Use Regulayer
For attorneys The Regulayer Receipt HumanMark The free Sealer See the product Pricing How to buyLicense Regulayer
Enterprise What is licensed Agentic AI Life sciences Insurance Deployment Begin with the problemProof
Live demos Verify freeLearn
The Consequence Library Learning Center The Drift Desk Detectors compared Authorship marks comparedCompany
About Investors Why now FAQ Support LegalAI disclosure and review evidence
Fill in a short form: which AI tools were used, for what, what you checked, and who signs their name to it. Out comes the attorney's receipt: your certification, over your name, sealed on your own machine so any later change shows. The judge or opposing counsel can verify it themselves, free, in any browser. You certify. We seal.
Your work stays on your machine. Regulayer does not receive the underlying document. Two kinds of evidence in one record: what you declare, your certification, signed in five minutes; and what was observed, HumanMark's creation facts, captured as the work is made rather than inferred afterward. It is evidence of how the work arrived, not an accusation about who made it.
No account · Underlying work stays on your computer · Verified free by anyone, independently · What a receipt looks like
This receipt is live. Try to alter it: click any value, change one character, then run the verification.
standing orders, local rules and decisions on AI in court filings are recorded by the Ropes & Gray AI Court Order Tracker, as of its May 2026 relaunch. The orders we have verified against the court's own documents are in the directory. Find your judge's order.
ordered by the Sixth Circuit in 2026 after briefs contained fake citations and misrepresentations. The court also referred the matter for possible disciplinary proceedings. The sanctions record.
In Barteca v. Tacobarn (D. Conn.), the court named three AI tools and found counsel “failed to conduct a reasonable human verification of the authorities cited.” Two days later, In re BFI Waste Systems (M.D. Tenn.) added a public reprimand to $1,500.00. Courts are now sanctioning the absence of human verification. The Receipt creates a verifiable record of that review; it is not required by any court.
In United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. 2026), a federal court held that 31 documents a defendant created with a consumer AI tool were protected by neither attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine, because the tool’s own terms defeated confidentiality. What your tool’s terms permit now decides what stays privileged.
In Capital Standard v. U.S. Bank (Fla. 2d DCA), the court documented forty-six fabricated or misdescribed citations across two briefs: $1,500, personal payment of the appellee’s fees, a Bar referral, and no charge to the clients. Since 15 June, Florida Rule 2.515(d)(2) makes every signature a representation that the cited authorities exist and are accurately cited.
Ireland’s High Court Practice Direction HC 142 commences: a prescribed declaration on affidavits, witness statements and expert reports addressing generative AI use. Paragraph 13 rejects using another AI system as sufficient verification of AI-generated material. A named human stands behind the document.
Comments close on the Tenth Circuit’s proposed revision to Rule 46.5. It would make independent human verification of any AI-assisted filing part of what the signer certifies, with no duty to disclose that AI was used. Proposed, not adopted; it would take effect 1 January 2027.
Pricing
The plan
The plan, with presence
Pay for the year up front and you pay for ten months: $3,490 or $4,490 for twelve months. Firm and enterprise licensing is by conversation: write to us.
State court rules
A certification is a statement. The receipt is the record behind it, made while you were doing the checking, not reconstructed after it is questioned.
Florida. Rule 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, 2026, requires a signer to represent that the legal authorities identified in a filing exist and are accurately cited. A court may impose sanctions for a filing inconsistent with that representation after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
New York. Part 161 takes a different approach. Statewide policy says attorneys and parties generally should not be required to disclose AI use. A court may adopt the model rule, which requires careful review of AI-assisted papers and certification by signature that the paper contains no fabricated or fictitious content.
These are different legal requirements. The common operational problem is evidence: what did the signer review, when, and what record exists if that review is later questioned?
Why confidentiality terms matter
If the work is privileged, the question is not how strong the seal is. It is who else now holds the document.
In United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Rakoff ruled from the bench on 10 February 2026 and issued a written opinion on 17 February 2026. Thirty-one documents a defendant had created using a consumer AI tool were held to be protected by neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine. The ground that matters here is the second one: there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality, because the platform's own privacy policy said it collects inputs and outputs, uses them to train its model, and reserves the right to disclose information to third parties, including the government.
Heppner was a defendant acting on his own, not an attorney, and the decision does not hold that using AI waives privilege. What it establishes is narrower and far more useful: a court will read the terms of the tool you used, and what those terms permit can defeat confidentiality before anyone reaches the merits.
