THE WHOLE RECORD
Not one document at a time.
Paste-one-PDF tools stop where the context window stops. Workplex takes the full extract — scans, handwriting, duplicate pages and all — and keeps the matter intact.
See record intake ↗More cases through
the same team.
A chatbot can summarize one report. A defense practice runs on thousand-page records across a whole book of matters
— where every fact has to trace back to the page it came from. Workplex is built for the second job.
Record intakeMedical chronologiesPhysician comparisonsWhat changed
“Build a chronology for this matter”
Organizing the record
MEDICAL CHRONOLOGY · SAMPLE MATTERIllustrative preview
The record.
In the right order.
Every event connected to the evidence.
Initial evaluationSymptoms and treatment plan documented.
↗ p. 12Diagnostic imagingImaging findings linked to the source report.
↗ p. 46Physician follow-upWork status and clinical findings extracted.
↗ p. 83 SOURCE-LINKED FINDINGSFollow the evidence →
PERSONAL AI VS. A DEFENSE PRACTICE
One report in a chatbot.
Or the whole book of matters.
Copilot and ChatGPT changed personal productivity — anyone can summarize a single medical report in seconds. A defense practice is a different problem: thousand-page records, hundreds of open matters, a statutory clock in every state you appear in, and work product that has to hold up at a hearing. The expensive misunderstandings live in that gap.
STRUCTURED MEDICAL REASONING
A finding you can take to a hearing.
A summary asks you to trust it. A Workplex finding names the page it came from, so causation and apportionment rest on structured, defensible medical reasoning — evidence a reviewer can open, not an answer that merely sounds convincing.
Follow the evidence ↗BUILT FOR A BOOK
Every matter, not one file.
A personal tool helps one person once. Workplex runs across the practice — shared workflows, deadlines by jurisdiction, and a record of who approved what.
For firm leaders ↗WHAT LANDS ON YOUR DESK
The page-turning is done.
The lawyering stays with you.
Spend less of the morning reconstructing a matter. Start with the record organized, the differences visible, and the next question ready for review.
CITED CHRONOLOGY
A file already read.
Dates, treatment, and material events arranged in sequence with each finding linked back to the page.
See the chronology ↗WHAT CHANGED
What changed since last review.
Compare new and earlier findings on work restrictions, causation, and apportionment. Check the source before deciding what happens next.
Review the findings ↗FIRST-PASS WORK PRODUCT
A client answer you can check.
Prepare a first-pass response from the matter record. Check the supporting pages, resolve gaps, and approve what goes to the client.
Explore work product ↗LESS RECONSTRUCTION. MORE PERSPECTIVE.
The whole matter.
Working together.
Legacy, manual processes still set the pace: rebuilding the story in spreadsheets, re-reading the same stack.
Keep the evidence, the disagreements, and the draft connected from the start — one connected matter, not six disconnected tools.
Source-linked findingsFirm-specific workflowsAttorney approvalOne connected matter
STEP 1 · BRING THE RECORD TOGETHER
See the whole story.
Right from the source.
A stack of medical records becomes a connected view of your matter.
Find the event, compare the opinions, and check the evidence.
From the record stack
to a medical index
↗Start with document classification and a reviewable index. In the pilot, test your largest extracts, scans, and handwritten notes—not just a clean sample.
MATTER RECORDSMedical report.pdfReady for review ✓
Review the report.
Skip the repeat copies.
↗Flag duplicate pages before review. Check near-duplicates against their originals so an amended report is not mistaken for a repeat.
Medical recordsOrganized
CorrespondenceClassified
Duplicate pagesFlagged
One matter. A clearer starting point.
Compare physicians
& their findings
↗Bring WPI, causation, and apportionment into the same view.
| Issue | Physician A | Physician B | Review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Work status | Modified duty | Full duty | Compare |
| Causation | Industrial | Mixed factors | Compare |
| Apportionment | See p. 24 ↗ | See p. 67 ↗ | Source linked |
| Impairment | See p. 28 ↗ | See p. 72 ↗ | Source linked |
A chronology you
can trace back
↗Follow the sequence. Open the source. Verify what matters.
Initial evaluationMedical report · page 12 ↗01
Diagnostic imagingRadiology report · page 46 ↗02
Work status updateProgress note · page 83 ↗03
STEP 2 · TURN CONTEXT INTO WORK PRODUCT
AI prepares.
Your team decides.
