Thursday, October 15, 2026 · 7:00 PM ET · Live on Zoom
Watch a day of document review run in about four minutes, every finding cited.
Sean Callagy and Michael Smikun, the trial attorneys behind two of America's Top 100 jury verdicts, show what legal AI can actually do. Watch work you'd hand an associate for a day run in about four minutes, every finding cited to its source, then learn how to check any legal AI's work against the source documents, including ours.
Bring one live matter and watch it work.
Date
Thursday, October 15, 2026
Time
7pm ET
Format
Live on Zoom
Audience
Attorneys, their teams, and anyone curious
Built for attorneys, at every size of practice.
Someone at your firm is already pasting client facts into a chatbot. Maybe it's an associate saving an hour on a first draft, maybe it's you at 11pm. It's happening whether or not there's a policy for it, and the honest question stopped being whether to allow AI a while ago.
The harder question is which parts of the work it can actually be trusted with. Most attorneys who tried these tools ran into the same wall: nobody wants to spend an hour contextualizing a matter to get back something they wouldn't put their name on. That's not a failure of the models, it's what happens when a system is told to be generally helpful without being given the structure a legal answer requires.
So the choice in front of most attorneys isn't adopt or abstain. It's evaluate well or evaluate badly. This session is about doing it well. You'll watch work you'd hand an associate for a day run in about four minutes with every finding cited to its source, then learn exactly how to check it against the source, the same way you'd check ours.
Thoroughness comes from how the work is organized, not from the size of the model. The gain sits in the architecture, and we show you how that structure is built and why it holds up.
What that looks like: we give Watson a plain-English question and let him drive the discovery platform. He knows the matter, so one phrase becomes a search across the words people would actually have used and the months it would have happened in, and he comes back with the documents and where they sit.
The questions to ask any legal AI vendor before you trust a matter to it.
Every finding carries its source document, the exact section, and a confidence level. When a partner asks how you know, you have an answer you can point to on the page. You are not asked to trust the output. You check it, one citation at a time, before it leaves your desk.
What that looks like: we run an NDA against a playbook and get back the specific deviations, each one carrying its clause number, then click straight through to the passage on the page and check it in front of you.
The questions to ask any legal AI vendor, and the answers that should end the meeting.
A contract review tells you what a document says. The harder question is what it does to you later. Jeeves reads the agreement as written, then war games the friction points: you sign today, a better offer arrives next month, you want out, and here is the exact clause that decides how that goes. Then you fix the clause and run it again. It is also the sanity check you would normally send to an associate, the read-it-again-and-tell-me-I-did-not-miss-something pass, except it comes back in minutes.
What that looks like: we take a real agreement, run it forward three years, surface the hinge moments where it breaks, then rewrite one clause and watch the outcome change.
The war-gaming pass to run on your next agreement before it's signed.
The real cost of review is reading, not billable hours. Sampling a fraction of the record is how most firms manage that cost today, and it leaves risk in the pages no one opened. Full depth review on every matter changes what you can promise a client. We work through where that line sits for you.
What that looks like: Holmes takes an outcome and works the case backwards, reconstructing the chains that lead there, then names what strengthens ours and what weakens theirs. Marshalling facts forward is what every litigator already does. This is the direction nobody can do by hand.
The sampling versus reading frame for pricing your own risk.
What legal AI can and cannot do
Where it holds up, and where it still fails on legal work.
A full document review, start to finish
Work you would hand an associate for a day, in about four minutes.
The live run, checked in front of you
Every finding cited to the page it came from.
The vendor questions, and questions to the end
Bring a matter in mind and ask us to run something specific.
Roughly in that order. It's live, so the room moves it, and the last stretch runs long more often than not.
All times Eastern. Live on Zoom.
Works with your stack
It reads the platforms your firm already runs on. Everlaw and your e-discovery record, SharePoint, OneDrive, Google Drive, your mail, and the documents already sitting in the matter. Nobody has to move anything or learn a new place to put files.
Four things you'll use the week after, whether or not you ever touch our software.
How to run an agreement forward through its own failure modes before you sign it, and the one clause that usually decides them.
The four tasks where firms get real value now, and the ones that should stay with a person.
The questions to put to any legal AI company, plus the answers that should reassure you and the ones that should end the meeting. You'll be able to run them on your next vendor call, and they work against us just as well.
Every finding cited to its source, so you can verify it the way you'd check an associate's.
“Last summer I had a multi-witness bench trial and I used ACTi as my only helper to prepare. I uploaded all of my documents and built a full blueprint in less than a day: my case outline, my direct and cross examination outlines, my opening statement. I could not have done it without it.”
“After more than 30 years practicing law, this changed how I serve my clients. When a client calls with a probate question, the kind of research that used to take me hours now comes together in minutes.”
“Having it in your pocket means that when an idea hits, you do not lose it. The next time you talk, it asks how it went and gets you back on track.”
Founder, Callagy Law
Sean has operated Callagy Law for 27 years and built it into a 125-person multistate firm running on a paired human-AI architecture in live production. He earned back-to-back Top 100 national jury verdicts from $0 offers, both closing in eight figures, and the firm has collected over $1B running this exact framework. ACTi, the agentic system behind the firm, is his own.
Partner, Callagy Law
Michael is a partner in Callagy Law's healthcare, commercial and business litigation group, and he co-built both of the firm's Top 100 national jury verdicts, the largest in Arizona in 2016 and the fourth largest in New Jersey in 2014. He's argued and won in four federal circuits and before the New Jersey Supreme Court. On these nights he plays the skeptic, asking the question you're already thinking before you have to.
We're not going to tell you the tools you already own are worthless. Copilot is useful for drafting and business development, and general research tools have their place. What we'll show you is the work that sits outside what a generalized system can do, and where the line between them actually falls.
We're not going to show you a recording and call it live. Everything runs in front of you, in real time.
And we're not going to suggest anything here replaces the judgment that carries your name. It replaces the reading, not the deciding.
Particularly. Most of what you leave with is how to evaluate any legal AI on your own matters, including ours: the questions to ask before you sign with anyone, and how to check a system's findings against the documents they came from. That is useful whether or not you ever use this software.
Yes, because nothing asks for it. We demonstrate on our own real documents. If you bring a matter, you choose what to say about it, and you can frame it as generally as you like. Nothing about attending requires sharing client information with us or with the room.
No, and we won't pretend those tools are worthless. Research platforms answer questions you ask. This session is about the work that sits outside what a generalized system can do, and where that line actually falls. If you leave still preferring your current stack, you'll at least know exactly why.
No. Most of the room is coming in skeptical, and that's the right posture. If you can email a document to an associate, you can follow everything we run.
No. You can stay muted with your camera off the whole time and ask anything in the chat. If you want something specific run, say so there and we'll get to what the room asks for.
No. This is not an accredited CLE session, and we would rather say so plainly than have you find out afterward.
Sean Callagy and Michael Smikun, live for the whole session. Both are practicing trial attorneys, and between them they built two of America's Top 100 jury verdicts.
Whatever you decide about tools, the attorney on the other side of your next matter is either already working this way or about to be.
Thursday, October 15 at 7pm ET. Live on Zoom and free to attend.
Save my seat