Stevens is not a licensed attorney and does not provide legal services to consumers or pro-se litigants.

Stevens drafts pleadings, motions, and statutory filings for Florida and federal civil litigators. The work is performed under attorney supervision through a documented multi-agent AI methodology. Every deliverable arrives with a contemporaneous verification record. The retaining attorney directs the matter, reviews the draft, and signs the filing.

The methodology is named, bounded, and battle-tested across filed work and CLE faculty engagements. It is not a chatbot interface. It is an orchestrated drafting practice with defined gates, named verification phases, and an AI scoring threshold that the draft must clear before it reaches counsel.

Stevens hardens the draft. Counsel validates the filing. That division of responsibility is the engagement.

The Methodology

Five steps. Each one defined. Attorney directs at intake, at iteration, and at signature.

Step 1 — The Brief

Retaining counsel shapes the pleading. Q&A intake, typed or narrated. Voice-to-text capture preserves the strategic shape of how counsel reads the matter. Counsel also delivers the case file: prior pleadings, discovery, transcripts, exhibits, correspondence, prior orders. STAN — the multi-agent stack — trains on the file. The Brief defines the runway. Nothing leaves the ground until the runway is set.

Steps 2 & 3 — The Build Loop

STAN drafts. Multiple AI models run with role-differentiated mandates: red team identifies the legal vulnerability, green team builds the affirmative argument, validator flags every authority that cannot be grounded in the case record or primary source. The adversarial output is synthesized into a coherent revision. Hades runs the acid test — every statutory citation grounded, every dollar figure verified, every named individual confirmed against source. Corrections bake into the draft. Judge Dredd, the AI gatekeeper, scores the result. If the draft does not clear 9/10, it returns to the loop. Pleadings routinely cycle fifty to seventy-five times before they exit. The draft is not finished when the operator is finished. The draft is shepardized with LexisNexis. It is finished when Judge Dredd says it is.

Step 4 — Attorney Iteration

Counsel reviews the draft and the Build Sheet. Counsel's feedback is treated as new runway. STAN drafts against the revisions, the adversarial actors attack the revised draft, Hades verifies, Judge Dredd scores. The revised pleading clears 9/10 again before it returns to counsel. Iteration is not a punch list. It is the Build Loop with new inputs, run with the same adversarial pressure as the original draft.

Step 5 — File

Attorney signs. Attorney files. The methodology produced the draft. Counsel owns the filing.

The Build Sheet

Every Stevens deliverable arrives with a Build Sheet — a written record of how the draft was developed. Which models ran which roles. What the red team attacked. What the validator flagged. What Hades caught and corrected. Every authority traced to the published opinion. Every factual claim traced to the case record.

The Build Sheet is contemporaneous documentation of the verification process. Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 2024) and ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) both address the lawyer's duty to verify the accuracy and sufficiency of work product produced with generative AI, and to supervise nonlawyer assistants who use these tools. Counsel using AI-assisted drafts must be prepared to demonstrate that verification occurred. The Build Sheet documents that work as it happens.

If a §57.105 motion lands, if a Rule 11 inquiry surfaces, if a magistrate asks how a citation found its way into the brief, the Build Sheet is the contemporaneous record. It is included in every engagement.

The Filing Universe

Stevens drafts to defined filing types across nine practice areas. Counsel selects the filing; the methodology produces the draft. Pricing is flat-fee per deliverable, set during intake.

Public Records & Sunshine Law

Chapter 119 and §286.011 practice. Initial public records requests engineered under the Stevens Method — decision-node anchored, custodian-specific, statutorily framed. Follow-up requests, demand letters citing §119.12, and responses to over-redaction or blanket exemption claims. Chapter 119 enforcement complaints, mandamus petitions, motions for expedited hearing under §119.11, and motions to compel against agencies asserting personnel-records, investigative-records, or trade-secret exemptions. Sunshine Law complaints under §286.011 where the records dispute pairs with a closed-meeting violation, a noticing failure, or a walking quorum. Attorney fee petitions under §119.12 and appellate briefing on Chapter 119 denials. This is the Stevens Method's home territory; the methodology was developed here.

