For family law attorneys

Your client’s evidence, organized for your motion.

GreyRock detects order violations across 8 categories and 30 specific subcategories. Every flag is timestamped, dated, and cited against the parenting plan — so the prep work happens before the consult, not during your billable hour.

Read-only attorney dashboard ships month 6.·Built with two attorney design partners.

Launched
Early April 2026
Live at
mygreyrock.app
Attorney design partners
Two · in active build
Practice-tier dashboard
Ships month 6+
The architecture

Every analyzed message runs through two layers in parallel.

One calibrated for the client — clinical patterns, plain-language coaching. One calibrated for you — order violations, dates, clause references. Same input. Same timeline. Two outputs.

Inbound message

“Working late tonight — I’m having my mom pick the kids up at 6 and keep them till bedtime. Already arranged.”

2026-03-1418:47thread #847
Layer 1 · For your client

Unilateral scheduling pattern. Stay grounded.

15 psychological patterns — DARVO, gaslighting, parental alienation, coercive control, and twelve more — surfaced quietly in-app to help your client recognize what's happening and respond without escalating. They never see clinical jargon unless they ask for it.

Layer 2 · For you

Right of First Refusal — violation flagged.

Detected against the parenting plan you have on file. Written into the timeline with date, time, plan clause, and the verbatim message. Citation-ready — not an interpretation, a documented event with a paragraph reference.

VIOLATION§4.2(b) Right of First Refusal
DATE2026-03-14 · 18:47 PT
PATTERN4 instances in prior 90 days
EXHIBITAuto-tagged as Ex. C-014

The psychological layer keeps your client steady between sessions. The legal layer is what we built this page around — because that’s the part that turns a client’s six months of texts into something you can put in front of a judge.

The taxonomy · overview

Eight categories. Thirty subcategories. Built from what gets cited.

The taxonomy was assembled from the violations most often raised in family-court motions. It is currently in clinical-legal review with one of our attorney design partners before final shipment — so the structure below is real, but the wording of subcategories may still tighten.

01
Custody & visitation interference
Withholding parenting time, chronic lateness or no-shows, right-of-first-refusal violations, passive-aggressive scheduling.
4 subcat.
02
Legal decision-making
Unilateral major decisions, information hoarding, exclusion from emergencies and joint-custody-of-record consultations.
3 subcat.
03
Communication & psychological abuse
Digital harassment, blocking and monitoring, alienation and disparagement, third-party harassment.
4 subcat.
04
Financial abuse
Support non-payment, asset dissipation, credit sabotage, employment interference, necessity withholding.
5 subcat.
05
Litigation abuse
Vexatious filings, discovery obstruction, contempt baiting — the patterns that drive billable disputes without resolving them.
3 subcat.
06
Geographic & privacy
Unauthorized relocation, travel violations, surveillance — including device, location, and third-party monitoring.
3 subcat.
07
Safety & conduct
Substance abuse, restraining-order breach, exposure to prohibited individuals during parenting time.
3 subcat.
08
Reputation sabotage & support interference
Public disparagement, triangulation of support network, professional defamation, false reporting, proxy harassment.
5 subcat.
30 subcategories totalPlain-language detection — not legal conclusionsCited against your client’s parenting plan, not a generic template
The taxonomy · in practice

What detection looks like, four examples in.

A subcategory is not just a label. Each one is paired with a detection rubric, a timeline excerpt, and a citation format. Four chosen below to show range — one custodial, one informational, one litigation, one financial.

01.3 · Custody & visitation interference

Right of first refusal violation

When a parent who can't exercise their parenting time is required by the order to offer it back to the other parent before arranging third-party care — and doesn't.

In the timeline2026-03-14 · 18:47 — "Working late, my mom is taking the kids till bedtime. Already arranged."
Cited asViolation of Plan §4.2(b). Surfaced 4 instances in the prior 90 days, each with date, time, and verbatim message. Auto-tagged as exhibit candidate.
02.2 · Legal decision-making

Information hoarding

Withholding time-sensitive information about a child's medical, educational, or extracurricular life that the other parent has a legal right to know under joint legal decision-making.

