Read directly
PDFs, images, .docx, .eml and Outlook .msg files are read as they are.
Our AI reads all the evidence in a file, finds every detail with its volume and page, and assembles your hearing documents. All on your own servers.
Try it here.Click a card, type a question or open the commands. Fictional data: nothing leaves your browser.
The softwareProjecteur, installed on your workstation. Offline: nothing leaves this machine.
Chapter IConfidentiality
No document, no question and no transcript ever leaves your firm.
Your biggest risk with AI is sending your clients' personal information to someone else's servers. Here, that cannot happen: the tool runs entirely on your firm's own infrastructure, with no outside cloud service. Professional secrecy stays where it belongs.
The tool takes care of data transfers. Your firm's other obligations under Law 25 (privacy officer, policy, incident register) remain its own.
The models run on your servers and work without an internet connection. Nothing travels online, not even your questions.
No personal information is communicated to a third party or outside Québec: processing stays under your control.
Chapter IIBringing in a file
The tool reads every format in a disclosure and tells you, before you start, what it contains and how long the analysis will take.
Disclosure rarely arrives clean. The tool reads PDFs, images, .docx, .eml and Outlook .msg files directly, and converts everything else on site (legacy .doc, .rtf, spreadsheets, iWork), with no outside dependency.
PDFs, images, .docx, .eml and Outlook .msg files are read as they are.
Legacy .doc, .rtf, spreadsheets and iWork files are converted with no outside dependency.
OCR runs locally on Qwen3-VL, chosen after a benchmark against PaddleOCR, which read “jμmvam” for “janvier” on degraded pages.
What is in the file, exhibit by exhibit, with its type, date and size.
Before launching the full analysis, the tool tells you how long it would take. Then you decide.
Ask in one language, find the evidence in the other. Working translations included.
Whisper transcribes locally and timestamps every segment.
Audio and video go through Whisper, on your servers. The timestamp is the provenance: a lead that does not cite a real interval of the recording is rejected by the code.
Proposed lead: “the witness admits the delay”, citing 08:14:02 → 08:14:09.
The recording lasts 07:42:00. That interval does not exist: the code discards the lead.
The tool sorts your files and renames them using the mode you choose: date, name, type or size. Every sort can be undone in a single step.
Each file is renamed using the chosen mode, for example prefixed with its date or rank. It is reversible: defaire_classement restores the original names.
Chapter IIIFinding and summarizing
Every result leads to the exact page of the original PDF.
The link to the page appears on screen only: the deliverables handed to the firm never contain one.
Looks for a piece of information in the exhibits and returns the passage with its volume and page.
Which exhibits talk about this, and how many times. The question that needs no drafting.
The same thing, across every file in the database at once.
The dated moments exactly as stated in the evidence, with no model at all.
found for “harcelement” in a real file, even typed without its accent.
Singular and plural are found together.
to count mentions across the whole file.
Demo · 12 fictional exhibits · Accents and plurals folded · No real data, nothing sent.
A passage, an exhibit or an entire testimony, summarized in a few points.
Every point in the summary refers back to its original lines: you check at a glance. Choose key points or a paragraph.
01Q. Ma'am, you received the complaint on March 3?
02A. Yes, by email, late in the day.
03Q. What did you do next?
04A. I forwarded it to human resources the next day.
05Q. When did the investigation begin?
06A. A few weeks later, I believe.
07Q. Did you read the investigation report, exhibit P-40?
08A. No, I never read it.
09Q. Did the complaints register exist in March?
10A. I don't know.
11Q. Who was responsible for it?
12A. Human resources, I believe.
Table of contents, exhibits, objections and undertakings, read exactly as printed.
At the start of every volume, the court reporter compiles these lists by hand. The tool reads them with no model: nothing can be invented.
Examination-in-chief of witness B3
Cross-examination89
Re-examination202
P-40 Internal investigation report47
D-7 Prevention policy131
O-31 Relevance97
O-32 Hearsay160
U-12 Produce the complaints register118
Chapter IVPreparing for the hearing
Four hearing documents, produced with no model at all.
These are the documents a lawyer assembles by hand before a hearing. Every line comes from the indexes and pages of the file.
