8 specialized agents and a growing team, a coordinator, and case memory that grows with your proceedings. This is what was previously available only to litigants who could afford a $600/hr lawyer.
How your AI team actually works together
When you submit a question or request a document, the Coordinator Agent analyzes your request, determines which specialists are needed, and dispatches them simultaneously. Each agent works in parallel — not sequentially — which is what allows Litigent to produce a complete pre-trial package in hours, not days. The Coordinator then synthesizes the individual outputs, resolves any conflicts, and delivers a unified, coherent response.
Most people arrive scared, exhausted, and talked over by a system that moves too fast. Agent Rowan is the one member of the team that sounds like a person first. Rowan listens before it advises, reflects back what you have been through, and separates how you feel from what can be proven, so the facts stay clean for the specialists who follow. If there is any sign of danger, Rowan stops and points you to emergency help immediately, before anything else.
I hear you. Before we talk about strategy or forms, I want to make sure I understand what you have actually been living through. From what you have told me: you have been the parent handling school and bedtime for months, the last few exchanges have gone badly, and you are worried the other side is going to tell the court a very different story. That fear is reasonable and you are not overreacting. Let me hold on to the facts I can note so far, and please correct anything I have wrong: the current schedule started around [month], the incident you mentioned happened on [date], and there is no order in place yet. If at any point you feel unsafe, tell me right away and I will point you to emergency and crisis support first. Nothing here is legal advice; it is the start of getting your story on the record so the rest of the team can help.
Built in the tradition of Canada's leading family-law practitioners. Agent Norwood approaches every case from the perspective of a seasoned trial lawyer: identify the strongest narrative, anticipate opposing arguments, and build a strategic framework that positions your client — you — as the credible, prepared parent.
Analysis of the file reveals a strong custody position for the client based on (1) documented primary caregiver involvement across education, healthcare, and extracurricular activities; (2) the existing informal shared arrangement operative for 6 months that demonstrates children's successful adjustment; and (3) the opposing party's documented pattern of access interference which directly undermines the cooperative parenting requirement. Recommend an affirmative equal-parenting proposal in the pre-trial brief rather than a defensive posture. The burden of proof on proposed changes shifts to the party seeking sole custody.
Built on the rigor of Canadian family-law research. Agent Lockhart does not generate legal principles — it retrieves actual law. Every citation is sourced from CanLII, verified against the current version of the statute or decision, and applied to the specific facts of your case.
Primary authority: Gordon v. Goertz [1996] 2 SCR 27 — best interests of the child is the paramount consideration; all other factors are relevant only insofar as they bear on the child's best interests. Supporting: Young v. Young [1993] 4 SCR 3 — maximum contact principle; burden on party restricting access to justify the restriction. Serra v. Serra 2009 ONCA 105 — a documented pattern of access interference constitutes a material change in circumstance warranting variation of custody arrangement. Application to file: documented access denials meeting the material change threshold support a variation application.
Agent Caldwell operates from a single governing principle: the research on what children need is clear, and it says children need both parents. Every output from this agent is grounded in child development evidence, best-interests case law, and the documented reality of your relationship with your children. Not ideology — evidence.
The client's documented involvement across all domains of the children's lives — education (school meetings attendance: 14/15 events), healthcare (primary caregiver on file at Dr. Sarah Chen's office since 2021), extracurricular (hockey practice transport 87% of sessions) — establishes a pattern of active, consistent parenting that directly contradicts the narrative of marginal involvement advanced by the opposing party. The children, aged 7 and 9, have expressed (consistent with age-appropriate disclosure) preferences for continuing contact with both parents. The proposed equal parenting schedule reflects the status quo operative from July-December 2024 without incident, providing the court with a proven baseline.
