Every lawyer has tried AI. Almost nobody has a method.
You already tried a chatbot on a research question. It gave you a confident paragraph and a case number. You had no fast way to know whether the case existed.
6 weeks. 6 labs. Nothing you can't defend.
One live session a week, plus a lab you run between sessions. Every week is built on work you already recognise — the 6pm agreement, the Thursday hearing, the research note you can't vouch for — and every week ends with something you can use on Monday. Open any week below to see the outcome and what you walk away holding.
How it actually works — and how it fails
Before any tool: what a language model is doing when it answers you, and why that machinery is perfectly capable of producing a citation that was never filed anywhere.
You can look at any AI answer and say — before you've checked a single line — which parts are retrievable facts and which are guesses wearing the costume of a citation.
You asked a chatbot for authorities on a limitation point. It gave you four cases in thirty seconds. You spent the next hour discovering that two of them don't exist.
A junior hands you a research note that reads beautifully. You have no way to tell which parts anyone checked.
You've quietly stopped using AI for anything that matters, because you can't tell when it's confidently wrong.
Break a model on purpose. You'll have it invent a case, a section and a bench — and see how good the fake looks. Then run the same question through a grounded tool and watch what changes in what comes back.
Six weeks from now, on your own litigation work.
Run a research question end-to-end and verify every authority you cite, in under a minute each.
Reconstruct a chronology from a mixed document set — emails, notices, agreements, scans — with every event tied back to its source.
Pull the ratio out of a long judgment, then check whether it has been followed, distinguished or overruled.
Keep a verification record you could hand to a judge who asks how you got there.
You take a real research question, let a general model answer it, then verify each authority by hand. Whatever doesn't survive is the interesting part.
The question isn't whether AI is good enough. It's whether you can check it.
Every task in your week sits somewhere on two axes: how badly it hurts if the answer is wrong, and how quickly you could tell. Where those two lines cross decides what you hand over — and what you never should. Here is that map for litigators.
Hover a task to see where it lands. In week 5 you plot your own.
Don't take this course if —
We would rather lose the registration than the afternoon of somebody who wanted a different thing.
You want AI to practise law for you. It can't, and we won't teach you to pretend otherwise.
You want a list of prompts. Prompts age badly. The method here is verification, and it doesn't.
You want a vendor demo. LITT turns up in some exercises — so do the general models and the databases you already pay for.
You want a certificate more than a habit. There is no accreditation here and we claim none.
Questions, answered.
No. There's no code and no maths. If you can read a contract, you can do this course. The difficult part is judgment, not software.
No. The course is tool-agnostic. LITT appears in some exercises because it's what we build and it makes the grounded-versus-generated distinction easy to show — but you'll also work with the general models and the legal databases you already subscribe to. The method is the point, and it transfers.
No, and we make no accreditation claim. What you leave with is a policy, a protocol, a matrix and a working workflow — artifacts, not a certificate.
No — and please don't. Every exercise that touches a document runs on redacted or sample material. What you do bring is your own questions, your own tasks and your own week; a client's file never has to leave your office. Week 2 exists precisely so you understand why that rule isn't optional.
No. One cohort, one curriculum, six weeks — the track decides which examples, labs and delegation map you're given, not what gets taught. You sit with the other tracks, and that's deliberate: the in-house counsel in the room is who the litigator is writing for.
Yes. Weeks 5 and 6 are built for it, where the work shifts from personal speed to standardising and supervising across a team.
Sessions are recorded; cohort members keep access. The labs are where the learning actually happens, though — those are worth moving your calendar for.