Start with a first-pass draft in your firm’s format.
Verify the evidence, refine the argument, and approve the work.
A client question.
A verifiable answer.
↗Measure the time from receiving a question to approving the answer—including source checks and corrections.
W Workplex ● Ready
What changed in work status
since our last client update?
↳ Findings connected to the record.
Ready for your review.
Ready for your review.
Ask about this matter… ↑
Give paralegals
a stronger first pass.
↗Start with subpoenaed-record or deposition summaries. Use your team’s format and compare the first pass with the attorney’s edits.
| Work product | Sources | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Subpoenaed-record summary | Linked ↗ | Ready to review |
| Medical chronology | Linked ↗ | Ready to review |
| Physician comparison | Linked ↗ | Review findings |
| Deposition summary | Linked ↗ | First-pass draft |
Final word.
Always yours.
↗Check the source beside the finding. Track omissions and corrections during the pilot; faster preparation only counts if total review effort falls.
ATTORNEY REVIEW
Verify source references ✓
Review material findings ✓
Refine the work product ✓
Prepared for your approval ↗BEYOND THE SUMMARY
What changed.
What needs you.
The next workflow to evaluate: a living case status with the latest medical findings, open decisions, and last client commitments. Test whether your attorneys can get current without opening multiple tabs.
Set the standard for your pilot ↗ILLUSTRATIVE WORKFLOW TO SCOPE · FICTIONAL RECORD
SUPPLEMENTAL QME RECEIVED · REVIEW REQUIREDThe physician’s findings changed
Now MMI · 12% WPI
Apportionment: 50% → 20%
Prior report p. 28 · Supplemental report p. 214
Current statusFindings and open questions
Next reviewFiles awaiting a meaningful update
Source checkAttorney approval required
ONE FIRM. A CONNECTED PLAN.
Your next workflow.
Your existing systems.
Another tool should not create another round of data entry.
Set the integration path and the cost of overlap before starting.
01 · START ALONGSIDE
Confirm the handoff.
Map how documents enter from case management and how reviewed outputs return. Confirm API or export access with your IT team; do not assume a connector exists.
02 · PROVE THE FIT
Include the whole workflow.
Count manual uploads, duplicate entry, and review time. Agree on usable exports, permission boundaries, and an overlap budget as pilot acceptance criteria.
03 · EXPAND DELIBERATELY
Plan consolidation separately.
If replacement is the goal, assess billing, time capture, invoicing, reporting, and migration as a separate scope. Validate open matters before committing to historical migration.
FOR THE PARTNERS WRITING THE CHECK
Capacity, not
hours saved.
On capped panel rates, revenue follows the number of matters your team can carry — not the hours spent carrying them. The question is not what preparation time is worth; it is how many more files the same attorneys can take without another hire. Model it against your own fee arrangements, including verification, corrections, and software cost. If the answer is only fewer hours, it is not a return.
Model your firm’s capacity →WHAT WE WERE TOLD · WHAT WE MEASURE
“Fifteen days of work just to review all the documents.”
A partner at a multi-state workers’ comp defense firm, describing intake on one new case, June 2026. That is the problem this is built against. It is their account of their own process — not a result we produced.
We have no customer outcome to publish yet. Before a pilot starts we record your baseline, then report against it:
Preparation timeHours to first usable work product per matter, before and after.
Correction timeWhat your reviewers change, counted as cost rather than hidden.
Cost per matterIncluding AI spend and review time, against your fee arrangement.
PRICING & PILOT SCOPE
A budget you can
take to the partners.
Pricing is scoped per firm. Before committing, request a written proposal
separating implementation, recurring charges, usage, and any performance fees.
Know the total.
Include setup, software overlap, internal review time, and migration work. Make assumptions and any variable charges explicit.
Agree on the limits.
Set the pilot’s file volume, duration, spending limit, and who can approve additional work in the signed scope.
Choose whether to expand.
Agree on acceptance criteria and exit terms before the pilot. Measure the result before approving a wider rollout.
HOW THE FEE IS BUILT
Three components, each defined before you sign.
ImplementationOne time. Workflow setup, templates and configuration for your firm.
Monthly retainerFixed. Platform, support, and ongoing rule-pack work.
Capacity componentTied to matters actually worked, against the baseline recorded before the pilot.
Anything usage-based carries a written ceiling. The proposal names the baseline, the calculation period, the evidence you can inspect, the payment cap and the dispute process. A number you cannot check against your own records does not belong on an invoice.