That is why the product keeps the underlying work on the user's machine. Receipt creation and verification do not send the underlying document to Regulayer. Optional services may exchange limited record data as described on the Security page.
Why local processing matters
Some detector workflows require sending text to a third-party service, and detector results are probabilistic rather than a contemporaneous record of the user's own review process. Regulayer takes a different approach: it creates a process record without requiring the underlying work to be uploaded to Regulayer.
A record of what the human did without requiring the underlying work to be sent to Regulayer.
Your work stays on your machine. Regulayer does not receive the underlying document. Receipt creation and verification work without uploading the underlying work to Regulayer. Optional services may exchange limited record data; the Security page states the scope. See the receipt.
Liang et al., Stanford University, Patterns (2023): seven widely used GPT detectors averaged a 61.2% false-positive rate on essays by non-native English writers; near zero on native-speaker essays.
Creation-side evidence with HumanMark
HumanMark records which input was typed live and which was pasted or introduced during the observed session. It does not determine authorship after the fact, and it does not decide legal compliance.
It captures. It does not detect.
AI detectors estimate after the fact from finished text. HumanMark does something different: it records creation-side events while the work is being made.
HumanMark records creation-side events. It does not use semantic analysis to infer authorship from what the words mean. As you write, on your own machine, it records how the work arrives: how much was typed live, how much was pasted in, and when text entered the observed session. When you finish, it signs a record that can travel with the work and be independently verified.
This is a process record, not a detector result. It documents observed creation and review activity for a court, regulator, client, or other reviewer to weigh.
Another kind of evidence
Evidence of your work comes in three strengths. Each receipt identifies the assurance level of the evidence it contains. Declared and Observed are both in the $349 plan. Present is the $449 plan.
Declared is your signed statement: what you used, what you checked, over your name. It records the attorney’s attestation for the applicable requirement. Observed is HumanMark watching the work arrive as you make it: typed live versus pasted, recorded at creation, never guessed afterward. Present is the top rung: at the moment of sealing, a named, enrolled person passes the fingerprint or passkey check on their own device, and the seal is bound to that person, that content, that moment. The resulting record binds the presence event to that seal.
From August 2, 2026, Article 50 creates transparency obligations for certain AI-generated and manipulated content. Providers of systems that generate synthetic content have machine-readable marking obligations. Deployers have separate disclosure duties for certain deepfakes and AI-generated or manipulated public-interest text. For that public-interest text duty, disclosure does not apply where the content has undergone human review or editorial control and a person or organization holds editorial responsibility. A Regulayer record can document review activity; it does not determine whether a legal exception applies.
Presence does not establish who typed every word. It establishes that a named person passed the check on their own device and took responsibility for the record at the moment of sealing.
Presence is the $449 plan. See pricing.
How it works
Which AI tools were used, for what tasks, what you personally verified, and who signs. Questions mapped to what standing orders actually ask. The story is yours to tell; the receipt records your answers exactly, and never judges them.
A sealed, signed certification with witnessed time. If the record is altered later, verification shows the change.
Judge, opposing counsel, your client, your carrier. No account, no server, no copy of your work. The check runs in their own browser.
What it is, and what it is not
This is a signed, tamper-evident record of what you attested and what your tools observed, at a stated assurance level. It is not a detector, and it does not guess. Each receipt identifies the assurance level of the evidence it contains, declared by the signer or observed by the tool. Like the certificate behind an e-signature, its strength is that it is reliable, complete, and checkable by anyone, which is exactly what a court can weigh, and what a probability score never is.
Works alongside the generative AI tools you already use
Regulayer does not require a direct integration with the AI tool to create the receipt. You use your AI tool where you already do, then create the receipt separately on your machine.
The receipt is a declaration, not an AI-tool integration. You name the tools you used, what you used them for, what you personally checked, and you sign the record. Because the receipt records your attestation rather than reading the AI tool's internal activity, it can be used with different AI tools without a direct integration.
HumanMark operates in its own local writing environment. Work can be typed or pasted into the HumanMark editor, in your browser, on your machine, where the system records the proportion entered by typing versus paste and classifies the result across five defined bands. HumanMark does not operate inside ChatGPT or other third-party AI interfaces. Live observation within those environments is a separate capability, the Chaperone, and it is not included in the current $349 or $449 plans.
