The case is in the documents.All of them.
WOLF AI turns a matter's worth of records into structured, source-linked work product.
Qui tam is not theory.It is the clearest working tool the public has.
When public money is taken through false claims, this is the mechanism that brings it back.
1863
Lincoln’s Law
Signed during the Civil War to fight contractor fraud. Still one of the government’s sharpest tools.
$6.8B
Recovered in FY2025
DOJ reported more than $6.8 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments in one year.
1,297
Qui tam suits filed
Qui tam actions filed by whistleblowers and their counsel in FY2025, under the statute that lets private citizens sue on the government’s behalf.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, FY2025 False Claims Act statistics
What does the enforcement record look like?
Three public figures you can verify at the source, and the pleading standard that makes evidence organization the bottleneck.
According to the Department of Justice, False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceeded $6.8 billion in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025 — the highest single-year total in the history of the statute. Settlements and judgments since the 1986 amendments now exceed $85 billion.
Source: DOJ: False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceed $6.8B in fiscal year 2025
The Department of Justice reports that whistleblowers filed 1,297 qui tam lawsuits in fiscal year 2025, the highest number in a single year and a sharp rise on the previous record of 980 set in 2024. Those filings drove more than $5.3 billion in reported settlements and judgments.
Source: DOJ: False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceed $6.8B in fiscal year 2025
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that a party "must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." In practice that is what turns an FCA matter into a document-organization problem: the allegation has to name specific claims, dates, and actors, each traceable to a record.
Source: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b): pleading fraud with particularity
The same case. The same evidence.A different operating model.
Today
Evidence scattered across PDFs, emails, and billing files
Chronology spreadsheets assembled by hand across long review cycles
Claim-by-claim tracing done manually
Complaint prep bottlenecked on associate bandwidth
No single source of truth for what supports what
With WOLF AI
One structured matter workspace, tagged on upload
Source-linked chronology drafts designed for faster attorney review
Every claim mapped to its document, page, and passage
Complaint-support packets ready for review
Every output traceable to its evidence
Outputs attorneys can use.Not dashboards. Not summaries.
Matter file
Sorted by source, date, and entity on upload.
Billing exports, records, emails, and relator notes tagged by source, date, and entity on upload.
Previews use representative anonymized data. Actual outputs reflect your matter.
Every fraud type the statute reaches.Intake to complaint.
Upcoding, phantom services, medically unnecessary procedures, and kickbacks. The highest-volume FCA category and the most document-heavy, which is exactly where evidence assembly costs the most.
Billing exports and medical records are reconciled line by line the moment the matter opens.
Four steps.Start to filing.
Ingest
Documents, notes, and claims data land in a secure workspace.
Structure
Entities, dates, and claim events are extracted.
Analyze
Chronologies build and sources link themselves.
Prepare
Attorneys review, validate, and move toward filing.
What we are still testing.
WOLF AI is early. These are the assumptions the product rests on, stated plainly so practitioners can tell us where we are wrong.
Tell us where we’re wrongIs evidence assembly really the bottleneck?
We believe it constrains contingency-firm economics more than analysis or drafting do. If yours sits elsewhere, tell us.
Is page-level citation the bar for trust?
We assume no attorney relies on AI output that cannot be traced to a page. We would rather over-cite than ask for faith.
Does faster triage change which cases get taken?
We think firms that evaluate intakes faster take stronger matters. We do not yet know how much faster it has to be.
Common questions.
Who is WOLF AI built for?
WOLF AI is built for plaintiff-side firms handling False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, particularly healthcare, Medicaid, and government-contract fraud.
What documents can WOLF AI work with today?
WOLF AI works with PDFs today, including medical records, billing exports, claims data, compliance documents, emails, memos, and scanned paper processed with OCR. Other formats need converting to PDF first; native CSV and DOCX ingestion is on the roadmap, not represented as shipped.
Are WOLF AI outputs linked to their sources?
Yes. Each proposed entry links to the document, page, and passage it came from so the legal team can inspect the source.
Can attorneys edit and approve the generated work product?
Yes. WOLF AI produces editable, structured first drafts. Attorneys review, change, reject, and approve the work product before it is used.
Does WOLF AI replace attorney judgment?
No. WOLF AI is a software company, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice. Its outputs require attorney review and validation.
Is there a public WOLF AI API or MCP server?
No public production API or MCP server is currently offered. The public agent resources describe the website and current product positioning, not a generally available case-data integration.
How does WOLF AI pricing work?
WOLF AI uses custom pricing for plaintiff-side FCA and qui tam firms. Pricing depends on matter volume, team size, document volume, and onboarding requirements. Early design-partner terms are discussed privately during a demo.
What happens to a whistleblower who contacts WOLF AI directly?
Reports through the confidential intake are held in confidence and are not passed to a firm without that person’s explicit, case-by-case consent. WOLF AI is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.
Field guides for this workflow
Put fraud-fighting leverage in attorney hands.Thirty minutes, your matter.
A working session against your use case. Real outputs, not a deck.
Private walkthroughs for qualified plaintiff-side FCA teams.