Personal-injury practice is a race: statutes of limitation, medical-record chasing, demand letters, and citation-heavy briefs, all on a contingency clock. The right AI tool pulls that race into one workspace; the wrong one is a research engine that does nothing for your demand-letter pipeline or your deadlines.

What PI practice demands

Statute-of-limitations precision. Miss it and the case is gone. Dates must be computed, not estimated.
Leveraged drafting. The demand letter sets the carrier's reserve — it's the highest-leverage document you write.
Medical-record synthesis. Turning a stack of records into a clean chronology is hours of grunt work.

Why BigLaw-priced tools don't fit

Harvey (~$1,000+/attorney/mo), CoCounsel (~$225–$500), and Lexis+ AI (~$200–$400) are built for deep research. PI is drafting-, synthesis-, and deadline-heavy. On a contingency model, paying enterprise per-seat prices for research depth you rarely use is the wrong trade.

What to look for

Demand-letter drafting with anchored damages methodology and citation-validated comparable-verdict references.
Medical chronology generation from uploaded records.
Statute-of-limitations and court-day math with the right holiday sets and an honest advisory.
Citation validation against CourtListener, so a hallucinated comparable-verdict cite never leaves the building.
Pricing that respects a contingency practice — free to start, paid from $29/mo.

How Draftiro fits PI practice

Upload the records and the police report, draft the demand with a documented damages methodology, run a conflict check, and let the calendar hold the statute of limitations. Every AI exchange logs a clean, ABA Op. 512–compliant time entry. See the personal-injury workspace or compare Draftiro to Clio Work.

The tool runs the race's busywork. You keep the strategy and the client.