The meet-and-confer platform for litigators who get it done Draft. Counter. Compile. No scheduling required.
AsyncConfer is an asynchronous negotiation and drafting workspace for every meet-and-confer obligation — federal Rule 26(f) conferences, California meet-and-confer declarations, and discovery disputes. No scheduling, no email threads, no corrupted Word redlines. Go straight to the language, and leave with a record of how you got there.
$99.99 per side, per matter — a disbursement you bill to the case. Your whole team is included.
How it works
One workspace, all parties, section by section.
Agree to the format
Every workspace opens by recording what the parties are agreeing to — which differs by court. A case management conferral carries a mutual stipulation and [proposed] order to confer asynchronously, exportable for filing. A California conferral needs no such stipulation, because the code never required a call.
Draft
Propose language for each section of your joint statement or discovery conferral. Start from a template matched to your court — federal or state — so nothing required gets missed. Import the statement you already drafted, or write a section from your notes. Bring in co-counsel and your paralegal: everyone on your side works from the same workspace.
Counter
Opposing counsel opens a private link — no account, no software to install — and reads the entire workspace before spending anything. Once their side is paid in, they accept your language or submit a redlined counter-proposal, section by section. When a section deadlocks, either side can ask for a suggested middle ground.
Compile
Consensus language and side-by-side disputed positions assemble automatically into the document your court takes — a joint case management statement, a joint discovery letter, or a California meet-and-confer declaration — exportable for filing in Word or PDF.
AI assistance
It drafts. You decide what's yours.
Three places a model helps, and one rule over all of them: nothing it produces is your position until you adopt it — and the conferral record shows when you did.
Import your existing draft
Bring the statement you drafted — Word or PDF. Every section lands where it belongs. The model answers with paragraph numbers, never prose, so your language is copied across exactly as you wrote it. It cannot soften your position or quietly improve it, because it is never asked to write one.
Draft from your notes
Type the terms: twelve-month cutoff, ESI vendor needs fourteen weeks, cap depositions at ten. Get back the section in the register a joint statement expects. It writes from your notes and nothing else — no facts you did not give it — and you can edit it, replace it, or throw it out before anyone else sees a word.
Break a deadlock
When neither side will move, ask for middle ground. It is drafted blind — no party names, no roles, no idea which of you has counsel. Both sides see the same suggestion at the same moment, and neither of you owns it unless one of you adopts it.
What it won't do
- ✓ It will not add a citation you didn't write. No feature is asked for legal authority. A draft that produces one anyway is discarded before you see it.
- ✓ It will not act on its own. Every request happens because someone clicked something. Nothing runs in the background.
- ✓ It will not learn from your matter. Content submitted through the API is excluded from model training.
- ✓ It will not decide anything. It has no view on what you should accept, and no party is ever asked to respond to a suggestion.
How these are built — what is sent, when, and the checks that hold a suggestion back.
The conferral requirement
“Confer” is the requirement. “By telephone” usually isn’t.
A conferral obligation is about a good-faith attempt at resolution, not about a medium. Where the rules leave the format open, this workspace is the conferral. Where a standing order names a live conference, it isn’t — and the product tells you so rather than pretending otherwise.
- ✓ The format is on the record: what each side agreed to, and when.
- ✓ Every proposal, redline and acceptance is logged in a hash-chained audit trail.
- ✓ The attempt is evidenced by a record written as it happened — not call notes from memory.
- ✓ Where your court wants a stipulation, the boilerplate ships with the workspace.
What opposing counsel sees — case management
Secure Legal Workspace
You've been invited to a meet-and-confer workspace via AsyncConfer. Review each section, accept, or submit a redlined counter-proposal.
☑️ By entering this workspace, all parties stipulate to conduct their conferral via this asynchronous platform in a good-faith effort to resolve the matters under conferral efficiently, in lieu of a telephonic meeting.
California state court
Code of Civil Procedure § 2016.040 asks for facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue. It names no medium. So the conferral happens here, and the meet-and-confer declaration is drafted from the record of it — issue by issue, the resolved ones separated from the ones that remain.
