Olympus Legal Systems
Created line by line by a lawyer, for lawyers.
A comprehensive system for solo lawyers and small litigation firms. Advanced AI helps you manage matters, produce work and check its sources. A second set of eyes and helping hands—so you have more room for lawyerly judgment.
Initial access: verification, deadlines, records and human review.
Hosted by Olympus Legal Systems.
Manage the matter.
Produce the work.
Check the evidence.
Inside Olympus / Work in view
Beyond the brief: deadlines, the matter record and a Review Inbox. Work with Hermes, your assistant, inside Olympus.
Voice: actual development capture with synthetic data. Other views: workflow illustrations.
Quick dictation, intake, depositions, hearings and strategy notes. Tell the assistant what matters; follow a transcript and working outline, then return to the source audio. Machine transcripts and AI notes need review. Speaker identity is not automatically established. In development; outside initial hosted access.
Demonstration matter / no client data
Matter Today is the landing view. The illustration connects a lawyer’s next decisions to their supporting work; it is not a live dashboard.
The obligation and its basis
Return to the underlying record.
Identify the governing obligation.
Resolve the facts before relying on the date.
No legal date or rule calculation is supplied in this illustration.
Chronos, deadlines, brings CPLR deadlines and obligations into the launch bundle. The basis matters as much as the date.
The record remembers
The words under review stay connected to where they came from.
Alexandria, records, is the never-delete matter record, with provenance on every source. The working history remains inspectable. Retention and deletion terms are pending.
The last word is yours
Add the source reference to this finding.
Awaiting human review.
Every AI-proposed change waits for a person to confirm or reject it. These controls only change this illustration; nothing is submitted or saved.
Initial access includes Aletheia, quotation verifier; Astraea, verification; Chronos, deadlines; Alexandria, records; and the Review Inbox, human review. Explore Aletheia → · See access and pricing →
A second set of eyes / Drafting in development
Follow research, critical review, supported revisions and source checks through to a commented draft for counsel. See why each change matters.
Explore the captioned walkthroughReconstructed from a recorded federal-complaint workflow.
All displayed facts and passages are invented for privacy.
Illustrative complaint / proposed revision
BeforeDefendant breached the agreement.
ProposedThe agreement required a written inventory. Defendant did not provide it.
Counsel’s review: What evidence supports the resulting loss?
Product / Quotation & citation verifier
Checks every quotation in a legal draft against supplied sources. Catches fabricated citations, altered conditions, dropped negative prefixes, and sentence fusions.
Returns a complete Verification Packet: the draft beside annotated sources, an initialling table for counsel, and a tracked-changes Word document (.docx).
§ 01 / Astraea, verification
AI can save hours of drafting, then give them back in checking: hunting through decisions, searching databases and comparing passages across tabs. Trusting a confident answer leaves the risk with you.
Even frontier models can invent authorities or distort a source’s meaning. Your signature carries a responsibility that using AI does not transfer.
The responsibility behind the signature
Signing of papers
Certification
“By signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in section 130-1.1(c) of this Subpart, …”
Reading the rule
The act of signing carries the certification.
The attorney or party signing makes that certification.
The standard preserves inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.
The certification reaches the paper and its contentions.
Verifier Core / Evidence you can inspect
Submit the work and its sources; let the checking sequence run. Each finding comes back with the draft passage, highlighted source evidence and its limits. Follow the annotations in one organized pass. Ambiguity and incomplete checks stay visible. Hermes, your assistant, explains the findings and recommends a response. You inspect the work and decide.
Scripts check source identity and text integrity before comparison. Missing authority stays unverified. Damaged extraction stops the check.
Deterministic scripts locate passages and compare quotations, accounting for typographic artifacts and returning source-backed corrections.
AI agents from different model lineages assess source passages against your work product. Readers receive the same evidence without seeing one another’s answers.
A script checks each reader’s cited passage against the source. Unverifiable evidence cannot count. Without clean agreement, a third reader reviews the same material independently.
Scripted rules combine admissible readings. Model advice about paraphrase fidelity stays advisory. The evidence, disagreement and recommended response come back to counsel.
Built to reduce the work of checking, not the care it deserves. Findings help you identify mistakes before relying on them; they do not guarantee accuracy or protection from sanctions. Professional judgment remains yours.
Follow the evidence through the review
One synthetic source. Three ways a draft—or its AI reviewer—can go astray. Follow the passage, inspect the independent readings, and see what comes back to the attorney.