FROM THE WORKPLEX DESK
Ideas for the work
behind legal work.
FIELD NOTE · 01THE
CONNECTED
RECORD
CONNECTED
RECORD
What lands on your desk before the first coffee?
A practical look at the records, conflicts, and first-pass work that can shape a better defense morning.
Read the field note ↗CHECKLIST · 02CHECK
THE
SOURCE
THE
SOURCE
✓ dates✓ context✓ citation
The source-linked review checklist
Questions to ask when a chronology or draft comes back for your team’s judgment.
Read the checklist ↗GUIDE · 03START
SMALL.
MEASURE.
SMALL.
MEASURE.
010203
How to scope a useful first workflow
Choose one bottleneck, a representative file mix, and the review standard that tells you whether to expand.
Read the guide ↗STEP 3 · KEEP YOUR TEAM IN CONTROL
Your evidence.
Your firm.
Your control.
Bring your security team into the conversation early.
Define the requirements before a pilot begins.
Set the access boundaries
Confirm who can view, edit, create, and delete; identify fields that need locks before records enter the pilot.
A reviewable security posture
Review data ownership, model-provider use, retention, export, and deletion terms. Bring carrier AI-use guidelines and outside-counsel requirements.
A focused starting point
Agree on a workflow, a representative file mix, and the outcomes to measure.
FOR THE PARTNER DISCUSSION
Good questions.
Straight answers.
The cost, review, and system questions to settle before a pilot.
Share the pilot guide ↗What will I see in the demo?
Follow a fictional sample through intake, a cited chronology, physician comparison, and first-pass work product. Bring questions about your current workflow; no client records are needed.
How much work will verification add?
Measure it explicitly. Compare the current process with AI preparation plus source checking, corrections, and final approval. Track omissions and repeated errors across the pilot. Do not count preparation time saved as a win if review creates more work.
What happens when fewer review hours are billable?
Time recovered is not automatically revenue gained. On hourly matters, model the effect on billings and whether available demand can fill the released capacity. On flat-fee matters, lower delivery effort may improve margin. Use your actual fee arrangements, client guidelines, and review costs in the model.
Can this work with our case-management system?
Integration is a requirement to validate, not a promise to assume. Confirm document access, supported APIs or exports, where reviewed work returns, and what manual steps remain. If the handoff creates unacceptable duplicate work, resolve that before expanding.
Who owns our data, and is it used to train models?
Make ownership, permitted use, model-provider training and retention, access, export, and deletion explicit in your agreement. Review the proposed architecture and provider terms with your IT team before sharing client records; this prototype does not establish those contractual terms.
What about our carriers’ AI-use requirements?
Bring outside-counsel guidelines, AI questionnaires, and disclosure requirements into scoping. Map each requirement to documentation and a named reviewer before use. Confirm any unresolved items with the firm and client.
Can we start with subpoenaed-record summaries?
Yes—use that workflow to scope the first evaluation, along with a representative record set, the paralegal’s current format, and the attorney’s review standard. Deposition summaries, duplicate review, and medical indexing are other starting points to discuss.
Which states and advanced workflows are in scope?
California is the starting point. Confirm state-specific formats and requirements in writing. AMA Guides edition checks, retained corrections, training mode, mobile or voice, and back-office automation need their own capability review; do not infer availability from an illustrative workflow.
How do we decide whether to expand?
Choose one workflow, a representative file mix, a responsible reviewer, and a defined pilot period. Agree on quality, total handling time, integration, and budget thresholds. Give the partner group the results and unresolved gaps before the next commitment.
WHO YOU WOULD BE WORKING WITH
A small team,
and no layer in between.
There is no account manager between you and the people who write the software and sit in the review sessions. If a pilot is not working, you will hear it from us before you hear it from your own file.
Start the conversation →THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER END
Todd Richardson
Co-founder. Works with firm leadership on scope, pricing, and what a pilot has to prove.
Alex Fachinello
Co-founder. Builds the intake, chronology and comparison engines, and runs pilot configuration with your operations lead.
START WITH ONE WORKFLOW
Bring us the task
taking too much time.
Choose one bottleneck. Agree on review quality, total handling time, system fit, and a written budget before the pilot starts.
Scope your pilot →No client records needed for the conversation.See it on your own files
A short conversation about the work taking too much time at your firm.