What the declaration must show →Rule 26(f) and case management
The rule says confer. It does not say how. Every case management workspace opens with the mutual stipulation and [proposed] order below — all parties agreeing on entry to confer through the workspace — and it exports with the statement.
Rule 26(f) deadlines →A standing order that requires a call
Some do — a joint discovery letter in the Northern District, for one. This workspace does not replace that conference and will not attest that it happened. What it does is narrow the dispute to what is genuinely deadlocked first, so the call is short, and draft the letter that follows it.
Conferring before a motion to compel →Included with every case management workspace — adapt the caption to your court
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONDUCT THE PARTIES' MEET AND CONFER VIA ASYNCHRONOUS DIGITAL WORKSPACE
WHEREAS the parties are required to meet and confer in the above-captioned matter; and
WHEREAS the parties agree that a written, asynchronous conferral will promote efficiency and preserve a complete record of their positions;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby STIPULATE as follows:
- The parties shall conduct the required conferral through a secure asynchronous digital workspace, in lieu of a telephonic or in-person conference.
- Each party's proposals, counter-proposals, and acceptances recorded in the workspace shall constitute that party's positions in the conferral.
- The exported conferral record shall evidence the parties' good-faith participation in the meet-and-confer process.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Conferral record — excerpt
- Jun 12, 14:02 Defense counsel accepted §3 (ESI protocol)
- Jun 12, 13:47 Defense counsel countered §5 — 2 redlines
- Jun 11, 09:15 Plaintiff's counsel (by M. Alvarez) proposed §5 (privilege & work product)
- Jun 10, 16:31 Defense counsel entered workspace — stipulation acknowledged
The audit trail
Every move is on the record
Every proposal, redline, acceptance, and entry is timestamped into a complete conferral log. When you certify that you met and conferred in good faith, you're not relying on call notes and memory — you're attaching the record.
- ✓ Ends "who said what, when" disputes before they start.
- ✓ Documents opposing counsel's delay for motions to compel and sanctions declarations.
- ✓ Names the individual who acted, while the statement you file names only the party.
- ✓ Exportable and ready to attach to any certification of conferral.
- ✓ Or don't attach it — cite a read-only link the Court can open itself.
A link you can give the Court
Every case has a read-only inspection link to the same log. Cite it in a filing or provide it to chambers, and the Court reads the record where it was written rather than a copy you produced. The link grants no access to the workspace and no ability to change anything.
It is also the one thing the log doesn't record. Every other action in a case is written to the audit trail; a judge's or clerk's inspection is not, so nobody — opposing counsel or you — can see that chambers looked. If a link ever needs retiring, rotate it and the old one stops working.
Security
Emailing Word docs is a liability
Every .docx you email carries metadata, tracked-changes history, and prior redlines — every inbox it lands in is a copy you don't control, and every attachment you open is a chance you took.
No metadata leaks
Proposals live in the workspace as clean text. No hidden tracked changes, comments, or document history exposing privileged edits to opposing counsel.
No attachments in the wild
Nothing is emailed back and forth. Opposing counsel works through a private, access-controlled link — not a forwardable file.
No shared logins
Everyone on your side gets their own link and verifies their own address. When someone leaves the matter, withdraw them and their access stops — what they already filed stays in the record.
One canonical version
No "Joint_Statement_v7_FINAL(2).docx". All parties always see the same current language, section by section.
No macro malware
Weaponized Word attachments are a top malware vector, and firms are prime targets. When conferral never happens over attachments, a spoofed "revised redline" in your inbox has no cover.
AsyncConfer runs on SOC 2 Type II–certified infrastructure, with encryption in transit and at rest.
Pricing that passes through
One price, one line item, billed to the matter rather than your firm. Each side pays for its own participation — nobody is a guest in someone else's tool.
Per side, per matter
$99.99 per side, per matter
- ✓ Everything on your side of the caption — every section, every proposal, every export
- ✓ Your whole team on your side — the fee is per side, not per seat
- ✓ The full conferral record, hash-chained and ready to attach to a filing
- ✓ Boilerplate async-conferral stipulation and [proposed] order, where your court wants one
- ✓ Unlimited exports for as long as the matter is open
Read the whole workspace before you pay.