Illustrative AI responses and recommendations · actual scripted gate results · no live model run
A qualified measure of value becomes a categorical right to payment.
01 / Proposed work product
A holdover tenant automatically owes the full rent specified in the expired lease.Is this a faithful paraphrase?
02 / What the source actually says
After the lease expired, the tenant remained in possession for two months. A tenant who remains in possession may owe the reasonable value of use and occupancy. The rent reserved in the expired lease is evidence of that value, but it is not conclusive. The landlord must establish the amount due; this record does not permit a final award. The matter is remitted for a hearing on the reasonable value of the premises.
Invented teaching document; not an actual judicial opinion.The first two readers assess the same source and proposition without seeing each other’s answers. The third receives those same blind inputs when clean agreement is absent.
Reader A Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
The source treats contract rent as evidence, not as the conclusive amount owed.
“The rent reserved in the expired lease is evidence of that value, but it is not conclusive.”
Real gate: source passage checked · eligible for panel rule
Reader B Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
The reader treats the reference to use and occupancy as sufficient support for the rent claim.
“A tenant who remains in possession may owe the reasonable value of use and occupancy.”
Real gate: source passage checked · eligible for panel rule
Independent third reader Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
An automatic entitlement cannot be inferred from a record that still requires proof and a hearing.
“The landlord must establish the amount due; this record does not permit a final award.”
Real gate: source passage checked · eligible for panel rule
04 / Scripted panel result
OVERSTATEDDisagreement stays visible. One admissible supporting reading prevents a categorical unsupported finding; the rules return OVERSTATED.
A panel-rule classification of model advice, not a deterministic finding of legal meaning.
05 / Hermes, your assistant
Authored example
Narrow the paraphrase: the expired lease’s rent is evidence of reasonable use and occupancy, but the amount remains to be proved.
Illustrative recommendation. The evidence and any disagreement remain available; you approve the response.
An invented supporting passage could let the checking model repeat the original error.
01 / Proposed work product
The court has already fixed the amount recoverable from the tenant.Is this a faithful paraphrase?
02 / What the source actually says
After the lease expired, the tenant remained in possession for two months. A tenant who remains in possession may owe the reasonable value of use and occupancy. The rent reserved in the expired lease is evidence of that value, but it is not conclusive. The landlord must establish the amount due; this record does not permit a final award. The matter is remitted for a hearing on the reasonable value of the premises.
Invented teaching document; not an actual judicial opinion.The first two readers assess the same source and proposition without seeing each other’s answers. The third receives those same blind inputs when clean agreement is absent.
Reader A Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
The reader claims the award has already been entered.
“The final judgment awards the landlord the full monthly contract rent.”
Excluded: supporting passage not found
Reader B Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
The source expressly says this record does not permit a final award.
“The landlord must establish the amount due; this record does not permit a final award.”
Real gate: source passage checked · eligible for panel rule
Independent third reader Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
The amount remains for a later hearing, rather than a completed award.
“The matter is remitted for a hearing on the reasonable value of the premises.”
Real gate: source passage checked · eligible for panel rule
04 / Scripted panel result
UNSUPPORTEDThe script excludes Reader A’s answer because its supporting words cannot be verified in the source. The two admissible readings do not support the proposition.
A panel-rule classification of model advice, not a deterministic finding of legal meaning.
05 / Hermes, your assistant
Authored example
Do not describe a final award. State that the amount remains to be determined at a hearing, and inspect the source passage before revising.
Illustrative recommendation. The evidence and any disagreement remain available; you approve the response.
A missing or unusable review must not disappear behind a reassuring result.
01 / Proposed work product
The lease rate conclusively determines the amount of the tenant’s liability.Is this a faithful paraphrase?
02 / What the source actually says
After the lease expired, the tenant remained in possession for two months. A tenant who remains in possession may owe the reasonable value of use and occupancy. The rent reserved in the expired lease is evidence of that value, but it is not conclusive. The landlord must establish the amount due; this record does not permit a final award. The matter is remitted for a hearing on the reasonable value of the premises.
Invented teaching document; not an actual judicial opinion.The first two readers assess the same source and proposition without seeing each other’s answers. The third receives those same blind inputs when clean agreement is absent.
Reader A Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
The source expressly says the lease rent is not conclusive.
“The rent reserved in the expired lease is evidence of that value, but it is not conclusive.”
Real gate: source passage checked · eligible for panel rule
Reader B Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
The reader supplies no supporting passage.
