposition the discovered record does not support? |
Six steps from the record to a qualified pathway.
Bring the pleadings and record in directly from Google Drive, Dropbox or NetDocuments Early access, or upload them. The Qualifier then works the matter in this order.
- 1Decompose
Every claim becomes its parts
Elements, burdens, defenses, thresholds, remedies and candidate paths to judgment, each stated as a precise target: “judgment on the fraud claim because plaintiff cannot establish justifiable reliance,” not “the fraud claim is weak.”
- 2Ground
Law from Solon, facts from the record
Solon supplies stage-aware legal propositions, never model memory. The record supplies the evidence. The Minimum Dispositive Fact Set separates the few facts that decide the motion from the many that only tell the story.
- 3Test
Narrow questions, not one big one
Who bears the trial burden? Could the nonmovant’s strongest supported facts satisfy this element? Would the court have to choose which witness to believe? Small questions can be grounded, challenged and corrected.
- 4Attack
The opposition is built for you
Every candidate pathway faces the nonmovant’s strongest supported evidence, legal theory, reasonable inference and discovery objection before it can qualify.
- 5Decide
Explicit rules resolve the consequence
A deterministic framework marks each pathway QUALIFIED, BLOCKED, UNRESOLVED or not yet ready. No synthetic win probability.
- 6Handoff
Qualified pathways move to drafting
The tested pathway, its fact set, the strongest attack and the readiness state go straight into the MSJ Engine.
AI resolves observations. Rules resolve consequences.
Does this deposition create a factual dispute? Could the outstanding deposition change this proposition? Those are judgments about the world, and AI is useful there.
What follows once those judgments are accepted should not be left to a model’s intuition. It is written down as explicit legal logic, so the result is a decision structure, not a prediction.
- An AI answer is not an accepted input. Important determinations are checked for jurisdiction, stage, authority validity and record support before they enter the pathway.
- Confidence lives at the determination. It measures whether one narrow answer is reliable enough to use, never the odds a judge grants the motion.
UNKNOWN is not NO.
Missing discovery is not missing evidence. Unsettled law is not a clean rule. The Qualifier does not manufacture certainty.
UNKNOWN stays visible
If the system cannot establish that evidence is absent, it will not say “no evidence exists.” A pathway with an unresolved mandatory condition stays unresolved, however favorable the rest of the record looks.
It attacks its own theory
If accepting the opposition would prevent judgment, the pathway is blocked. If the dispute is real but immaterial to the pathway, the pathway survives. That is the distinction lawyers make every day.
It flags the judge’s job
If winning requires the court to choose whom to believe, or between reasonable inferences, the dependency is flagged and the pathway does not qualify on it.
Is discovery complete enough for this pathway?
For each outstanding item the Qualifier asks what it could realistically produce, which material proposition it touches, whether its best case for the nonmovant would change the result, and whether the nonmovant already had a fair chance to get it.
READY
The record supports the pathway and no identified outstanding discovery could materially change it.
READY, PREMATURITY CHALLENGE EXPECTED
The opponent can point to outstanding discovery, but it does not affect the pathway, or they already had the opportunity.
PREMATURE
Specific, obtainable discovery could alter a proposition the motion needs, and the opponent has not had a fair chance to get it.
UNRESOLVED
The system cannot yet tell whether a particular discovery gap is material. It says so, and says what would resolve it.
A pathway map, not a memo.
Merits and readiness are reported separately, because a strong theory can be premature and a mature record can hold nothing worth moving on.
Every conclusion opens into its support: the exact question asked, the answer, the evidence relied on, the contrary evidence, the governing authority and its source passage, any uncertainty and any human override.
Disagree with a burden allocation? Change it. The affected pathway recomputes. Nothing else is thrown away. The question shifts from “do you agree with the AI?” to “which proposition do you disagree with?”
Illustrative output. Facts are fictional.
Useful long before the motion exists.
A new deposition changes one evidence predicate. An admission turns a disputed proposition into an established one. The system recomputes only what changed, and answers the question that matters in the months before the deadline: what exactly stands between this case and a qualified pathway?
Early defense assessment
Find the claims with dispositive weaknesses before discovery expands.
Discovery planning
Ask what evidence would convert a potential pathway into a qualified one.
Deposition preparation
Target the propositions that matter to a candidate theory.
Requests for admission
Identify the facts that, if admitted, collapse a disputed pathway into an objective one.
Expert strategy
See whether expert evidence is the only remaining bridge on causation or damages.
Plaintiff-side defense
Run it against your own claims to find the elements the defense will attack.
Partial summary judgment
Isolate damages, remedies and discrete defenses that change settlement posture.
Partner and client review
Turn “I think we have a good MSJ” into a pathway map a partner, client or carrier can review.
What MSJ Qualifier is not.
Judges are not random number generators, and the inputs do not justify that precision. Legal dispositiveness is structural.
- Not a win predictor
- It will never tell you a motion has a 72% chance of success.
- Not a case-strength score
- It does not average favorable and unfavorable facts.
- Not a research memo
- Research supports the analysis. The output is a tested pathway.
- Not a citation checker
- A checker inspects what reached the page. The Qualifier prevents the failures that never reach it: the adverse case never retrieved, the wrong stage, the missed element.
- Not a motion drafter
- The Qualifier finds and validates the theory. The MSJ Engine drafts it.
The decision layer between understanding the case and drafting the motion.
| Category | Good at | What MSJ Qualifier adds |
|---|---|---|
| General-purpose LLM | Broad reasoning and fluent analysis | Decomposition, grounding, explicit uncertainty, deterministic pathway logic |
| Legal research platform | Finding relevant authorities | Turns law and record into a structured dispositive-path analysis |
| Citation checker | Defects in citations already present | Catches omissions, wrong pathways, burden errors and stage errors upstream |
| Drafting assistant | Producing motion language | Decides which theory is worth drafting before drafting begins |
| Case analytics | Historical patterns and aggregate outcomes | Case-specific legal and evidentiary qualification, not population-level prediction |
Ask for the record, not the stamp.
A grounded, inspectable answer to whether a dispositive pathway exists, what it depends on, what can defeat it, and whether the case is ready to use it. MSJ Qualifier is in Early access with a first group of firms.