Florida §57.105 Sanctions Practice

The 21-day safe harbor letter that precedes a §57.105 motion is adversarial drafting under a statute with specific elements — strong enough to make the recipient withdraw the offending claim, precise enough to lock in the sanctions argument if they do not. STAN's adversarial stack is built for exactly this work. Stevens drafts safe harbor letters, motions for sanctions under §57.105(1) and §57.105(2), responses in opposition, replies in support, fee affidavits when sanctions are awarded, and appellate briefing on §57.105 awards. The Build Sheet's contemporaneous verification record is itself relevant if the sanctions question proceeds to hearing.

FDUTPA — Chapter 501, Part II

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act work. Complaints alleging FDUTPA violations on the consumer side, motions to dismiss FDUTPA counts on the defense side, motions for summary judgment, and the standing-causation-actual-damages arguments that decide most FDUTPA cases at the dispositive stage. Attorney fee petitions under §501.2105 and responses to fee oppositions. Class action complaints with FDUTPA predicates and motions for class certification on FDUTPA theories. Daubert motions on FDUTPA damages experts. Appellate briefing on FDUTPA dismissals and summary judgments where the Florida appellate courts continue to refine the standard. FDUTPA case law is enormous and constantly moving; the methodology's continuous case-law verification is built for filings in this category.

Florida UPL Filings

Florida Bar UPL practice. Complaints to The Florida Bar Standing Committee on UPL, responses to UPL inquiries, and Florida Supreme Court petitions in matters where the Bar enjoins nonlawyer practice. Civil filings alleging UPL as a cause of action or as a basis for voiding contracts — debt collection cases, immigration consultant matters, notario fraud, real estate closings performed by nonlawyers, and legal document preparer disputes. Motions to disqualify based on UPL. The methodology's discipline around the UPL line is itself the qualification: Stevens drafts UPL filings precisely because the practice is structured to respect the line being drawn.

Federal §1983 & Qualified Immunity Practice

42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights practice. Complaints alleging First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. Monell claims against municipalities. Supervisory liability theories. Qualified immunity briefing — the dominant defense motion in §1983 practice, filed at motion to dismiss and again at summary judgment — and responses requiring identification of clearly established law on materially similar facts. Pullman and Younger abstention briefing. §1988 attorney fee petitions for prevailing plaintiffs. Interlocutory appeals on qualified immunity denials. Qualified immunity practice is the most citation-intensive area of federal civil litigation; the methodology's continuous Shepard's-style verification against published opinions, paired with Hades's grounding of every factual analogy against the case record, is built for this work.

Federal Motion to Dismiss

Rule 12(b)(6), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(7) motions and responses. Twombly-Iqbal pleading-standard work where the plausibility analysis turns on whether the complaint's factual allegations support every element of every claim. Statute-of-limitations defenses, abstention arguments, preemption analysis, and personal jurisdiction challenges. Stevens drafts both the motion and the opposition; the methodology is side-agnostic. The Build Loop's adversarial pressure means the motion is drafted against the strongest version of the opposition's response, and vice versa.

Federal Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 56 practice. Statements of Undisputed Material Facts cross-referenced to exhibit and deposition page-and-line. Motions, responses, and replies. Daubert challenges paired with summary judgment where expert testimony is the disputed material fact. The Rule 56 record is the work; the methodology ingests the case record at intake and drafts the SUMF and supporting brief against the actual exhibits, not against a generic summary of the record. Hades verifies every record citation against source. Judge Dredd does not pass an MSJ draft with an unverified record citation.

Florida Motion to Dismiss

Rule 1.140 practice. Four-corners review under Florida pleading standards, which differ from the federal Twombly-Iqbal framework in ways that matter to the analysis. Motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, failure to state a cause of action, and statute-of-limitations defenses. Responses in opposition. The Florida procedural posture, the state-specific case law, and the trial-court division practices are baked into the methodology's case-law training; the draft reads as Florida state-court work, not as a federal motion adapted to state court.

Florida Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 1.510 practice under the post-2021 amendment that aligned the Florida summary judgment standard with the federal Celotex framework. A meaningful share of Florida summary judgment briefing still proceeds under pre-2021 reasoning that no longer governs. Stevens drafts under the current standard, with the transition case law — In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 and the appellate decisions construing the amended rule — fully integrated into the analysis. Motions, responses, and replies. The Build Sheet documents which standard governs and how the brief was framed against it.