Agent Sterling owns every dollar figure in your file. It calculates child support from the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amounts, apportions section 7 special and extraordinary expenses, and frames spousal support ranges as information rather than a guarantee of any outcome. Sterling never invents a number: it shows the math and names the document each figure comes from. Where the other side has not disclosed, Sterling treats the gap as an argument for imputed income and further disclosure, not a dead end.
Base child support (Federal Child Support Guidelines, applicable provincial table): payor line 15000 income of $[income] for 2 children yields a table amount of $[amount]/month. Source: payor's [year] Notice of Assessment and the Guidelines table for the province of residence. Section 7 special and extraordinary expenses proposed for sharing in proportion to income (client [X]% / other party [Y]%): (a) before-and-after-school care $[amount]/month — source: provider invoices, Exhibit 'B'; (b) competitive hockey registration $[amount]/year — source: league receipt. Disclosure gap: no records of business income for [year] have been produced. This supports a request to impute income under section 19; it is not a reason to lower the claim. Every figure above is drawn from a named document, not an estimate.
Most family matters settle, and the ones that settle well are the ones that were prepared well. Agent Vance frames offers, weighs each one against what a judge would likely order, and gets you ready for mediation and settlement conferences without letting the temperature rise. It shapes minutes of settlement that are specific enough to be enforced. Vance will never push you toward a deal where there is family violence or a real power imbalance; in those cases it flags the risk and points you to counsel instead.
The other party's proposal offers alternate weekends plus one midweek dinner. Measured against a likely court outcome on these facts — a documented shared arrangement operating without incident for six months — this sits below what a judge would probably order, so accepting as-is undersells your position. Suggested counter, framed to keep the temperature low: propose the existing week-on / week-off schedule as the baseline, since it is already working for the children, and offer flexibility on holiday rotation as the concession. That trades something you can give for the thing that matters most. For the settlement conference, come with the schedule, the support numbers from Sterling, and two fallback positions ranked in advance. Note: I see no indication of family violence in this file; if that changes, stop and speak with counsel before negotiating directly.
Agent Crane plays opposing counsel — on your side, in private. It red-teams your position and your affidavits, then builds the strongest honest version of the other side's argument so nothing surprises you in the courtroom. Crane finds the weak paragraph, the missing exhibit, and the sentence a cross-examiner would pounce on. It is direct but never demoralising, because every problem it raises ends with exactly how to fix it. Better to hear it here than from the other side's lawyer.
Playing opposing counsel for a moment. Three places I would attack your affidavit, and how to close each one: 1. Paragraph 7 says access was denied 'many times' but names no dates. On cross, that becomes 'so you cannot actually tell the court when.' Fix: replace with the specific dates and tie each to Exhibit 'A', the message log. 2. You describe yourself as the primary caregiver but the strongest exhibit — the school attendance record — is not attached. The other side will say the claim is unsupported. Fix: add it as an exhibit and reference it in the paragraph. 3. The strongest honest version of their case is that the recent schedule was informal and never agreed in writing. Prepare for that by leading with the six months it operated without incident. None of this means your position is weak. It means these three fixes make it hard to shake.
Built for excellence in legal drafting. Agent Pemberton knows that a perfectly argued case fails if the document is wrong. Every output uses the correct form, the correct formatting, the correct terminology, and the correct structure for the jurisdiction. Drafted to be filed, not just read.
I, [APPLICANT FULL NAME], of the [City], in the Province of [Province], MAKE OATH AND SAY: 1. I am the Applicant in the above proceedings and as such have personal knowledge of the matters set out in this Affidavit, save and except where stated to be upon information and belief. 2. I bring this Motion for Variation of the Interim Consent Order of [Justice Name] dated [Order Date] (the 'Order'), on the grounds that there has been a material change in circumstances since the making of the Order, specifically: (a) [Material change one — documented in Exhibit 'A' hereto] ... [Sample structure — replace placeholders with your facts.]
This is what a $600/hr law firm does. Except Litigent is available right now, for the cost of a monthly subscription, 24 hours a day, for the entire length of your case.