Aperture Research Works Paul Hattingh · LinkedIn

For law firms, counsel, in-house legal teams and legal operations

Independent verification before legal reliance.

You remain counsel. We test the research layer.

Aperture Research Works independently checks the research behind consequential legal work before counsel relies on it. We test sources, material facts, assumptions, currentness, jurisdiction, calculations and contradictions. Counsel retains legal interpretation, advice, strategy, privilege, filings, representation and the client relationship.

Send One QuestionSee Mata v. Avianca

The division of responsibility

THE LEGAL ROLE STAYS WITH COUNSEL. THE RESEARCH LAYER GETS INDEPENDENTLY TESTED.

Aperture tests

  • whether a source exists and is the source actually cited
  • whether the source supports the proposition attributed to it
  • material factual propositions and assumptions
  • authority and source currentness
  • jurisdiction and proposition/source mismatch
  • calculations, chronology and internal consistency where relevant
  • contradictory material and unresolved gaps

Counsel retains

  • legal interpretation and legal conclusions
  • legal advice and professional judgement
  • strategy, privilege and professional duties
  • pleadings, filings and procedural decisions
  • representation and advocacy
  • the client relationship and final decision on use

Counsel products

START WITH THE SMALLEST VERIFICATION THAT CAN CHANGE THE RELIANCE DECISION.

Source Check

From US$650; typical US$650–US$950

Sources, authorities, citations or quotations checked for existence, accuracy, support, currentness and jurisdiction.

Research Reliance Check

US$1,250–US$2,500

The default entry product for one bounded research question, proposition, authority set or existing research output.

AI Research Verification Check

From US$1,250

Independent source verification of AI-assisted legal research, authority lists or draft research outputs.

Matter Facts & Authority Pack

US$2,500–US$7,500+

A broader matter-level record combining material facts, chronology, authorities, currentness, calculations, contradictions and open issues.

Counsel Watch

From US$1,500/month

Defined monitoring where an authority, regulation, proceeding or material factual dependency may change over time.

A formal written scope controls every engagement. Aperture does not provide legal advice, a legal opinion, litigation strategy or representation.

See the complete Counsel Research Assurance route →

Typical triggers

Use it when the consequence of a research error is larger than the cost of checking it.

  • AI-assisted or internet research is feeding into consequential legal work.
  • A memorandum, chronology or factual pack depends on multiple external sources.
  • An unfamiliar jurisdiction or fast-changing authority creates currentness risk.
  • A factual representation from a client, counterparty or third party needs independent corroboration.
  • A source trail contains weak, secondary, circular or potentially fabricated citations.
  • Counsel wants an independent research-quality check before relying on a factual proposition.

Written-first by default

You can begin with one defined proposition and the material you want checked. A telephone call is not required to start a standard matter.

Send one question →

What the written output contains

The answer should be visible before the methodology.

Question testedThe exact proposition or research issue under review.
Source trailThe authorities and factual sources inspected, with provenance and role visible.
Verification statusConfirmed, partly confirmed, inconsistent, not established, contradicted or requiring further evidence.
Contradictions and gapsMaterial contrary evidence, uncertainty and missing support remain visible.
Reliance noteWhat the research record can support and where counsel must make the legal judgement.
Next evidence stepThe smallest proportionate next action if the present record is insufficient.

Public proof

Mata v. Avianca shows the failure mode clearly.

The public case demonstrates why fluent AI or internet research is not the same as verified legal research. The issue is not that technology was used. The issue is whether the underlying sources and propositions were independently checked before reliance.

Inspect the public case study →

No fabricated authority. No simulated approval.

Technology may assist discovery, comparison and drafting. It does not become the evidentiary source or substitute for the human and professional responsibilities that remain with the relevant people.

Fiduciary and distressed matters

Counsel keeps the legal role. Aperture can independently test the external factual record.

Where a professional team needs an independent external factual record rather than another legal, accounting, valuation or disposition opinion, Aperture can provide a defined evidence-reconciliation layer.

See Fiduciary & Distressed-Matter Evidence →

Professional boundary

Research assurance is not legal advice.

Aperture operates as an independent research and verification provider. It does not act as a law firm, provide legal advice, decide legal questions, create privilege by assertion, represent clients, file documents, advocate, or perform a reserved professional function. Acceptance remains subject to jurisdiction, licensing, lawful access, conflicts, privacy, sanctions and the agreed scope.

Send One QuestionHow We Work With Counsel
Discuss a Matter