Why the Methodology Fits Civil Litigation Drafting

Four structural features distinguish the methodology from generic AI drafting and from associate-drafted work.

First, the case file as training input. STAN trains on the actual record at intake. The draft references the right exhibits, quotes the deposition transcripts accurately, and anticipates the arguments opposing counsel has already made in prior filings. When the model is grounded in the record, it has less surface area to invent on. This closes the primary hallucination vector that Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 identifies as the most serious risk in attorney use of generative AI.

Second, adversarial pressure as a design constraint. Single-model AI drafting produces fluent output without internal disagreement. The Build Loop produces output that has been argued with itself fifty to seventy-five times before it reaches counsel. Red team finds the holes. Green team builds the argument. Hades verifies the authority. Judge Dredd scores the result. What clears the loop has survived adversarial review of the kind that opposing counsel will conduct after filing.

Third, contemporaneous verification documentation. The Build Sheet is not produced after the fact. It is the byproduct of the methodology operating as designed. Every authority verification, every red team attack, every Hades correction, every Judge Dredd score is logged as the draft develops. When counsel needs to articulate the verification process — to a magistrate, to opposing counsel, to a malpractice carrier, to The Florida Bar — the documentation already exists.

Fourth, operator credential. The methodology was developed by a practitioner with active pro se litigation experience at the state and federal level in the same subject-matter zones the practice serves — §1983 civil rights claims, Lindke v. Freed state-action posture for public officials' social media activity, and FDUTPA consumer litigation. Filings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and Florida's 17th Judicial Circuit, Civil Division. The methodology was not built in a workshop. It was stress-tested against the procedural reality of being the signature on a filing in both venues, against opposing counsel who treated the matter as adversarial because pro se status does not reduce that pressure. The gates exist because the operator has been the person responsible for what gets filed.

Division of Responsibility

Stevens is not a lawyer. Stevens does not give legal advice. Stevens does not select causes of action, set litigation strategy, advise the underlying client, or sign filings. The retaining attorney directs every matter, defines the runway, reviews every draft, and is the signature on every filing. The engagement is structured to operate squarely within Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1's Rule 5.3 framework for lawyer supervision of nonlawyer assistants and third-party AI tools. The opinion does not just permit this engagement model. It describes it.

What the Methodology Does

Stevens runs Shepard's-style citation verification on every authority in every draft. STAN's validator flags any authority that cannot be grounded against a published opinion. Hades grounds the cite against source. Citations are formatted to current Bluebook conventions for federal practice and to the Florida Style Manual for Florida state-court filings — short-form citations, signal phrases, pin cites, parentheticals — as a property of the drafting workflow rather than a separate review pass. Judge Dredd does not pass a draft with a flagged authority unresolved or a citation formatting error.

What the Methodology Does Not Do

Citation verification is not a warranty. Verification is bounded by the methodology's view of the case law at the time the draft is produced. Subsequent history changes. Treatment shifts. A signal that was clean on Tuesday can be flagged on Friday. The signing attorney owns the duty to confirm every authority before filing — not because the methodology was lax, but because the duty is non-delegable under Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, ABA Formal Opinion 512, Federal Rule 11, and Florida Statute §57.105. No drafting service, no AI system, and no methodology can transfer the verification duty off the signing attorney. Stevens does not attempt to.

Stevens hardens the draft. Counsel validates the filing. That division of responsibility is the engagement, and it is the reason the methodology is structured the way it is.

Engagement

Stevens engages with the firm, not the underlying client. The retaining attorney is the point of contact, the strategic director, and the signature on every filing. Pricing is flat-fee per defined deliverable, scoped during intake and confirmed before the Build Loop runs. Turnaround scales with filing complexity and the adversarial pressure on the matter. The Build Sheet is included in every engagement; it is part of the deliverable, not an upsell.

Initial consultation establishes filing scope, case file delivery, timeline, and pricing before any drafting begins. Inquiries route through REVOLT.Training.

The methodology is not theoretical. The proof is the filed work.

[ Examples Download: Build Sheet | Engagement Letter ]