One AI can invent a case. Five side by side cannot hide it.
Deepest sends your question to several top AI models at once and shows you exactly where they disagree. For work where being confidently wrong gets you sanctioned, the disagreement is the review layer a single chatbot never gives you.
200 free credits. No credit card required.
Watch three models review the same clause
The same indemnification clause, three top models, three different readings. Where they split is where you look twice.
Simulated demo for illustration. Actual responses are more detailed and personalized.
Why one AI is not enough in legal work
A single chatbot gives you one answer with no way to tell the solid from the invented. That is a risk profile lawyers already know how to name.
Confidently wrong is a sanctions risk
Courts have sanctioned lawyers for filing briefs with AI-invented citations. The failure was never the typing, it was trusting a single model with no cross-check. When several models answer the same question, a fabricated case or misstated holding stands out because the others do not repeat it.
One answer hides what it missed
A single model's clause review looks complete because you cannot see what a second reviewer would have flagged. Run three models on the same contract and each one surfaces issues the others skipped. The union of their answers is the review; the overlap is your confidence level.
Different models, different strengths
One model is strongest on long documents, another on careful drafting, another on adversarial reasoning. Subscribing to one vendor gives you one associate. Deepest gives you the panel, in one place, for less than two separate subscriptions.
How lawyers use Deepest
Three ways to combine the models, mapped to how legal work actually gets checked.
Compare · where the models agree and disagree
Compare: the built-in second opinion
Ask once and every model answers side by side, with an automatic breakdown of where they agree and where they split. Use it on clause interpretation, research questions, and anything you would otherwise ask a colleague to sanity-check. Agreement across models is not proof, but disagreement is a precise map of what to verify against primary sources before it goes out the door.
GPT-5.6
Claude
Gemini
Reads the cap as excluding defense costs
Compare
Two of three read the cap the same way. The split is your research assignment.
Synthesis · one combined best answer
Synthesis: one draft from the strongest parts
For drafting, you rarely want three versions; you want the best one. Synthesis has the models answer independently, then combines the strongest reasoning and cleanest language into a single draft. Client updates, demand letters, and memo first drafts arrive already cross-pollinated instead of reflecting one model's habits.
GPT-5.6
Claude
Gemini
Synthesis
One draft, assembled from the strongest sections of each answer.
Debate · models argue and converge
Debate: moot the argument before opposing counsel does
Debate makes the models argue against each other and converge over rounds. Put your best argument in and watch what survives contact. The objections that emerge are a preview of the other side's brief, and the position left standing is the one worth writing up.
GPT-5.6 · opening
Claude · rebuttal
GPT-5.6 · concedes
Claude · holds
Debate
Positions converge after two rounds. The surviving argument is the one to brief.
What legal work looks like with a model panel
Four places lawyers put Deepest to work on day one. Each prompt is copyable as written.
Contract review
Run a clause or a whole agreement past several models and get independent risk reads. Each model catches different issues; the disagreement report tells you which reading to verify.
Try this prompt
You are reviewing this MSA for the vendor. List the five riskiest clauses for my client, explain the risk in each, and propose replacement language.
Research memos
Get a structured first draft with the counterarguments already surfaced, because the models raise them against each other. Verify against primary sources, then spend your time on judgment instead of typing.
Try this prompt
Draft a research memo: is a liquidated damages clause of 20% of contract value likely enforceable under New York law for a commercial construction contract? Include the strongest counterargument.
Drafting and revision
Demand letters, client updates, engagement letters, settlement communications. Synthesis mode merges the models' drafts into one that is firmer, cleaner, and less templated than any single model produces.
Try this prompt
Rewrite this demand letter to be firm on liability but leave a clear settlement path open. Keep it under one page: [paste letter]
Case and deposition prep
Feed in a fact pattern and have the models independently outline deposition questions, anticipate opposing arguments, and flag the weak points in your theory before the other side finds them.
Try this prompt
From these facts, outline deposition questions for the opposing CFO, grouped by topic, each designed to pin down a specific admission: [paste facts]
Start with 200 free credits and up to 2 models per prompt.
Confidentiality
Built for work you cannot leak
Conversations are encrypted in transit and at rest, are never used to train models, and you can export or permanently delete everything at any time. Prompts go to model providers through enterprise APIs, not consumer chatbots. Follow your firm's AI policy and bar guidance, and anonymize client identifiers where your rules require it; the workflow works exactly the same.
Questions lawyers ask
Important
Deepest provides research and drafting assistance for legal professionals. It is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, and its output is not a substitute for the judgment of a licensed attorney. Review all output before relying on it or filing it.
Work in a different field? Deepest works the same way for accountants, consultants, financial advisors, and every other profession.
Give every matter a second opinion
Start free with 200 credits. No credit card required.