The law belongs to everyone who needs it.
Whether you’re a practitioner or facing a matter on your own, CommonBench works to the same standard. Choose your view.
For individuals without a lawyer.
Facing a dispute on your own often means facing someone who has a lawyer. CommonBench gives you the same law they’re working from — in clear language, typically in a few minutes. For Hong Kong and Singapore matters you may also ask and receive answers in Chinese (繁體 or 简体); England & Wales, Australia, and US matters stay in English.
Tells you where you stand.
Whether you have a case, and how strong it looks — an indicative score out of 100, with the reasoning set out plainly. It is a research aid, not a substitute for counsel’s judgment.
Real law you can look up yourself.
Every citation is checked before it reaches you: verified authorities are badged, unconfirmed ones are flagged, and citations that fail verification are stripped — so the cases you rely on are real ones you can open and read.
Their argument, before they make it.
Every answer shows how the other side will put their case, so nothing ambushes you on the day.
Deadlines flagged first.
Limitation dates and time-critical steps are surfaced before anything else, so you don’t miss the window to act.
It levels the information gap. It does not replace a lawyer.
- It is not legal advice, and using it creates no lawyer–client relationship.
- It is not a substitute for a lawyer. If you can afford or qualify for one, get one.
- It will not represent you or appear in court for you.
- Always check any authority and confirm it still applies before you rely on it.
The law is already yours. CommonBench helps you reach it — it does not stand in for a lawyer’s judgment.
$100 a month — one live matter, start to finish. Cancel anytime. No lock-in contracts.
For legal professionals.
Research across five common-law jurisdictions, at the speed practice demands — without the one failure that keeps general-purpose AI out of serious work: a confident citation to a case that does not exist.
Checked for existence; status shown.
Citations are checked for existence against a curated corpus of reported cases and legislation and, where source policy permits, against live public endpoints. A citation that is structurally impossible is removed before it reaches you; one that cannot be confirmed is flagged rather than hidden. Verification is a strong signal, not a guarantee of good law or proposition accuracy — the judgment stays yours.
Five jurisdictions, one engine.
England & Wales, the United States, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia, each with its own authorities and procedure. Reasoning is locked to the jurisdiction you select — though which one governs a cross-border matter remains a question for you. Chinese (Traditional or Simplified) substantive answers are available for Hong Kong and Singapore only; UK, Australian, and US analysis remains English-primary.
The opponent’s best point, surfaced first.
Every analytical response sets out how the other side will put its case, so you test your position before they do.
Costs, recovery and urgency, built in.
Where figures are in play you get a costs estimate, a net-recovery estimate, and a viability assessment, built on stated assumptions you can adjust. Limitation deadlines and dissipation risks are flagged before the analysis begins.
Document review.
Upload pleadings for a line-by-line critique: structural gaps, missing issues, tactical suggestions. Advocate and Chambers tiers.
Chambers: per-seat, hard isolation.
Per-seat billing for firms and sets, with hard isolation between seats — for teams that need answers fast and kept separate.
Every tier runs the same engine and the same verified corpus. Completeness does not change with price. You pay for professional judgment — junior-associate analysis on Starter, partner strategy on Advocate, senior-counsel forensic synthesis on Chambers — plus capacity and workflow. Never a thinner answer on a cheaper plan.
CommonBench is a research tool and does not provide legal advice or create a lawyer–client relationship. For advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified legal practitioner in the relevant jurisdiction.