One matter.Every tool it needs.
PleadSmart holds research, case law, judgments, drafting, case status and contracts in one continuous thread — across litigation, IPR, taxation, corporate and advisory work.
The work is one matter.
The tools are not.
Researching a limitation point, pulling the judgments that carry it, drafting the reply and checking when it is next listed is one piece of work. Today it takes four products and a clipboard.
Most legal AI has not fixed this. It has added a fifth window. You research in one conversation, then open a new one to draft — and everything you established in the first is gone. The facts get retyped. The citation gets retyped. The context that made the research useful does not survive the handoff, so the lawyer becomes the integration layer between their own tools.
Research portal
statutes, commentary
Case-law database
precedent search
Word processor
the actual draft
Court website
the next date
The cost is not the minutes spent switching. It is that the second tool never knows what the first one found.
That continuity — not any single feature — is what makes legal AI worth the change in habit. Everything that follows is built around keeping one matter open from the first question to the filed draft.
PleadSmart keeps the matter open
One thread, six modules. What you established at the first question is still there at the last draft, because you never left the matter to get to the next tool.
Question
the point at issue
Precedent
judgments that carry it
Draft
reply, petition, notice
Filing
export to .docx
Next date
tracked from eCourts
Context carries
The facts you set out once do not need restating in the drafting step. The matter is the unit of work, not the conversation.
Tools, not chatbots
Each module is built for one discipline and says plainly what it does not do — so you always know which tool you are in.
Every practice area
Litigation is a mode of work, not a practice area. A trademark opposition, an ITAT appeal and a s.138 complaint all sit inside it.
Built for Indian practice
Indian statutes, Indian drafting convention, Indian courts and Indian cause lists — not a global product with an India setting.
You should not have to open a new chat to draft what you just researched.
Six modules, three movements
Three tools for knowing, one for doing, one for tracking — and Contracts running alongside for transactional work. The grouping is the product: each module hands its output to the next without leaving the matter.
Research
statute and convention
Case Law
precedent search
Judgments
full text, read in place
DocBare
draft and review
Case Status
listings and orders
Contracts
Contract lifecycle management — a parallel lane for transactional work
Establish the position and the authority for it. Three separate disciplines, three separate tools.
Turn what you know into a document that can be filed, sent or signed.
Keep the matter current — listings, orders and dates, drawn from eCourts.
Research, Case Law, Judgments
Three tools rather than one, because establishing what the statute says, finding who has said it before, and reading the judgment itself are three different disciplines with three different failure modes.
Research
Answers grounded in Indian statutory law, procedure and drafting convention. Ask what the limitation position is, what a provision requires, how a particular application is conventionally framed — and get an answer written for a practitioner rather than a summary written for a layperson.
Research →Case Law
Precedent search across a corpus of 18 million-plus judgments from the Supreme Court and all 25 High Courts. Search on the facts of your matter, not on the keywords someone happened to put in a headnote — results are ranked on how closely the fact pattern and the issue match what you are actually arguing.
Case Law →Judgments
Open the full text of a judgment inside the workspace instead of leaving for a portal or a PDF viewer. Read it, mark what matters, carry the passage into a draft.
Judgments →18M+
judgments in the searchable corpus — the Supreme Court and all 25 High Courts. Statutes and drafting formats sit alongside it; live case status is drawn from eCourts.
DocBare
Drafting and clause-by-clause review, on one canvas
Draft a plaint, a reply, a notice or an agreement with the research still open beside it — and run the same canvas the other way to review a document clause by clause against what it should say.
REPLY · DRAFT 3
3. That the cheque bearing no. [TO BE VERIFIED FROM RECORD] was presented for encashment on [TO BE VERIFIED FROM RECORD] and returned unpaid with the endorsement "funds insufficient".
Convention — statutory notice under the proviso is conventionally pleaded before the cause of action paragraph.
Case Status
The matter stays current without anyone checking a portal
Case status is drawn from eCourts and held against the matter you are already working in — so the next date sits beside the draft it affects, rather than in a diary somebody has to remember to update.
- Commercial suit — Delhi High Court
- ITAT appeal — Mumbai bench
- s.138 complaint — Magistrate, Faridabad
Contracts
Contract lifecycle management inside the same workspace — repository, extraction, obligations and amendment drafting, with the drafting canvas you already use.
Executed MSA
v1 · never overwritten
Amendment
v2 · drafted in DocBare
Renewal
v3 · current
Diff
v1 → v3
Four matters, traced
The same six modules, four different kinds of work. Nothing below leaves the workspace, and nothing is retyped between steps.
