For Immigration Attorneys
Shorten the finding. Keep the judgment.
A client asks something that sits across the statute, a Policy Manual chapter, a Board decision from a decade ago and whatever came out in the Federal Register last month. This is built for that first hour.
The test worth running
Set both panels to the same engine.
Every question returns a sourced answer, an independent answer written with no retrieval, and a reading of where the two diverge. Choose the same engine for both and every difference of style, training and temperament cancels out. One variable is left: one panel had the law in front of it and the other did not.
Whatever happens next is attributable to retrieval and checking, on your question, in your matter. Where they agree you have supporting evidence and nothing stronger, because two frontier models can be confidently wrong about the same thing. Where they diverge you have a flag planted on the point that needs you. The full mechanism →
The practitioner interface
Six things it gives you.
- Engine control on both panels. Four engines across Anthropic, Google and OpenAI. Your pairing is saved to your account.
- Live confirmation at answer time. Priority dates, processing times and fees are never trusted to the library. They force a lookup against official sources when you ask.
- A browsable Primary Sources library. Read by authority rather than by whatever an answer chose to quote, with currency dates and links out to the official text.
- Client matter threads. Research organised by matter, so follow-ups know what came before. Matter questions are never cached or reused for anyone else.
- Permanent provenance. Reopen research from three months ago and you see the caption that answer earned, not a friendlier default applied later.
- Deeper retrieval than the individual interface. A wider candidate pool, and more of it reaching the answer.
The library
What is actually in it.
1,479 documents in 55,495 passages, indexing 7,000+ distinct authorities. A curated corpus of primary law rather than a web index with a legal finish on it. Counted in production on 23 August 2026.
| Authority | Documents | Passages |
|---|---|---|
| USCIS Policy Manual | 456 | 14,637 |
| Board of Immigration Appeals precedent | 448 | 14,077 |
| INA, as codified at 8 U.S.C. | 210 | 4,184 |
| 9 FAM | 149 | 4,820 |
| 8 CFR | 132 | 6,057 |
| Federal Register | 44 | 1,482 |
| The Dickie Woods database | 28 | 9,500 |
| 22 CFR, the visa parts | 9 | 639 |
| Attorney General precedent | 2 | 22 |
| DOS Visa Bulletin | 1 | 77 |
How it stays current. Official feeds are polled every morning at 09:00 Singapore time. The INA comes from govinfo, the regulations from the eCFR API, case law from CourtListener under an approved commercial licence. The USCIS Policy Manual and 9 FAM are ingested structurally, because neither publishes an API.
Where currency cannot be guaranteed, we do not pretend. Fast-changing material is flagged and never relied on from the library. Some sources, 9 FAM among them, publish no currency date at all, and the library records the absence rather than filling it in.
Limits, stated plainly
What the check covers, and what remains yours.
The quoted passages and the links to government websites in a sourced answer, matched against the material actually retrieved for that answer.
Whether the analysis is legally correct, complete or current. Any citation to a statute, a regulation or a case. Any link that is not to a government website. Anything that is not a direct quotation.
A checked answer is a sourced answer whose quotations and government links were matched. It is not a verified statement of the law. There is no AI in that step: it labels and never edits, so at worst it can misstate confidence, and it cannot alter what you read.
When it has nothing, it says so
If the library returns nothing relevant and a live lookup produces nothing usable, the platform refuses to answer under sourced framing and refunds the question. The same applies when the engines are unavailable: an outage notice, not a confident paragraph. Neither state is ever cached.
Professional responsibility
It supports your judgment and does not replace it. Using it creates no lawyer and client relationship with Lemmy Law Pte. Ltd., does not make us co-counsel, and creates no duty to any client of yours. You remain responsible for verifying every authority before you rely on it or file on it.
Why the smaller practice
The practitioner in the room is the point.
Most people who need a U.S. immigration lawyer are served by a solo practitioner, a small regional firm, or a non-profit carrying an unreasonable caseload. What that seat lacks is not skill. It is leverage. We build research capability that works at the size most immigration lawyers actually practise at, and intend it to be bought out of a practice account rather than procured through one.
The firm behind Dickie Woods is one of those practices. We are building the tool we needed, and we would rather it reached the people in the same seat than not.
Access
By request, and you will see the figure before you are asked to pay.
Tell us how you practise and what you would use it for. We will set you up and put the cost in writing before anything is charged. No card is taken to start the conversation.
The rate is not published yet, and we would rather publish nothing than publish a number we have to walk back. The principle it is being set against: an ordinary practice expense a solo practitioner can carry. If you work at a non-profit, say so when you write.
Dickie Woods is a research and education tool. It gives general information about U.S. immigration law, not legal advice, and using it does not make Lemmy Law your lawyer. Immigration law changes often and an answer can be incomplete or out of date. Check important points against the sources cited, and speak to a qualified attorney about your own situation. Operated by Lemmy Law Pte. Ltd., a U.S. immigration law practice registered with Singapore's Ministry of Law as a Foreign Law Practice. Lemuel Lim is admitted in Missouri.