The complete workflow: complete the work using the AI tools appropriate to the matter. Where an observed production record is required, create or paste the work in HumanMark. Complete the receipt by identifying the tools used and the review performed, then sign and seal the record. The resulting evidence can be shared for independent verification without requiring the recipient to purchase Regulayer. Receipt creation and verification do not require sending the underlying work to Regulayer.
$349 includes the receipt, the HumanMark editor, the Sealer, and the verifier. $449 adds human presence: a fingerprint or passkey check that binds each seal to a named person. Neither includes the Chaperone.
For managing partners
One policy, each attorney's record, and a contemporaneous record of supervision created before a dispute arises.
One plan for the whole firm, installed on each machine. The underlying work stays on each attorney’s machine. Your malpractice carrier's intake already asks how AI work is reviewed; this is the documented answer. Five attorneys, each signing with their own key, a partner who signs off on an associate's filing gets their own record of doing it.
Built on 30 years of work in highly regulated industries, where process control, traceability and verifiable records are operational requirements. Tamper evidence can be tested with the public verifier.
The questions attorneys ask first
You do. The certification is your attestation, over your name, signed with your own key on your own machine. Regulayer is not a certifier, not a witness, and not a party to your filing. Its software seals what you certify so any later change shows, and anyone can verify it. Like the certificate behind an e-signature: the statement is yours, the seal is ours.
The form maps to what standing orders actually require: disclosure of tools, description of use, and certification of human verification. If your judge's order asks for something unusual, the receipt carries your exact attestation language. There is a page per verified order, each checked against the court's own document.
No. The certification records your process, not the document's text. The document is fingerprinted locally so later changes can be detected. Receipt creation and verification do not require sending the underlying text to Regulayer.
Yes. That is HumanMark. The basic receipt is your signed declaration. HumanMark runs locally and observes the creation facts: what was typed live by you, what was pasted in, and when AI text entered. It places the work into one of five bands, recorded at creation, never guessed afterward. It watches how the words arrive, never what the words mean, so it evidences your process without ever reading your privileged text.
Yes, with all of them, and it connects to none of them. You use your AI tool wherever you already do. Then you make the receipt: name which tools you used, for what, and what you personally checked, and sign it. Because it records what you state, not what the tool does, it works with any AI tool that exists now or later. Connecting would mean your work leaving your machine, which is exactly what this avoids.
Two different tools. For the receipt, you fill a short form; you do not type into any AI. For HumanMark, you type or paste your work into the HumanMark editor in your browser, on your machine, and it records the proportion typed live versus pasted. The work is brought into HumanMark; you do not type into Claude or ChatGPT for this.
The work is brought into the HumanMark editor: type your own words there, paste the AI's words there, and it records how the input arrived, typed or pasted, across five descriptive production bands. HumanMark does not operate inside Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot, or Harvey. Live observation within those environments is a separate capability, the Chaperone, and it is not included in the $349 or $449 plan.
$349 includes the attorney's receipt (unlimited), the HumanMark editor, the Sealer, and the free verifier, all on your machine. $449 adds one check: human presence, a fingerprint or passkey check that binds each seal to a named person who was present at the moment of sealing. Nothing else changes, and neither plan includes the Chaperone.
Detectors estimate after the fact, and they need your text uploaded to do it. In a Stanford study, seven widely used detectors falsely flagged essays by non-native English writers 61% of the time. This is not a detector. It is a signed, tamper-evident record of what you attested, evidence, not accusation.
Exactly what the specimen above shows: your attestation, the signature check, the witnessed time, and whether the sealed document has changed. Never the work itself.
A simple monthly plan, $349 a month, or $449 with human presence, for software installed on your machine, working offline. Pay the year up front and you pay for ten months. You can cancel at any time. Existing signed records remain independently verifiable after cancellation, and verification is free and does not require a plan. Today it starts with one email; you will have everything in writing before a dollar moves.
If witnessed time is enabled, the receipt records whether time came from an independent timestamp service or was self-asserted while offline. The verifier shows which status applies.
Keep the receipt with the matter file it covers. The verifier checks the receipt independently. Regulayer does not require the underlying matter document to be stored in a Regulayer cloud service.
Any edit to the receipt or the sealed document breaks the signature and the verifier reports the failure. An intact verification provides a contemporaneous record for a reviewer to weigh.
If you file outside the United States, see the court rules by country →
Run it locally. Existing signed records remain independently verifiable. Keep the underlying work on your machine, and anyone can verify the record, free.
Get started Or buy now, $349 a monthOne email starts it. No account, and the software works offline.
Try the free Sealer first · Check an attorney's receipt, free