Run candidate statements about active litigation, settlement announcements, and legal-development communications against simulated audience cohorts. See which lines will be entered into evidence by the other side and which will play in tomorrow's coverage.
Communications about active litigation, settlement announcements, and legal-development communications are some of the highest-stakes statements an enterprise issues — every word can be entered into evidence, every line can be cited by opposing counsel in their next filing, every paragraph can be quoted in the legal press, and every paragraph the company DOESN'T issue can be characterized as evasion. The audience is asymmetric: plaintiffs and their counsel read every statement looking for admissions; the company's defense counsel reads every statement looking for litigation risk; regulators read it looking for parallel enforcement signals; investors read it looking for materiality; the legal press writes the day-after coverage that affects future plaintiff recruitment. Isaiah rehearses the candidate statement against simulated cohorts before it ships, so the general counsel, head of comms, and outside litigation counsel can refine language with evidence about how the statement will play across the legal, regulatory, and investor surface.
Set up the cohorts that will engage with the statement: plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, opposing counsel's likely press strategy, the lead trial judge if statements may surface in court, parallel regulatory cohorts (DOJ, SEC, state AGs, sectoral regulators) whose enforcement priorities the litigation may signal, top institutional and retail investors evaluating materiality, the company's customer base if the litigation affects buying intent, the legal press tiers (Law360, Reuters legal, AmLaw, ABA Journal, sectoral legal trades), and the general business press tiers covering the litigation.
Paste the candidate statement, any company press release, the SEC 8-K language if material, the customer-facing FAQ, the internal employee FAQ, and any related cleared talking points. Optionally include the litigation context, the strategic intent of issuing the statement, and the legal team's reasoning on disclosure scope.
Isaiah simulates thousands of reactions per cohort. You see which sentences plaintiff's counsel will treat as admissions, which lines opposing counsel's press team will pull into their next public statement, which paragraphs regulators will read as enforcement signals, where the legal press will lead the day-after coverage, and how the company's customer base will receive the materiality framing.
Refine the public statement, the SEC 8-K language, the customer FAQ, the employee FAQ, and the executive Q&A talking points in lockstep. Re-run. Compare versions. Catch the inconsistency between the public statement and the regulatory disclosure language before opposing counsel does.
Isaiah projects the post-statement dynamics: how plaintiff's counsel will respond publicly within 48 hours, which parallel regulatory inquiries become more likely, which investor follow-up questions will surface on the next earnings call, which legal-press story angle will dominate, and which customer concerns will surface in the sales pipeline. Pre-write the day-after company response and the next-quarter IR talking points.
Surface admissions risk in the candidate statement before opposing counsel does. The phrasing that legal-team review missed but that plaintiff's counsel will treat as a material concession.
Catch the inconsistency between the public press release, the SEC 8-K language, and the customer FAQ — the cross-artifact contradictions that opposing counsel and the legal press will pull as a credibility issue.
Pre-write the surrogate-team and investor-relations response talking points, so when plaintiff's counsel issues their public response within 48 hours, the company isn't drafting reactively.
Compare disclosure-scope variants explicitly. Decide between 'comprehensive disclosure to control the narrative' vs 'minimal disclosure to limit litigation surface' with evidence about how each framing will play with each cohort.
Maintain stakeholder cohort intelligence across multi-year litigation cycles, so each new statement, motion update, or settlement communication inherits the cohort context from the last.
Litigation communications work is typically conducted under privilege, with general counsel or outside litigation counsel directing the comms team's drafting process. Isaiah supports deployment postures (VPC, on-premise, air-gapped) that allow it to run inside the privileged work-product environment. The output of Isaiah sessions is treated by customers as work-product alongside the rest of the litigation-comms preparation materials. Customers should consult their own counsel on privilege scope for their specific jurisdiction.
Yes. Plaintiff's counsel cohorts are configurable, including the firm's typical press strategy, their public statement patterns from prior litigation, and their preferred legal-press venues. The simulation surfaces the most likely response framing within the first 24–48 hours after the company's statement, including which sentences from the company's statement they're most likely to quote in their response.
Yes — and this is one of the highest-leverage applications. Settlement announcements are read by parallel plaintiffs (looking for precedent), regulators (looking for enforcement signals), investors (looking for materiality), and the legal press (writing the precedent narrative that affects future similar cases). The cross-cohort simulation surfaces where settlement-statement language inadvertently signals weakness to parallel plaintiffs or strength to regulators in ways that complicate future similar matters.
Isaiah doesn't replace either. Outside litigation counsel owns the legal strategy and the disclosure scope. The PR firm's litigation-comms practice owns the press relationships and the day-of execution. Isaiah adds the simulation layer underneath both — the candidate statement, refined by both counsel and the PR team, gets pressure-tested against simulated cohort reactions before delivery. Many of our enterprise customers running Isaiah on litigation comms also work with both functions; the three outputs combine.
Yes. Many high-stakes litigation matters generate parallel regulatory inquiries and shareholder-derivative claims that follow the company's public statements about the underlying matter. Isaiah configures parallel-proceeding cohorts (DOJ, SEC, state AGs, derivative plaintiff archetypes) so the simulation surfaces where the candidate statement signals enforcement priorities or invites derivative claims that the company would prefer to avoid.
An enterprise pilot starts with a single upcoming statement — either an active litigation update under privilege, a settlement-announcement scenario, or a hypothetical playbook scenario for an anticipated matter — and a defined set of cohorts. Pilot typically runs in 3–6 weeks including security review, cohort design, and outside-counsel coordination on privilege scope. Start at huper.technology/engage and the founding team responds within one business day.
Deploy managed AI agents for litigation & settlement communications — fully managed, CISO-compliant, on your cloud or ours.
Talk to Us