C CitePage
Start free →

The AI back-office for the independent expert witness

Turn the case bundle counsel sent you into a page-cited chronology — in 24 hours.

Upload the records. CitePage reads them so you don't have to and returns a chronology where every event is stamped to its exact source page — conflicts and causation questions flagged for your judgment, ready to drop into your report. Your first chronology is free.

Try your next case free → See a sample chronology

No card required to start · one consented case · you author every opinion.

Built for privileged material Private & never used to train AI Full audit trail for discovery You author every opinion
✓ A source citation on every line ✓ Conflicts flagged, never guessed ✓ Exportable audit trail ✓ No-train, tenant-isolated

The record-review tax

The most valuable expert in the room is doing the least valuable work.

A single case bundle runs hundreds — sometimes thousands — of pages: medical records, depositions, imaging reports, prior expert disclosures. Reading them is the biggest billable-time sink in the engagement: roughly an hour per 100 pages, 40–50 hours a case. At $400/hr that's about $16,000 of your time spent chronologizing records before you've rendered a single opinion — work that's essential, unavoidable, and beneath your training.

You can't skip it. The chronology is the spine of your report and the thing you'll be cross-examined on. So it eats your evenings, delays your turnarounds, and caps how many cases you can take.

~$16k
of expert time per case spent reading records
1 hr
to chronologize roughly every 100 pages
40–50 hrs
of record review before the first opinion

How CitePage works

Upload the bundle. Get back a chronology you can defend.

1

Upload your case bundle.

Drag the PDFs counsel sent you — records, depositions, reports — straight into the app. No setup, no integration, no emailing files around. One consented case to start.

2

CitePage builds a page-cited chronology.

The platform reads every page and returns events as date · what happened · [source: file, p.N / Bates] — sorted, de-duplicated, with a "needs expert review" flag on anything ambiguous or conflicting. Typically back the same day; large bundles within 24 hours.

3

You verify, edit, and sign.

Click any line to jump to its source page and confirm it, then export clean PDF/DOCX. CitePage organizes the facts; you remain the sole author of every opinion. Every AI-assisted step is logged and exportable — your methodology is ready for disclosure, not a liability.

Start with one free case →

What you get back

A page-cited chronology — every fact stamped to its source.

Below is an excerpt of the CitePage work product, built from a fully synthetic case. Routine entries are cited and clean; conflicts, causation questions, and gaps are flagged for your judgment — never guessed at.

CitePage · chronology.pdf — page-cited work product
Sample — Synthetic Data · Not a real patient or matter · For product demonstration only
Medical-Legal Chronology · Page-Cited Work Product

Chronology of Care & Material Events

Reese v. Halverson Logistics, LLC — No. 24-CV-04417 · Date of loss 2024-03-12 (MVA) · Retained expert: Dr. M. Ellison, MD (Orthopedic Surgery)
Routine entry — cited, no conflict noted ⚠ needs expert review — ambiguous / contradictory / causation question
DateEvent / FindingSource CitationFlag
2024-03-12 Rear-end motor-vehicle collision. Restrained driver; airbags did not deploy; ambulatory at scene and drove self to the ED. [MED-ER p.1 / AVERY-0001] — cited
2024-03-12 ED arrival; chief complaint neck/upper-back pain. History records patient denies loss of consciousness. Conflicts with deposition (2025-01-22) where plaintiff states they "might have blacked out for a second." LOC status bears on head-injury work-up — expert to reconcile. [MED-ER p.1 / AVERY-0001][DEPO 22:1-22:14] ⚠ needs expert review
2024-03-20 MRI cervical spine: C5–C6 posterior disc bulge ~2.5 mm; multilevel disc desiccation. Radiologist states degenerative changes are of indeterminate age and "acute traumatic causation cannot be established by MRI alone." Apportionment is an expert question, not a record fact. [RAD-MRI p.1 / AVERY-0003] ⚠ needs expert review
2024-04-02 Orthopedic visit 1: persistent right neck pain 5/10, new index-finger tingling. Spurling's positive. Assessment: right C6 radiculopathy; PT ordered. [ORTHO p.1 / AVERY-0004] — cited
2024-05-14 → 2024-08-06 Gap in treatment (~3 months). No documented care for the cervical complaint between orthopedic visits 2 and 3. Treatment gaps are commonly raised on causation/mitigation. Flagged so the expert can address it affirmatively rather than be surprised on it. [ORTHO p.2 / AVERY-0005][DEPO 24:9-24:12] ⚠ needs expert review
2024-03-12 → 2024-06-10 Billing / special damages: total medical charges $7,435.00; claimed outstanding specials $1,350.00 after adjustments and insurer payment. [BILL p.1 / AVERY-0010][BILL p.2 / AVERY-0011] — cited
Generated by CitePage · every entry cites its source page · expert verifies and signs · AI did not author any opinion. SAMPLE — SYNTHETIC · excerpt of 16 entries · 17 distinct source citations · 0 uncited facts

This is an abbreviated excerpt. Your free chronology covers the full bundle, with a source citation on every line.

Compliance is the feature

Discovery-ready, not discovery-exposed.

The expert who pastes records into a public chatbot has a problem: when opposing counsel demands their AI prompts, they can't produce an organized record — and may have waived privilege over privileged material. CitePage gives you the same AI leverage with none of that exposure.

This isn't hypothetical. In CLF v. Shell (D. Conn., May 18, 2026), a court ordered an expert to produce her generative-AI prompts as discoverable methodology under FRCP 26; a vague "notes/communications" objection failed. With CitePage, every AI-assisted action — prompt, source, output, your edits — is captured in an exportable audit trail. If you're asked in discovery, you hand over a clean, organized record instead of scrambling. That doesn't weaken your methodology defense; it strengthens it.

