One operating view of the three authorities that actually govern a filing: the court's own standing orders and local rules, the malpractice carrier's AI questions on renewal, and the ABA ethics layer that sits underneath both. Every entry carries a primary-source link and the date the source was retrieved, and the ethics layer is pulled live from the AI Ethics Opinions Tracker.
A bounded 0–100 composite of the three signals that actually change how a filing is handled: court posture from standing orders and local rules (0–40), the documented sanctions record in that state (0–40), and coverage pressure from carrier and cyber questionnaire exclusion language (0–20). Every component is computed from the sourced records on this page and in the sanctions tracker — nothing is scored by opinion.
No jurisdictions can be scored yet. The score needs at least one sourced standing order, sanctions decision, or carrier exclusion item tied to a state.
The score is a research heuristic for triage and staffing decisions. It is not an actuarial rating, an underwriting opinion, or a prediction of how any judge will rule. Coverage pressure that is not tied to a named state is applied uniformly, so relative comparisons between states are driven by court posture and the enforcement record.
Passcode-protected editor for court standing orders and carrier AI questionnaire items. Every entry requires a primary-source URL and a retrieval date.
Ohio state trial and appellate courts, the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Northern District of Ohio, and the Sixth Circuit. Judge-specific orders are listed under the judge, because that is the level at which the certification obligation usually attaches.
No standing orders published yet. Because every entry here must carry a primary-source link and retrieval date, nothing is seeded from secondary summaries — add each court or judge order through the passcode editor above and it appears immediately.
The AI questions carriers now ask on application and renewal, paired with the firm's standing answer so the same representation goes out every cycle. Answers published here are public; keep anything privileged in the internal note field instead.
No carrier questions published yet. Add each question exactly as the carrier asks it, with a link to the application or renewal form, then write the answer you intend to give.
Pulled live from the AI Ethics Opinions Tracker, so this section never drifts from the tracker record. The ABA layer supplies the baseline duties; the Ohio layer is what a disciplinary body would actually apply.
No instruments recorded in the tracker.
No instruments recorded in the tracker.
This dashboard is a compliance research tool, not legal advice. Court requirements change by judge and by case, and carrier questions change by policy year. Verify every entry against the linked primary source before relying on it in a filing or an insurance representation. LegalTek.ai is a technology company, not a law firm.
Founded by Matthew A. Mishak, Esq. — Harvard Business School Executive Education Graduate, MIT Sloan Artificial Intelligence Graduate.
LegalTek.ai proves you don't have to choose between speed and care, scale and quality, efficiency and ethics. Dedicated to closing the justice gap through ethical AI adoption.
Mapped to and operationalizing ABA Formal Opinion 512 (the ABA does not endorse vendor frameworks). COUNSEL stands for: Confidentiality, Oversight, Understanding, Notification, Scrutiny, Equity, and Lifetime Learning.
A managed AI service for legal professionals with human oversight, ethical guardrails, and COUNSEL Framework compliance.
Website: https://legaltek.ai | Twitter: @legaltek_ai