NorthLaw.ai
Home Pricing
For Legal Professionals

Win cases with data, not just intuition.

NorthLaw Pro turns case predictions into client-ready strategy. Generate cite-rich memos, surface adjudicator patterns, and stress-test your argument before you file.

See what's inside →
A peek inside

Four professional tools, one workflow.

Click through to see how each Pro feature builds on your free prediction.

Strategic Memo

A client-ready brief, written for your matter.

Cite-rich, plain-language analysis you can paste straight into a memo.
Issue framed
Whether the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable in light of the country-condition evidence.
Strongest precedent
Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 requires the RAD to engage with key contradictory evidence. Where the panel's reasons fail to grapple with central country-condition reports, the decision is unreasonable.
Predicted outcome
Allow — 67% Tier: Moderate confidence
Three comparable cases in the last 18 months were allowed on similar Vavilov-based grounds. Two adjudicators on the panel have above-average allow rates for refugee claims from this country.
Recommended next steps
1. Request a stay pending appeal (likelihood of success: high).
2. Identify the two strongest country-condition reports the RAD failed to address.
3. Frame the certified question around procedural fairness.
Multi-Tool Analysis

Cross-reference predictions across tools.

Run your matter through every relevant model to find consensus and conflict.
67%
RAD Predictor
71%
FC-JR Predictor
62%
Removal Risk
58%
Bayesian Settlement
Cross-tool consensus
Strong signal: appeal will be allowed. All four models converge on a positive outcome (62-71% range), with RAD-specific factors driving the prediction.
Where they disagree
Removal Risk is most cautious, weighted by recent enforcement trend. RAD Predictor is most optimistic, weighted by adjudicator-specific patterns.
Recommended action
Proceed with appeal File Federal Court application as backup
Opposing Counsel

See how the other side could argue.

A red-team analysis of the strongest counter-arguments — before they're made.
Their strongest move
"Even on a Vavilov standard, the RAD is entitled to deference on credibility findings rooted in demeanor evidence the appellate court cannot re-weigh."
Likely fallback positions
1. Argue the country-condition gap was peripheral, not central, to the credibility finding.
2. Cite Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 on RAD's broader fact-finding role to deflect Vavilov pressure.
3. Concede error but argue harmless — appellant would lose on alternative grounds.
Pre-empt their argument
Address #1 head-on: identify the specific paragraph in the RAD reasons where the credibility finding turns on a country-condition fact. Don't let them characterize the evidence as peripheral.
Predicted hearing dynamics
Expect Crown to focus on standard of review Their weakest point: harmless error analysis
Knowledge Graph

Adjudicator profiles, citation networks, trends.

Decade-deep analytics across 67,000+ decisions and 661 unique adjudicators.
29.2%
Highest allow rate (RAD)
7.0%
Lowest allow rate (RAD)
Top adjudicators on your panel
E. Bosveld
29.2%
P. Lafontaine
37.0%
D. Morrish
7.0%
Most-cited authority for your issue
Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 — cited in 7,881 RAD decisions. Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689 — second most-cited.
Recent trend
RAD allow rate has dropped from 28% (2022) → 22% (2024). Federal Court JR allow rate stable around 38%.
📝

Strategic Memo

A client-ready memo built from your prediction. Issue framing, strongest precedent, predicted outcome, and recommended next steps — all cite-rich and editable.

🔬

Multi-Tool Analysis

Run your matter through every relevant predictor at once. Find where models converge (high-confidence signal) and where they diverge (areas to investigate further).

⚖️

Opposing Counsel

A red-team breakdown of the strongest arguments against you. Likely Crown moves, fallback positions, and how to pre-empt them in your factum.

🧠

Knowledge Graph

Decade-deep analytics across 67,000+ decisions and 661 adjudicators. Find adjudicator allow rates, citation networks, division trends, and case-type patterns.

$99 CAD
per month, or $990/year (save 17%)

Built for working lawyers.

Unlock all four tools. Unlimited predictions. Cancel anytime.

Start Pro Back to free tools

Common questions

What's the difference between free and Pro?

The free tools give you a prediction and basic context — perfect for self-represented claimants and lawyers checking on a matter. Pro adds four professional analytical tools that build on the prediction: strategic memos, multi-tool consensus checks, opposing-counsel red-teaming, and the Knowledge Graph. Free stays free, forever.

Is the Knowledge Graph data real?

Yes. The KG is built on 67,205 published decisions across the Refugee Appeal Division, Social Security Tribunal, and Federal Court (Judicial Review), spanning 2001–2024. We extract adjudicator names, citation networks, outcomes, and case-type metadata directly from the published decisions.

Can I cancel anytime?

Yes — cancellation is one click, no questions, no clawback. If you cancel mid-cycle, you keep Pro access until your billing period ends.

Is this legal advice?

No. NorthLaw provides decision-support analytics built on published case law. It's a research tool, not a substitute for legal advice. All outputs are informational.

How do I bill clients for time saved?

That's between you and your client. Many lawyers use NorthLaw Pro as part of a fixed-fee or capped-fee structure where the efficiency gain is yours to capture. Others bill the subscription as a disbursement, similar to LexisNexis or Westlaw.

What jurisdictions are covered?

Currently: Canada (federal — RAD, SST, FC-JR, FCA, SCC; provincial — Ontario, BC, immigration, criminal sentencing) plus selected US tools. We add new jurisdictions and tools regularly.