You author the opinion.

CitePage organizes facts and your own analysis. It never writes your conclusions. You sign every word. (Aligned with the direction of proposed FRE 707 and the UK's Waksman AI guidance.)

Auto-maintained Rule 26 package.

One click exports your FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) 4-year prior-testimony list and Daubert-ready CV — kept current across engagements, not rebuilt from scratch each time.

Private by architecture.

Your records are isolated to your own tenant and never train any AI model. (Full promise below.)

Honest note: proposed FRE 707 (projected default effective date Dec 1, 2027) and the UK's proposed PD35 §3.3 AI-declaration are where the rules are heading — not yet binding law. We build for that direction so you're ahead of it, and we won't tell you it's a mandate when it isn't.

Simple, honest pricing

Pay per case, or go unlimited. One saved case pays for a year.

Three hours saved on record review, at $400/hr, is $1,200 — more than a full year of CitePage. Start with your first chronology free; choose what fits after.

Per case

Pay only when you have a bundle to chronologize.

$79 per chronology
No subscription · no commitment
  • One full page-cited chronology per case
  • A source citation on every line
  • ⚠ conflict, causation & gap flags
  • Export to clean PDF / DOCX
  • Exportable audit trail for discovery
  • Private, no-train, tenant-isolated
Start with one free case →
First chronology is free. No card required.
Founding member · most popular
Monthly — unlimited

For experts carrying a steady caseload.

$99 /mo $149/mo list
Founding rate locked while you stay subscribed · cancel anytime
  • Unlimited page-cited chronologies
  • Auto FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) testimony list + Daubert CV pack
  • Expert rate-card invoicing & retainer tracking
  • Full exportable audit trail
  • Private, no-train, tenant-isolated
  • Priority turnaround on large bundles
Try your next case free →
First chronology is free. No card required to start.
★
Founding-member offer — first 10 experts. Lock the $99/mo founding rate for as long as you stay subscribed; we never raise it on you. The first chronology is free on either plan, precisely so you can judge the quality before you ever pay. Month-to-month, cancel anytime.

Our data-handling promise

Privacy here isn't a setting; it's the architecture.

“

Your case records never train anyone's AI. CitePage is built for privileged material: your documents and work are encrypted in transit and at rest, isolated to your own tenant, and never used to train or fine-tune any AI model or shared with other customers. We don't sell or repurpose your data, we keep an exportable audit trail of every AI-assisted action for your disclosure and discovery needs, and you control retention — including permanent deletion on request. Privacy here isn't a setting; it's the architecture, so your clients' confidences and your privilege stay yours.

A note from the founder

We're early — and honest about it.

C

CitePage is new, and I'd rather earn your trust than oversell. We're onboarding our first ten founding experts by doing the work alongside them — which is exactly why your first chronology is free: so you can judge citation fidelity on your own case before you ever pay.

If it isn't accurate enough to put your name on, you owe us nothing — and I want to hear why, because that's how the product gets better. The promise is narrow and we keep it: CitePage organizes the facts; you author every opinion.

— The CitePage founder · hello@citepage.com

Try it free

Try it on your next case — free.

Upload one consented case bundle. Get a page-cited chronology back, with a source citation on every line. Keep it whether or not you ever subscribe.

Start free → Email the founder

Questions, answered straight

Frequently asked questions

How accurate is it? Can I trust the citations?
Citation fidelity is our first design principle. Every fact links to its exact source page, so you verify in seconds rather than re-reading the bundle. Anything ambiguous or internally inconsistent gets a "needs expert review" flag instead of a confident guess. You check and sign before anything carries your name — CitePage is a force multiplier on your review, never a replacement for it.
Will using AI expose me to a Daubert challenge?
Used the wrong way, ad-hoc AI can. CitePage is built the opposite way: it never writes your opinion, and every step is logged and exportable. If your methodology is questioned, you produce a clean audit record — which supports a Daubert defense rather than undermining it. Pasting privileged records into a public chatbot is the real exposure; this is the defensible alternative.
Is my data private? Do you train on my records?
No. Your records never train anyone's AI, they're encrypted in transit and at rest, isolated to your own tenant, and you control retention including permanent deletion. See our full data-handling promise above — privacy here is the architecture, not a checkbox.
I already use ChatGPT for this. Why switch?
Two reasons. First, output: CitePage returns a structured, page-cited, court-formatted chronology — not a chat transcript you have to reformat. Second, and bigger: a public chatbot keeps no disclosable audit trail and may compromise privilege. When opposing counsel asks for your AI methodology (as a court already ordered in CLF v. Shell, 2026), CitePage exports a clean record. ChatGPT can't.
Per case or monthly — which should I pick?
If you handle the occasional engagement, $79 per chronology means you only pay when you have a bundle to process — no subscription. If you carry a steady caseload, the $99/mo unlimited plan is far cheaper per case and adds the auto-maintained Rule 26 package and invoicing. Either way your first chronology is free, so you can decide after you've seen the quality. You can switch or cancel anytime.
Can I cancel anytime?
Yes. The monthly plan is month-to-month with no contract — cancel anytime. Founding members keep the $99/mo rate for as long as they stay subscribed. The per-case option has nothing to cancel; you simply pay when you run a case.
Do I have to upload real, privileged records to try it?
Only with your explicit consent, on a case you choose, under the data-handling promise above. If you'd rather, you can start with the sample chronology built from a synthetic case bundle (no real records) so you can judge the quality first. While we're early, we ask you not to upload records until you're comfortable with how they're handled.
Try your next case free →