An invited party sees every section, every proposal and the entire record from the moment they open their link. The fee is what lets that side respond — accept language, counter it, or add a comment to the record.
Either side can cover the other.
If opposing counsel will not expense it, the host can pay their fee from the case page and the conferral proceeds. That is cheaper than one motion to compel.
It is a disbursement, not software spend.
Bill it to the matter the way you bill a filing fee or a court reporter. It doesn't touch your firm's software budget or need anyone's approval.
Volume across a docket, or a firm-wide arrangement? Email me directly — you'll reach the engineer who built it, not a sales team.
Questions litigators ask
What if opposing counsel won't use the platform?
Getting in costs them nothing: a private link, a one-click email verification, no account, no install — and they can read every section and the entire record before deciding anything. If the fee is the obstacle, you can cover their side from the case page and the conferral proceeds; that is cheaper than briefing one motion to compel. Counsel who prefer not to work in a browser can use a separate download link to review every proposal as a clean PDF — no macros, no executable content. And if they still decline, the invitation and non-response are timestamped in the conferral record, documenting your good-faith effort to confer.
Why does opposing counsel pay too?
Because they are a party to the conferral, not a guest in your software. Both sides draft, both sides redline, and both sides walk away with the same exportable record — a one-sided fee would make the workspace one side's instrument, which is exactly what a court should not be handed. Each side pays $99.99 for its own participation and bills it to its own matter. Nobody pays for the other side's language.
Can my associate and paralegal use this too?
Yes, and at no extra cost — the fee is per side, not per seat. Add up to ten people on your side from inside the workspace and each gets their own link and verifies their own email address; you don't have to route it through the host or share a login. Everyone on a party can propose, vote and comment, because who inside a firm may bind a client is your engagement letter's business and not ours. The conferral log records which person did what; the statement you file names your party, the way a filing should.
Will judges accept an asynchronous conferral?
That depends on your court, and there are three answers. In California state court the question largely does not arise: Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 asks for facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue, and names no medium — a written conferral is a conferral. For a Rule 26(f) or case management conference, every workspace opens with a mutual stipulation and proposed order documenting all parties' agreement to the format. And where a standing order does require lead counsel to confer in person or by telephone, this workspace does not replace that call and will not attest that it happened — it narrows the dispute to what is genuinely deadlocked first, so the call is ten minutes rather than two hours, and drafts the letter that follows it.
Is my data secure and confidential?
Workspaces are accessible only by private link, conferral documents never travel as email attachments, and AsyncConfer runs on SOC 2 Type II–certified infrastructure with encryption in transit and at rest.
Which courts do you have templates for?
We're built in San Francisco, so the Northern District of California came first, and California state practice followed: a meet-and-confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 is a document you can open today, drafted issue by issue from the conferral itself. More federal districts and state courts are on the way — and every section is fully editable, so you can adapt a workspace to any court's requirements now.
Does AsyncConfer use AI?
In three places, each one opt-in: importing a statement you already drafted, writing a section from notes you type, and suggesting middle ground when a section deadlocks. Nothing runs unless you ask for it. No feature is asked for legal authority, and a draft that comes back citing something you did not write is discarded rather than shown to you — so it cannot hand you an invented case. And nothing it writes is your position until you adopt it, which is a deliberate act you can edit first.
My judge requires disclosure of AI use. Is that a problem?
It's a record rather than a problem. Importing produces no machine-written text at all — your language is copied across verbatim. Where a party does adopt suggested language, the conferral log captures it: who adopted it, when, and whether they edited it first. Export the record and the disclosure is contemporaneous and hash-chained, not a recollection assembled months later.
Skip the Zoom. Go straight to the redlines.
Start a workspace for your next active case and invite opposing counsel in seconds. $99.99 for your side, billed to the matter — and every lawyer and paralegal you need is included.
Start a Workspace