For attorneys under an AI standing order
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.
No cloud. No account. Nothing phones home. Nothing of yours in any cloud to subpoena. Two kinds of evidence in one record: what you declare, your certification, signed in five minutes; and what was observed, HumanMark's creation facts, typed live versus pasted, never guessed afterward. It is evidence, not an accusation.
No account·Nothing leaves your computer·Verified free by anyone, forever·What a receipt looks like
This receipt is live. Try to forge it: click any value, change one character, then run the verification.
court directives now require AI disclosure or certification in U.S. filings, tracked by Ropes and Gray and Bloomberg Law. The orders we have verified against the court's own documents are in the directory. Find your judge's order.
sanctions ordered in one 2026 case alone for unverified AI work, before the malpractice claim and the bar referral. The sanctions record.
in United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. 2026), a federal court held that putting privileged facts into a consumer AI tool waived the privilege, the same as telling a third party. Checking your work in the cloud is the risk.
The price, in plain sight
The plan
$349 a month
The plan, with presence
$449 a month
Pay for the year up front and you pay for ten months: $3,490 or $4,490 for twelve months. Judge-order packs, the exact requirements of one court's standing order mapped to the certification, are $295 each, a separate one-time purchase, and stay current while you are on the plan. Firm and enterprise licensing is by conversation: write to us.
For context: a litigation seat already carries several hundred dollars a month in Westlaw, Lexis and Relativity. This sits inside a line item your firm already has, and it is less than one billable hour. Set against the sanctions on record, from $3,000 to $31,100 plus fee awards, pro hac vice revocation and bar referral, it is the cheapest line in the matter.
New this summer
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. The Supreme Court of Florida amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 in case SC2026-0673, effective 15 June 2026. Whoever signs a filing now certifies that the legal authorities identified in it exist and are accurately cited. The court may sanction a filing that violates that representation, including reprimand, contempt, striking the document, dismissal, costs and fees, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
New York. Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, on the use of artificial intelligence technology, took effect 1 June 2026. It does not require you to disclose that you used AI. Its model rule asks something harder: that you carefully review the paper and independently ensure it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes or other material, and that by signing you certify you did.
Both rules ask for the same certification, and neither tells you how to evidence it. Your signature says you checked. Nothing on the filing shows when you checked, what you checked, or which tools were involved. That is the gap, and it is the one the receipt closes.
The ruling that decides this
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 the entire reason this is built the way it is. There are no terms permitting us to hold your work, because there is no mechanism by which we receive it. The document is hashed on your own machine. If you choose witnessed time, what leaves is a hash and nothing else, never the work and never a name. There is no payload to train on, to retain, or to produce under subpoena, from us or from anyone.
Why this and nothing else
Detectors read your brief in the cloud and guess, falsely accusing 61% of non-native English writers in a Stanford study. And a federal court has held that privileged material put into a consumer AI tool lost its privilege. The trap is complete: the proof the court wants, gathered any other way, creates the exposure you are trying to prevent.
A record of what the human did that never has to see the work, so it can live in the rooms where the work is privileged.
No cloud. No account. Nothing phones home. Nothing of yours in any cloud to subpoena. Regulayer runs entirely on your machine and never sends your work off it, which is provable live with any network monitor. The one optional exception is witnessed time: a fingerprint of the receipt, and nothing else, goes to an independent timestamp authority. The receipt, in plain sight.
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.
The part that makes this extraordinary
That is the one sentence every attorney now needs to answer, and until HumanMark there was no honest way to answer it. Judges ask it in standing orders. From August 2, 2026, the EU AI Act asks it too. HumanMark is the answer, and it is included in your plan.
It captures. It does not detect.
Every other tool guesses. It reads your finished brief, runs a model on it, and returns a probability that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, the tool that falsely flagged non-native writers 61% of the time. To guess at all, it has to read your privileged work.
HumanMark is the opposite. It does not read your words and it does not judge them. As you write, on your own machine, it records only how the work arrives: how much you typed live, how much was pasted in, and the exact moment AI text entered. The words themselves never leave your computer. When you finish, it signs a record that travels with the work, and anyone can verify it free, forever.
This is the record judges are asking for and the EU AI Act rewards: not a guess about your prose, but an honest account of what the human did and what the AI did, sealed the moment the work was made.
Honestly stated: HumanMark records what it observed and what you attested. It is the record of your process for the court to weigh, not a claim to prove a human wrote every word. See HumanMark in full.
The strongest evidence there is
Evidence of your work comes in three strengths, and every receipt states its strength on its face, so a self-report never wears an observation's badge. 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 answers the order. 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. A script cannot produce it. A genuine tap cannot be lifted onto different work.
