Meet Scalia: "The Textualist" – Dismantling Weak Arguments with Linguistic Precision and Unapologetic Force

In the First Drafts AI Panel System, some cases call for scholarly depth, others for elegant persuasion. But when your opponent has twisted language beyond recognition, buried clear contractual terms under creative interpretation, or attempted to plead around dispositive facts, you need a different weapon entirely: the sharp edge of textualist precision wielded with intellectual confidence. Today, we introduce that weapon: Scalia, "The Textualist."

Named for Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court's most influential modern voice for textualism and originalism, our Scalia AI model is engineered for one core mission: to make words mean what they say. It excels at defensive litigation, contract interpretation, and any case where the plain language of a document should be dispositive—but your opponent is trying to wish it away. When clarity has been obscured by clever lawyering, Scalia cuts through the fog with razor-sharp logic and unapologetic force.

The Hallucination Index: Scalia's Precision in Contractual Language

At First Drafts, transparency is paramount. First Drafts' Hallucination Index is a meta-study on our own models using First Drafts' proprietary standardized testing benchmark of ten fixed test cases ranging in complexity and tasks to determine the citation capability and accuracy of each model. Across four separate classes of citations, each model is scored based on how many of the citations generated from whole cloth is accurate. Hallucination testing is completed by the company's attorney-consultants with access to legal research databases to check citations; the Hallucination Index is an estimation of likely hallucinations that a user might encounter in any given task, and not a guarantee of the model's performance.

The Hallucination Index for Scalia reflects its specialized purpose. While not matching Stone's scholarly comprehensiveness, Scalia demonstrates exceptional accuracy in plain language interpretation, contractual provisions, and statutory text—the exact domains where textualist precision matters most. It is less focused on synthesizing dozens of circuit court opinions than on ensuring that the specific contract provision,policy exclusion, or statutory language you're relying upon is quoted accurately and applied correctly. For motions to dismiss, summary judgment briefs on contract disputes, and insurance coverage denials, Scalia provides a highly reliable textual foundation.

The Textualist in Action: Scalia's Drafting Philosophy and Performance

As "The Textualist," Scalia is not designed for tentative hedging or equitable hand-wringing. It is designed for aggressive clarity: to identify what the document says, explain why that language is dispositive, and systematically dismantle any attempt to reinterpret it. Scalia's strength lies in its willingness to be pointed, direct, and even sharp when calling out legal overreach. It doesn't just argue that your opponent is wrong—it demonstrates that their interpretation requires ignoring, twisting, or manufacturing language that simply isn't there.

‍
Key Capabilities:

• Textualist Precision: Scalia anchors every argument in the exact words of contracts, policies, statutes, or pleadings, insisting that language means what it plainly says.

• Aggressive Deconstruction: It excels at identifying and dismantling creative interpretations, procedural workarounds, and attempts to manufacture coverage or liability where none exists.

• Confident Rhetoric: The tone is sharp and unapologetic—not rude, but unafraid to label weak arguments as what they are. Think: "Plaintiff cannot plead around dispositive policy language by creatively relabeling events."

• Formalist Reasoning: Scalia prioritizes rules, plain language, and procedural requirements over sympathetic facts or equitable considerations. If the contract excludes it, it's excluded. Period.

• Procedural Precision: It demonstrates particular strength in identifying pleading defects, jurisdictional issues, and threshold barriers that defeat claims before reaching the merits.

• Defense-Side Power: While adaptable, Scalia is most effective in defensive postures—motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and breach-of-contract defenses where clear language is your shield.

Scalia Model Evaluation Snapshot

Scalia's evaluation reveals an AI built for intellectual combat in the trenches of contract and policy disputes. It achieves outstanding scores in Legal Reasoning (91) and Thoroughness (90), reflecting its ability to systematically address every aspect of an opponent's theory while building multiple independent grounds for victory. Its Overall Effectiveness (88) demonstrates that this approach wins cases—particularly in contexts where judges reward precise application of unambiguous terms.

Where Scalia diverges from prior generation models like Stone is in tone and scope. Its Clarity of Writing (84) is strong but occasionally sacrifices elegance for force; the goal is not literary beauty but the intellectual equivalent of a knockout punch. The prose is direct, sometimes blunt, and unapologetically confident. Its Speed (72) is notably faster than Stone's scholarly deliberation, making it ideal for responsive briefing where you need powerful arguments quickly. Scalia doesn't waste time on tentative phrasing or excessive hedging—it states the argument and moves forward.

Our Inspiration: Justice Antonin Scalia

‍Our Scalia AI is named in honor of Justice Antonin Scalia,who served on the Supreme Court from 1986 to 2016 and fundamentally reshaped American legal interpretation. Justice Scalia was the Court's most forceful advocate for textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional law. His philosophy was simple but revolutionary: words have meaning, and judges should apply them as written rather than rewrite them to achieve desired outcomes.

Justice Scalia was famous for his intellectual rigor, his sharp—sometimes biting—prose, and his willingness to call out what he viewed as judicial activism or creative lawyering. His opinions and dissents were characterized by clarity, confidence, and often memorable phrases that cut to the heart of why an opposing argument failed. He believed that legal certainty came from following rules and text, not from case-by-case equitable adjustments.

Our Scalia model is built to embody this legacy. Like Justice Scalia examining a statute or contract, the model insists: What does it say? Not what do we wish it said, not what might be more fair, but what does it actually say? When a complaint alleges facts that fall squarely within a motion to dismiss, Scalia doesn't equivocate—it shows the court the exclusion, shows how the allegations fit within it, and explains why any attempt to avoid that conclusion requires rewriting the policy language.

Think of Scalia as your champion when the law is on your side but your opponent won't acknowledge it. It provides the intellectual ammunition to demonstrate—with precision, force, and just the right amount of sharp rhetoric—that words mean what they say, that contracts bind, and that creative reinterpretation cannot manufacture obligations that don't exist.

For the cases where clarity has been deliberately obscured,where your opponent's entire theory rests on ignoring dispositive language, or where you need the confidence to tell the court "the policy says what it says, and that ends the inquiry"—Scalia is your textualist champion,ready to restore meaning to language and deliver victory through unapologetic precision.

‍