Brings together the witness's volumes, phases, counted non-answers, and the exhibits and objections of their testimony.
| Section | Witness B | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Volumes | 3 transcript volumes | Vol. 12 to 14 |
| Phases | In chief, cross-examination, re-examination | Vol. 12, p. 3 · p. 89 · p. 202 |
| Non-answers | 6 in chief, 19 in cross | Page-by-page detail |
| Exhibits | P-40 D-7 P-52 | Vol. 12, p. 47 · p. 131 · Vol. 13, p. 22 |
| Objections | 4 objections | Vol. 12, p. 97 · p. 160 · Vol. 13, p. 58 · p. 141 |
| Where | P-40 · Internal investigation report | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Vol. 12, p. 47 | Exhibit filed, 14 pages | Examination-in-chief, witness B |
| Vol. 12, p. 52 | Questions on the report's conclusions | Examination-in-chief, witness B |
| Vol. 13, p. 8 | Back to the date of the investigation | Cross-examination, witness B |
| Vol. 21, p. 310 | Witness says they never read the report | Examination-in-chief, witness D |
| Undertaking | Subject | Given at | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| U-9 | Send the March emails | Vol. 11, p. 204 | Followed up · Vol. 15, p. 4 |
| U-12 | Produce the complaints register | Vol. 12, p. 118 | Never followed up |
| U-13 | Provide the org chart | Vol. 12, p. 176 | Followed up · Vol. 16, p. 2 |
| U-17 | Check the timesheets | Vol. 14, p. 63 | Never followed up |
| Exhibit | Discussed at | Context | Declared in a list |
|---|---|---|---|
| P-58 | Vol. 19, p. 233 | Email shown to witness C | None |
| D-14 | Vol. 27, p. 61 | Policy excerpt read aloud | None |
| P-61 | Vol. 40, p. 12 | Photo discussed by witness F | None |
Each witness's “I don't know” answers and answer length, measured in chief and in cross.
temoins measures the change in demeanour between the two: the number of non-answers and the length of the answers. For non-answers, the threshold is a statistical test, the two-proportion z-test, not an arbitrary gap.
flagged by the statistical test on a 45-volume file.
gap for the first of them, between examination-in-chief and cross.
identified from the printed phase headers.
How to read it: a witness who answers “I don't know” far more often in cross-examination than in chief, and whose answers get shorter, has changed demeanour. The statistical test tells you whether the increase is too large to be chance.
| Witness | “I don't know” in chief | “I don't know” in cross | Increase | Answer length chief → cross | Verdict |
|---|
The witness is identified from the header printed at the top of every transcript page, the one source that does not lie.
Surfaces what lets you challenge a witness: their counted non-answers and the passages that lend themselves to it, deliberately favouring exclusion over volume.
The 45 days under section 123 ALS, calculated to the day.
It is pure, repeatable arithmetic. An unknown date is treated as unknown instead of being guessed. The concurrency rules of section 123.4 and the thresholds come on top.
August 17, 2026 + 45 days
Sample calculation, for illustration only.
Chapter VReliability
The tool answers only from your documents. No source, no answer.
General-purpose online AI answers from memory and can invent a quote, a date or an exhibit. Here, everything runs locally, without internet. The indexes are read exactly as printed, the timeline and assemblies are produced with no model, and an audio lead that does not cite a real interval is rejected by the code.
Did Ms. Gagnon admit the delay in writing?
Yes. In an email dated April 5, 2021, Ms. Gagnon acknowledges that “the work is three weeks behind schedule because of her team”.
No exhibit in the file contains a written admission of the delay by Ms. Gagnon. The closest passage points the other way: she blames the delay “exclusively on the rain”.
Fictional example, for illustration only. Answers from online AI tools vary.
Drop the disclosure in as it arrives. The inventory tells you what it contains, the estimate tells you how long the analysis will take.
question, mentions, partout and chronologie, with the volume and page of every passage.
Cross-examination binders, exhibit files, undertakings tracking and undeclared exhibits.
A 30-minute meeting with the Lavoie&Maher team, on a closed or anonymized file of your choice.