A tool, built to know it is a tool.

Why this exists

Three-quarters of state civil cases have a self-represented party in them.[1] The median judgment is $2,441.[1] The average lawyer costs $349 an hour.[2] No amount of good will closes that gap, because the arithmetic does not permit it: at those stakes, a lawyer cannot be paid enough to take the case and the litigant cannot afford one anyway.

Meanwhile the rules are public. The forms are free and official.[3] The case law is published. Nothing about the raw material is secret. What is scarce is the ability to read a great deal of it quickly and turn it into a document that conforms to what a court requires.

That is a software problem. It is not the same problem as being a lawyer, and we are careful not to confuse the two.

What we refuse to become

The obvious business here is to promise the thing people actually want: tell me what to file, tell me I will win, do it for me. Companies have made that promise. It has gone badly for them and worse for their users — one such company removed every document-generation product it offered on the same day it received a cease-and-desist from a state bar, and later paid to settle federal charges that its claims were unsubstantiated.

We are not interested in re-running that experiment. So the constraints below are not marketing. They are the design:

• We do not call ourselves lawyers, or anything that implies it. Not "robot lawyer," not "your legal team," not "advocates." We sell software.
• We do not choose your claim. You select the form and the theory. The software completes the document at your direction.
• We do not warrant validity or outcome. No document is promised to be sufficient, correct, or accepted.
• We show the source, every time. A tool that asks for trust instead of showing its work is the failure mode, not the product.
• We say "get a lawyer" when that is the answer. Including on our own home page.

The name, and the mark

An inference is a conclusion drawn from premises. In our case the premises are your facts and the published authorities. The conclusion is yours to draw, yours to sign, and yours to answer for. That is not a limitation we apologize for — under Rule 11 it is the actual structure of the thing.[4]

The mark is a set of scales, because that is the oldest and plainest picture of what a court does: it weighs. Two pans, one beam, and a judgment that depends entirely on what gets placed in them. Our software helps you find what to weigh and set it down in the right pan. It does not tilt the beam, and it is not the one holding it.

Hence the other half of the tagline. Pro Se, Not Solo — you are still the one representing yourself, and nothing here changes that. It means you do not have to do it empty-handed.

Who is behind it

Inference Legal is built by John David Marx, an independent software developer who spent six years as a Director at Red Hat and now builds AI-native systems solo. He is not a lawyer, does not practice law, and does not give legal advice — a fact the design of this product takes seriously rather than works around.

The company is early. This site describes what the software does and the line it holds. If you think we have drawn that line in the wrong place — in either direction — say so.