A s.138 complaint
Establish the statutory notice position and the limitation window in Research. Pull the precedent on what the endorsement must show in Case Law. Draft the complaint in DocBare, where the cheque particulars you have not yet put on record stay marked rather than invented. Track the listing from eCourts.
A trademark opposition
Work out the grounds and the procedural position in Research. Find deceptive-similarity precedent on facts close to yours in Case Law, then open the two judgments that actually matter and read them in full. Draft the notice of opposition with the research still beside you.
An ITAT appeal
Establish the assessment and appellate position in Research. Find tribunal and High Court authority on the same head of addition in Case Law. Draft the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts in DocBare against your registry's formatting preset. Keep the hearing date current from eCourts.
An MSA renewal
The renewal reminder fires from the repository before the window closes. Obligations and key dates are already extracted. The amendment opens the executed agreement in the DocBare canvas as its starting point and saves as a new version — the original is never overwritten, and the change between versions stays visible to whoever reviews it next.
Litigation is a mode of work, not a practice area. A trademark opposition, a tax appeal and a cheque-bouncing complaint are different bodies of law arriving through the same procedural shape — which is why one workspace serves all of them.
Research, Case Law, Judgments, DocBare and Case Status, held against one matter.
Contracts and DocBare, held against one agreement and its full version history.
Four practice areas, one workspace — because the work has the same shape even when the law does not.
How this differs
You are almost certainly comparing us against three things at once. They fail differently, so it is worth being specific about each.
How it's different →Verification and grounding
The reason lawyers distrust legal AI is not that it is occasionally wrong. It is that it is wrong in the register of being right. Most of the product decisions below exist to remove that register.
Research does not cite judgments, and Judgments are never summarised into an AI context. These are not gaps in the product — they are the boundary that keeps a statutory answer from quietly acquiring a citation nobody checked, and keeps the judgment you are about to rely on as something you read rather than something you were told about.
- That the output is correct. It is a first draft and a starting position, and it is signed by you, not by us.
- That verification removes the need to read the authority. It narrows what you read; it does not replace reading it.
- A benchmark score. We have not published one, so we will not quote one.
Confidentiality and privilege
Your material is privileged, and the obligation attaching to it is yours, not ours. Our job is to make it possible for you to discharge that obligation while using the product.
No training on customer content
Neither Asvara nor the AI providers behind PleadSmart train on your content. Training on customer content is switched off with our providers, and our contractual position commits to it. This is the strongest single line on this page and it is unconditional.
Judgments stay out of AI context
Judgment PDFs you open in the workspace are never injected into an AI context. The passage you rely on is one you read and carried across yourself.
Reads survive a billing problem
Organisation-lifecycle refusals apply to writes, not reads. If a firm's account is suspended over billing, the firm keeps access to its existing work product.
Privileged material is treated as privileged
How privileged material is handled is set out in the agreement, not left to a policy page that can change without notice.
A DPA, drafted and reviewed
A data processing agreement is available on request, drafted by our Chief Legal Officer and reviewed by external counsel.
Because a published dependency chain is a standing target, and because the answer that matters to you — whether anyone trains on your content — is answered above without naming anyone. Under NDA, during vendor review, we disclose the detail: infrastructure, processing arrangements and the providers themselves.
Security and procurement
Written for the person who has to sign off on us rather than the person who has to use us.
Security →Built with you
Contracts exists because a transactional firm needed contract lifecycle management and did not want it living in a different product from their drafting. It was scoped with them and it shipped. That is how most of our enterprise work starts.
Enterprise engagements can include development scoped to your workflow, under a defined statement of work and timeline.
You are commissioning something, and you will see the scope and the dates before you commit to it. Nothing below is available to switch on today.
Organisation Vault
A firm-wide knowledge layer — your own precedents, past drafts and executed documents made searchable alongside the public corpus, with folder-level access control per user and administrator control over who can download to a local machine. Designed in full; not built.
Case Project
A knowledge graph across a single matter — parties, issues, documents and authorities related to one another and navigable rather than listed. Architecture settled; not built.
External counsel access to Contracts
Scoped, time-limited access for outside counsel and other third parties to specific folders in the contract repository. Not built.
Because you will find out in the demo, and it is better that you find out here. A vendor who tells you what is not built yet is a vendor you can believe about what is.
Engagement and pricing
There is no list price, and this is not a page with the number removed. PleadSmart is priced per engagement, against the tools you actually need and the query volume you actually run on each of them.
Plans →Start with a demo
Bring a matter you are actually working on. A demo run against a real fact pattern will tell you more in twenty minutes than this document does in eighteen pages.
A public sector undertaking and a Mumbai transactional law firm run on PleadSmart. References are available on request, once a conversation has started and with the customer's agreement.