Why we built CitePage
CitePage exists for the independent expert witness — the physician, engineer, or specialist who gets retained, buried in a records bundle, and expected to produce a defensible opinion with none of the software a law firm takes for granted.
The gap
Walk through the tooling around a piece of litigation and you'll find software for almost everyone — case management, e-discovery, and a wave of AI chronology tools, all aimed at law firms and insurers. The one person whose name goes on the opinion, who gets cross-examined on every line, who carries the Daubert risk personally — the independent expert — has been left to run a serious practice out of a folder of PDFs, a Word template, and a spreadsheet of prior testimony.
So the most valuable person in the room does the least valuable work: reading hundreds or thousands of pages to build the chronology by hand, then rebuilding a Rule 26 package and a CV from scratch each engagement, then chasing the billing. The newer AI tools help — but they were built for the firm's volume buyer, and they mostly stop at a chronology with page numbers next to it. None of them is architected around the expert's whole practice, defensible under cross.
How we build
A landing page can promise anything. These are the ones we wrote into the engine, because they're the ones an expert is cross-examined on.
Every asserted fact is programmatically checked against the page it cites — not just
hyperlinked for you to verify by hand. Pages the model couldn't read are surfaced, never
silently dropped. A citation here means this page supports this, not "here's a
link."
CitePage organizes facts and flags conflicts for your judgment; it never writes a conclusion. You decide causation and you sign every word. Every AI-assisted step is logged and exportable, so your methodology is disclosable — not a liability.
Your privileged records 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 anyone. You control retention, including permanent deletion. Privacy here isn't a setting; it's the design.
Why you can trust it before you trust us
We're early, and we'd rather earn credibility than borrow it. So instead of testimonials we don't yet have, here's what we can actually stand behind: the citation engine has been stress-tested across cases of escalating complexity — from clean single-provider records to multi-source bundles with conflicting dates, ambiguous causation, and billing scattered across ledgers — checking that each asserted fact holds against its cited page, that pages it couldn't read are reported rather than skipped, and that contradictions surface for the expert instead of getting smoothed over.
That's the bar we hold ourselves to, and it's exactly why your first chronology is free: so you can run that same test on your own bundle, on a line you know is subtle, before you ever pay. If it isn't accurate enough to put your name on, you owe us nothing — and we want to hear why, because that's how the product gets better.
A note from the founder
I started CitePage because the asymmetry bothered me: the expert carries the most personal risk in the case and gets the least tooling. Everyone built for the firm. No one built the expert's back-office — so I did.
I'd rather earn your trust than oversell it. 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. The promise is narrow and we keep it: CitePage organizes the facts; you author every opinion. If it isn't accurate enough to put your name on, you owe us nothing, and I want to hear why.
— Sam Mortada, founder · hello@citepage.com
Try it free
Upload one consented case bundle. Get a page-cited chronology back, with a source citation on every line and the pages it couldn't read accounted for. Keep it whether or not you ever subscribe.