Jev vs legal intake
Legal intake captures facts under privilege and assigns a matter. Jev can propose a matter type from a description. It is not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.
Unofficial. Privilege, conflicts, and ethics rules are counsel’s. Official Jev: no generation of memos. docs.typesafe.ai.
Comparison scope
Conflicts checks, engagement letters, and advice stay human. “Looks like employment vs commercial” can be a Choice with unclear.
Criteria that decide the architecture
| Axis | Jev (System One) | Legal intake |
|---|---|---|
| Privilege | Your process | Your process |
| Matter type suggestion | Choice + confidence | Intake attorney |
| Draft a memo | No | Associates / LLM under policy |
| Deadlines | Code / calendar | Docketing |
Decision quality and control
Wrong matter type is recoverable; auto-sending advice is not. Fail to attorney on low confidence.
Integration trade-offs
Intake form + description → Jev → suggested type field. Conflicts databases stay separate. Minimize what leaves the tenant.
TypeSafe’s public models page lists jev-1.13 at $0.042 per million input tokens with output tokens free — a vendor claim, not a jev.pro measurement. Confirm on the models page before you bid.
When each approach fits
Prefer Jev when
- High volume of similar intake blurbs
Prefer Legal intake when
- Conflicts, advice, or negotiation
Form + Jev suggestion + attorney assignment. Citation-check if you later draft with an LLM.
Privilege reminder
Putting a client email into state may be a disclosure to TypeSafe or a gateway. That is a counsel question, not a model question. Minimize, contract, and prefer on-tenant extract before you call out.
Matter-type snap, then counsel
Intake forms already capture facts under privilege. Jev only proposes a type from a description you choose to send. Sketch: intake form + short description → Choice employment / commercial / ip / unclear on pinned jev-1.13.0 → suggested field on the matter → attorney assignment. Conflicts databases, engagement letters, and advice stay human. Official Jev: no generation of memos.
List price on the models page ($0.042 / M input, output free) is a vendor claim. Privilege cost is not token cost. If counsel will not send the blurb off-tenant, this pairing is closed — do not “just try Playground.” Jaggedness: do not ask Jev to compute a statute deadline from a date string.
How intake automation burns privilege
- Auto-sending advice. Wrong matter type is recoverable. A generated “you should…” email is not. Jev cannot write that email anyway; do not chain an LLM on the same unreviewed path.
- Conflicts in the model. Unless you put conflict hits in
state, Jev has no conflicts file. Keep the database. - Full client dump as state. Minimize. Docket numbers and unused exhibits still bill and still leave the tenant.
- Schema-safe type as legal conclusion. A valid Choice is not a conflicts clearance and is not legal advice.
- Score as a filing deadline. Code / calendar owns dates.
When not to use Jev here
Do not use Jev for conflicts, advice, negotiation, or docketing math. Do not use it if you cannot send the description under your DPA and ethics rules. Prefer a form plus an intake attorney when volume is low or matters are unique.
What this page does not claim
-
Not legal advice.
-
No win-rate claims.
-
Schema-safe output is not the same as factual correctness.
-
No independent bake-off numbers live here.
FAQ
Can Jev be my general counsel? No.
Vendor DPAs? Read TypeSafe Legal. This site is not a party.
Can Jev draft the engagement letter? No. That is generation and legal work. The snap is matter type only.
Disclaimer
This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai. Never treat jev.pro as TypeSafe official documentation. We do not sell, issue, or proxy API keys.
Hub: Comparisons. Siblings: vs static forms, questions for legal, governance guide. Canonical: https://docs.typesafe.ai.