Excluded: no supporting passage
Independent third reader Illustrative response
Authored response · real gate check below
seat unavailable: the seat returned nothing
No response received
04 / Scripted panel result
INDETERMINATEFewer than two admissible readings yields INDETERMINATE. An incomplete review becomes a visible task for counsel, never a default pass.
A panel-rule classification of model advice, not a deterministic finding of legal meaning.
05 / Hermes, your assistant
Authored example
Review the source yourself or rerun the incomplete review. The available reading raises a concern, but the panel has not reached a supported conclusion.
Illustrative recommendation. The evidence and any disagreement remain available; you approve the response.
The response of an AI reviewer is itself something to verify. A passage must survive the source checks before that reading can count. These examples exercise those rules with authored responses; they do not measure model accuracy.
Inspect the inputs and gate results ↓§ 03 / A wider field of work
The launch bundle is the beginning. Research, strategy, drafting and law watch are in build, with their own work products and explicit limits.
An argument grounded
in the matter.
Record-driven strategy and New York motion analysis, connected to case-law research and opinion retrieval.
Define the decision counsel needs to make.
Separate established facts from questions still open.
Put the paths and their supporting sources in view.
From the record
to the page.
Motions, oppositions, replies and discovery demands, with procedural assembly, firm exemplars and deterministic guardrails.
A proposition.
A supporting source.
A reason it belongs.
Reference gate → proposed draft → human review
When the law moves,
know what to examine.
Monitoring of statutory and case-law change, with public source material available for counsel to inspect.
No live legal update is represented here.
These illustrations describe work in progress. They are not live results or screenshots. See every capability and its status →
§ 04 / The standard
The rules behind the findings, from source integrity to independent review.
How trust is measured →Protect correct quotations. Refuse damaged evidence. Keep missing sources unverified. Separate deterministic checks from advisory model review. Return the evidence and the decision to counsel.
From practice
The founding standard
Olympus was created line by line by a lawyer, for lawyers, inside a working New York litigation practice. The standard is the one a filing demands: show the source, identify the limits, and leave the decision with counsel.
Questions, answered
The draft demonstrates a review packet in HTML and Word, with findings linked to the supplied text. Voice development supports audio/video imports, transcripts, and Word or Markdown working-record downloads. Supported input formats and practical limits for your firm's hosted workflow will be confirmed during the access conversation.
It is being built for those workflows, with source-linked notes, marked moments, transcript corrections and speaker labels supplied by the user. Machine transcription is not a certified court transcript. Voice is in development and is outside the initial hosted-access bundle.
Development is grounded in New York litigation practice. A quotation check against a supplied source does not establish jurisdictional coverage, current law or legal relevance. We will confirm the workflow and authority coverage for your practice before access.
Do not send client documents through this public website's contact form. It is for an access conversation. Matter documents belong in the product's approved workspace once access and handling terms are established.
Submit the work and its sources, then let the checking sequence run. Olympus returns findings, supporting passages, disagreements and incomplete checks for review. Hermes, your assistant, recommends a response; you retain responsibility for the work and approve proposed changes.
Scripts establish source integrity, locate wording and check the passages cited by reviewers. Independent AI readers assess meaning without seeing each other’s answers; a blind third reader is used when clean agreement is absent. Scripted rules combine admissible readings, and the resulting advice on paraphrase fidelity remains advisory.
The packet records an unverified finding and the search trail. A failed lookup is not enough to call a citation fabricated. Damaged text leads to a refusal to grade.
It establishes that the checked quotation appears in the source. It does not establish that the authority supports your argument. Relevance is assessed separately, and counsel reviews the result.
One annotated packet in HTML and Word: your draft, a cite-check table, highlighted source passages, corrections and limits. Matching finding markers let you review the evidence in one organized pass and make your own decision. Unresolved questions may still require further research.
No. You log into Olympus in your browser. The service runs on Olympus Legal Systems’ private fleet in one building.
Hermes, your assistant, can propose a change. The Review Inbox holds every AI-proposed change until a person confirms or rejects it.
Astraea, verification; Chronos, deadlines; Alexandria, records; and the Review Inbox, human review. Other capabilities are in build or on the roadmap. Prices are not set yet.
Request access
Start with the work you want to check.
Olympus is a hosted service for New York solo practitioners and small litigation firms. This request starts an early-access conversation; it does not create an account or promise an availability date.
This form sends your contact details to Formspree. Please do not include client documents, privileged information or matter details.