Why this rung now matters in law: from August 2, 2026, the EU AI Act's Article 50 requires machine-made content to be marked as machine-made, and exempts work a human has reviewed and taken responsibility for. American courts are asking the same question from the other side: their standing orders demand the attorney certify what the human verified. Both regimes turn on one record: what did the human do, and can you show it? A declaration says it. Presence shows it: a specific person, provably at the machine, standing behind this exact work when it was sealed.
Honestly stated, as always: presence does not prove who typed every word. It proves who was there and took responsibility, the same step up the e-signature world charges for as identity verification, and courts have weighed that ladder for thirty years.
Presence is the $449 plan. The price, in plain sight.
How it works
Which AI tools were used, for what tasks, what you personally verified, and who signs. Plain 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. It answers the order, and it holds up if challenged, because any alteration shows.
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. Every receipt states its assurance level on its face, declared by the signer, or observed by the tool, so a self-report never wears an observation's badge. 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 with every AI tool, connects to none of them
Here is the part people ask about first: Regulayer does not plug into your AI tool, and that is deliberate. Plugging in would mean your work leaving your machine, which is the exact exposure you are avoiding. So it works a different way, and it works with all of them.
The receipt is a declaration, not a connection. You use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Harvey, or anything else, wherever you already do. Then you fill a short form: which tools you used, for what, what you personally checked, and you sign it. Because it records what you state, not what the tool does, it works with any AI tool that exists now or later. Nothing connects, nothing is read.
HumanMark is measured in its own box. When you want the observed record of how a piece was made, you write or paste your work into HumanMark's own writing box, in your browser, on your machine. It records how much arrived by typing versus pasting, and places it in the five bands. You bring the work to HumanMark; you do not send HumanMark into ChatGPT. Watching you live inside those tools is a separate add-on, the Chaperone, and it comes later. It is in neither the $349 nor the $449 plan today.
The whole flow, plainly: do your work with whatever AI you like. If you want the observed record, write or paste it into HumanMark's box. Fill the receipt: name the tools, name what you checked, sign. Seal it. Anyone verifies it free. Every step stays on your computer.
$349 includes the receipt, HumanMark in its own box, the Sealer, and the verifier. $449 adds human presence: a fingerprint or passkey tap that binds each seal to a named person. Neither includes the Chaperone yet.
For managing partners
The firm pack is that showing: one policy, every attorney, a sealed record of supervision that exists before the claim, not a memo written after it.
One plan for the whole firm, installed on each machine, nothing in the cloud. 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 contamination-control and global-standards work in highly regulated industries. We dare you to try to forge a receipt.
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 is about your process, not your content. The document itself is only fingerprinted (hashed) on your machine so any later change shows. The text never leaves your computer, that is the entire point.
Yes. That is the HumanMark Index. 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 plain 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 write or paste your work into HumanMark's own box in your browser, on your machine, and it measures how much was typed live versus pasted. You bring your work into HumanMark's box; you do not type into Claude or ChatGPT for this.
Today, you bring the work into HumanMark's box: type your own words there, paste the AI's words there, and it records the human versus AI split into five plain bands. It does not yet watch you live inside Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot, or Harvey. That is a separate add-on called the Chaperone, and it comes later. It is in neither the $349 nor the $449 plan right now.
$349 includes the attorney's receipt (unlimited), HumanMark in its own box, the Sealer, and the free verifier, all on your machine. $449 adds one check: human presence, a fingerprint or passkey tap that binds each seal to a named person who was there at the moment of sealing. Nothing else changes, and neither plan includes the Chaperone yet.
Detectors guess after the fact, and they need your text uploaded to guess at all. 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 whenever. Every receipt you have already made stays valid forever, and anyone can verify it free, forever, plan or no plan. Today it starts with one email; you will have everything in writing before a dollar moves.
An independent timestamp authority, using the RFC 3161 standard courts and archives already rely on. Only a fingerprint (a hash) of the receipt is sent, never the work, never a name. If you are offline, the receipt still seals, and it says honestly that the time is self-asserted rather than witnessed. The verifier shows which one you have.
On your machine, twice. Each receipt downloads as a small file you keep beside the filing it covers, and a sealed copy is chained into a local record on your computer, so a missing or altered entry shows. Best practice: keep the receipt with the matter file, serve it or file it alongside the certification when the order calls for one, and let anyone who doubts it verify it free. Nothing is stored in any cloud, because there is no cloud.
Then it does its job. Any edit to the receipt or the sealed document breaks the signature and the verifier says so, plainly. A challenged receipt that verifies intact is stronger evidence than any after-the-fact declaration.
Run it locally. Your receipts are yours forever. Keep your privilege intact.
One avoided sanction pays for it many times over, and anyone can verify it, free.
One email starts it, with a same-day reply. No account, and the software works offline.
Try the free Sealer first · Check an attorney's receipt, free