About Arbor
Built so your firm can out-prepare anyone across the table.
Defense counsel and the carrier both have people whose job is to know the file better than you do. Arbor gives plaintiff-side PI firms of every size that same depth without adding headcount.
What it's worth
Better files. More capacity. Faster demands.
Three levers move a contingency practice, and all three run through the same bottleneck: somebody has to read the file closely before anything can happen.
Build the demand from the complete file.
Arbor reads the medical bills against the provider records and marks what is missing: a charge with no treatment note behind it, a visit nobody billed for, an older complaint about the same body part. Those are the lines an adjuster uses to discount a client's claim.
Let your staff start from a finished page.
The first pass on a chronology, a bill summary, or a demand draft is the work that eats a week. Arbor takes that pass, so the staff you already have can carry more files.
Move the file when the records arrive.
On contingency, a file sitting on a desk is tied-up capital. Once the records are in, Arbor stages a draft demand for attorney review, so the file is not waiting until someone has a spare week.
What we believe
Our convictions.
Four positions Arbor is built on.
Scale the work without scaling the payroll.
A plaintiff practice runs a business and litigates at the same time. The part that scales worst with headcount is deep file reading, so that is the part Arbor takes.
Software must prove its work.
Summaries, timeline entries, and citations link back to their source wherever Arbor can trace one, and say so when it cannot.
The licensed attorney is the boss of the file.
Arbor does the preparation. Strategy, valuation, and final approval stay with the lawyer, and nothing goes out without a signature.
Local practice requires local knowledge.
Personal injury turns on state-level detail: comparative fault thresholds, statutory liens, how a carrier behaves in a given venue. Arbor is built for that layer.
Why jurisdiction-deep
Deep in each jurisdiction. On purpose.
A general AI tool treats the law as one library. A PI file is decided by narrower things: the subrogation statute, the comparative fault threshold, how a particular carrier reads a particular venue.
So Arbor goes deep one state at a time. Live authority coverage begins in Tennessee, and the same jurisdiction-deep model is how Arbor expands: a state goes live once its authority is loaded.
| ArborBuilt for plaintiff PI | Generic legal AI& horizontal legal tech | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is built for | Plaintiff PI, end to end | Everything, in general |
| What you get back | A drafted demand package | Search results or a chat reply |
| Where the answer comes from | Your file + verified authority | The open web |
| Catches missing bills and treatment gaps | Yes | No |
| Authority drawn from stored source text | Yes | Unreliable |
| Priced for | Plaintiff firms of every size | Enterprise budgets |
Where you stay in control
The boundary of independent judgment.
Two limits a careful practitioner usually asks about first.
Every draft stays editable and checkable.
Draft demand letters and chronologies open in a plain, editable layout. Click any fact to see the page of the bill or record it was read from.
Nothing leaves the office without you.
Arbor never contacts adjusters, clients, or the courts. It writes internal drafts for your office. Sending them is your decision and your signature.
How it's built
Built for accuracy.
A language model predicts the next word. That is why asking one for a case citation can produce a case that does not exist.
Arbor keeps each firm's files isolated and draws statutes and cases from stored authority, so the attorney reviewing a draft can open the source text behind a citation.
Why we built it
I started Arbor after watching big tech companies ignore the plaintiff-side firms that handle real, everyday cases.
I tested the platforms firms are told to buy. The legal reasoning was thin, citations came back wrong, and some of the case law did not exist. They were priced for enterprise procurement anyway, which left an everyday firm paying a premium for software it could not check.
I started building the alternative while at the University of Tennessee College of Law, on a narrow problem: take raw court opinions and turn them into legal data you can rely on.
Arbor exists so that what a lawyer can do for a client does not track the size of the software budget.
— Patrick Ragozzine, Founder
See it work
Walk a case from records to demand letter.