How it works
CourtFlow turns a court email into a structured deadline, a rule citation, and a filed document — without you ever leaving your existing inbox, calendar, or Drive.
Inbound filings are extracted on arrival. Case numbers, parties, filing types, and deadlines are detected and structured before you would have finished scrolling past the email. The result lands in your dashboard with a confidence score; if anything is ambiguous, the row is flagged for your review rather than guessed.
No deadline lands on your calendar without a citation to the underlying federal or state rule of civil procedure. The same engine that reads the filing identifies which rule produced each due date, so you can audit every entry. If the citation is unclear, the deadline is flagged instead of guessed.
Each filing is named consistently, organized into your case folders, and written to the Google Drive or OneDrive you already use. CourtFlow holds no document custody — when you revoke OAuth, the connection ends and the documents stay where they have always lived: in your firm's storage.
A worked example
A request for production served through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal at 8:14 in the morning, followed all the way to the calendar entry — including the day-count that produced the date, so you can check it rather than trust it.
CourtFlow reads the Gmail or Outlook mailbox you already use, through OAuth. There is nothing to forward, nothing to upload, and no new inbox to check.
The other two messages are left alone. CourtFlow acts on filings served by the court and the portal, not on ordinary correspondence.
The notice carries a link, not the filing. CourtFlow follows it, pulls the documents into memory, and works on them there.
Two documents, one notice. Both are processed. A filing that duplicates one already handled in the last 24 hours is skipped instead of double-calendared.
Extraction reads the filing, not the email subject line. The clerk’s raw case number is normalised to the format your circuit actually prints.
Broward’s 17th Circuit short form: TYPE-YY-SEQUENCE.
Blanks stay blank. No judge is named because the filing does not name one. An empty field is information; an invented one is a liability.
Other tools hand you a date. This is the part none of them show you.
Checked and set aside: the 45-day window a defendant gets under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340(a) applies to discovery served with process. This request was served after appearance, so 30 days governs.
Three dates came out of one notice. They are not equally certain, and CourtFlow does not pretend otherwise.
A date CourtFlow cannot cite is a date CourtFlow will not assert. The Verify queue is where those land, with the sentence from the document that prompted them.
CourtFlow holds no document custody. Revoke the OAuth grant and the connection ends — your files stay exactly where they are.
The date prefix comes from the filing date, not from any deadline in the document — so a folder never sorts by a date the filing did not have. The draft is a starting point in your voice to edit, not a document to file unread.
Google Calendar or Outlook, routed to the attorney assigned to the matter. The citation travels with the event.
Entries are linked to the deadline record, so a later amended notice updates the existing event rather than creating a second one beside it.
This lands in your inbox roughly a minute after the court’s notice did. It is the whole filing, reduced to what you have to decide.
| Task | Deadline | Authority | Calculation | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response to Request for Production | 09/14/2026 | Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b) | Aug 13 + 30d; e-service +0d; Sat → Mon (2.514(a)(1)(C)) | Served post-appearance; the 45-day window in 1.340(a) does not apply |
| Deposition — corporate representative | 10/08/2026 | — | Date certain, stated in notice | 10:00 AM; location in the notice |
| Case management deadline (referenced) | — | — | Not computed | No triggering document on the face of the filing — sent to Verify |
Five columns, and the two that matter most are Authority and Calculation. You are reading a date you can check, not a date you have to take on faith.
Every matter in the firm, sorted by what is actually due. This is the surface you open instead of the inbox.
The rule sits under every row. Nothing on this board is a date without a reason attached to it.
A pipeline that only works when every step succeeds is not a pipeline you can rely on. These run on their own schedule.
Any deadline that was saved but not yet written to a calendar is picked up and created — checked against the existing entry first, so nothing is double-booked.
As a due date approaches without the matter being closed out, the reminders get louder rather than quieter.
A standing check for deadlines that were extracted but never landed anywhere. A pipeline that reports nothing wrong is not the same as one that is right.
One email each morning: what is due, what is close, what is still waiting on your review — across every matter, not just the ones that moved yesterday.
Elapsed, notice to calendar: 47 seconds. The reading, the rule lookup, the calendaring and the filing happened on arrival.
Synthetic matter. The case, parties and documents are invented for this walkthrough; the rules, the arithmetic, the folder naming and the summary-email columns are the ones CourtFlow actually uses. Florida procedure shown — the same engine runs against New York and Texas state rules, and against the federal rules for CM/ECF matters.
And the same logic, federal
The engine is not Florida-specific. Here is a federal Rule 12 schedule rendered from the same rules library.
One worked example: a motion to dismiss filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. CourtFlow extracts every date on this graph from the underlying email and writes them to your calendar with the rule citation attached. Discovery, summary judgment, and appellate windows are detected the same way, against the rules in the jurisdiction your case is filed in.
Shows its work
Some tools now scan your inbox too — but they still hand you a date without the local rule or the math, then trust that it’s right. CourtFlow reads the court’s email, applies your rule, and shows the arithmetic, so the question is never “do I trust the AI?” It’s “does this one-glance audit check out?” Four artifacts, on every deadline:
Built for the second pair of eyes. Good docketing practice is two people checking every date — CourtFlow is designed to be checked, not believed. The rules library behind the citations is refreshed monthly from official sources, with a public change log.
We loaded a synthetic firm with three matters into the dashboard so you can read a deadline, open a document, and walk the workflow before you commit.