Case theory as a structure, not a memo.
Each issue carries its rule, its application, its conclusion and a stated confidence — with the opposing argument written beside it rather than discovered at the hearing.
What stays true no matter which model runs.
Every proposition cites
A rule links to the instrument; a fact links to a confirmed chronology event. Uncited assertions do not pass the gate.
Retrieved, not recalled
Authorities come from a retrieval step against a real corpus, so a case that does not exist is never cited. Retrieval grounding is not a substitute for reading the case — every citation carries its verification state, so you can see what a person has checked.
Confidence is written down
Strength is stated per issue, so a partner sees where the case is thin without reading to the end.
Approval before staging
A strategy moves forward only when a named practitioner approves that version.
Living authority
A memo that tells you when it has gone stale.
Authorities carry their treatment status. When monitoring finds a cited case distinguished on appeal, the issue that relied on it is flagged, with the ruling attached and a route back into the argument.
- Treatment status on every citation
- A distinguishing decision reopens the issue
- The alert links to the ruling, not a summary
The firm’s own position
Precedent you already trust, cited by name.
Drafting pulls from the firm’s knowledge base with the matter’s permissions applied, and cites the document and version it used — so a practitioner picks a precedent rather than accepting a blend of several.
- Matter permissions applied to retrieval
- Sources cited by document and version
- House-style positions held with the authority
Structure
Rule, application, conclusion — per issue, held apart.
An argument strong on claims 3–4 and weak on 1–2 reads that way on screen, and the bifurcation survives into the pleading.
The other side’s case
Write the counterparty’s best argument before they do.
Opposing argument and rebuttal are first-class content against the issue they concern, not a note made after the hearing.
Versions
Change requests go back to the drafter with the reason.
Every revision is attributable, and approval is recorded against the version it approved.
A clause is the usual answer. Ours is a clause and an architecture.
On every tier. The matter boundary, the approval gate and the signed record are enforced in the runtime — hosted, in your own infrastructure, or on Bernio Pro.
- ABA Model Rule 3.3US
A lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement of law to a tribunal, and must correct one previously made.
Citations are retrieval-grounded and carry a verification state; a change in treatment reopens the argument that relied on them.
- Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023)US
Sanctions followed a brief citing decisions that did not exist, produced by a generative tool and not verified before filing.
An authority Bernio cannot retrieve from a real corpus is not offered, and verification state is shown on every citation.
- ABA Model Rule 1.1, cmt. 8US
Competence includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology.
The interface states what is model-generated, what is retrieved and what a person confirmed.
Bring an issue you have already argued.
We structure it in Bernio and show you what it cites, what it flags as weak, and what it refuses to assert.
Development status
Bernio is in active development with design partners — firms running real matters through the platform and shaping what is built next — and the first commercial contracts are being signed on founding terms. The capabilities described on this page are built and can be demonstrated on a matter type your team handles. Bernio Pro — the on-premise appliance — is an engineering prototype and is not yet commercially available, so any capability on this site that depends on it is marked as such. Descriptions of the product are not warranties; the binding terms for any deployment are those set out in the applicable written agreement.