In the timeline2026-04-02 · 09:15 — Pediatrician confirmation forwarded by school nurse after the appointment. Client was not informed in advance.
Cited asViolation of Plan §3.1 (joint legal decision-making — health). 6 documented instances within the analyzed window, with provider name, date, and notification gap in days.
05.1 · Litigation abuse

Vexatious filings

Repeated motions, ex parte requests, or contempt filings made primarily to harass, increase the other party's legal costs, or delay resolution — rather than resolve a real dispute.

In the timeline2026-01 → 2026-04 — Pattern surfaced from messages: 3 filings within 30 days, all withdrawn or denied. Subject matter overlaps prior denied motions.
Cited asSurfaced from message-thread cross-reference, plus public docket when client provides. 7 messages contain explicit filing threats; 2 escalated to actual filings within 72 hours.
04.5 · Financial abuse

Necessity withholding

Failing to provide for a child's basic needs — medical care, prescriptions, school supplies, weather-appropriate clothing — during the other parent's time as a form of pressure or control.

In the timeline2026-03-22 · 17:45 — Children returned without prescription antibiotics that client had refilled and sent. Pattern repeated 3× in 90 days.
Cited asViolation of Plan §3.4 (necessities provision). Severity escalates with frequency and demonstrable child impact — missed doses, missed days, reported pediatrician follow-ups.

GreyRock surfaces these as documented events, not legal conclusions. The clause numbers above are illustrative — live exports cite against the parenting plan that your client uploads, not a template.

The export

What lands on your desk.

Generated by your client. Filtered by violation category. Citation-ready. The artifact below is the page-one summary — full exports also include the dated message log, per-violation evidence pages, and a cover sheet keyed to your case number.

Smith_v_Smith_2026-04-30_evidence.pdfPage 1 of 47
Case summary

Smith v. Smith

Communication record · January 14 — April 14, 2026 · 90 days

Messages analyzed
1,247
Violations flagged
41
Categories with activity
6 of 8
Severity 3 events
8
Violations by category
Custody & visitation14
Communication & psych. abuse11
Financial abuse7
Legal decision-making5
Litigation abuse3
Reputation sabotage1
Sample dated message log · sorted by severity
2026-03-1401.3 ROFRRight of first refusal · third-party care arranged without offer to clientSev 3
2026-03-2204.5 NECESSITYNecessity withholding · prescription antibiotics not returned with childrenSev 3
2026-04-0202.2 INFOInformation hoarding · pediatrician appointment unannounced; surfaced via school nurseSev 2
2026-04-0903.3 ALIENATIONAlienation / disparagement · routed message via 12-yr-old containing direct disparagementSev 3
Sample violation citation · appears on evidence page

“On March 14, 2026 at 6:47 PM, the respondent communicated to the petitioner that childcare for the evening had been arranged with a maternal grandparent without the petitioner being offered the time first — in violation of Section 4.2(b)of the parenting plan dated September 18, 2024.”

PLAN_REF: 4.2(b) · EVIDENCE: msg_thread_847 · EXHIBIT: C-014

Sample PDF. Smith v. Smith is fictional. Real exports use your client’s case caption and the parenting plan they upload.

For your practice

Three concrete things this changes.

Not vague productivity claims — three specific moments in your existing workflow where the export does work that an associate currently does, or doesn't do at all.

01

The intake meeting starts at minute thirty.

Your client arrives with the violations already identified, dated, and categorized. Instead of you spending the first hour of a billable meeting excavating six months of texts, you spend it on what the violations mean for the case.

02

Court prep stops being the bottleneck.

What an associate currently spends three to six hours doing — reading thread by thread, building a chronology, picking exhibits — the export does in under a minute. Filtered by violation category. Citation-ready. Auto-numbered exhibit candidates.

03

Fewer reactive emails to walk back.

Because GreyRock is also coaching your client's outgoing messages, you get fewer escalations to manage between hearings, fewer late-night texts you have to undo on Monday morning, and fewer self-inflicted wounds in discovery.

Phase 2 · in development

A read-only view, one row per client.

Coming month 6+, in active build with our two attorney design partners. Not available today — and we won’t pretend otherwise. The list below is what ships.

  • Read-only client timeline accessYou see what your client sees. Nothing they don't consent to share.
  • Per-client violation frequency reportingThe 8-category breakdown, refreshed daily.
  • One-click PDF export, scoped to date rangeThe artifact above — generated from the dashboard, not the consumer app.
  • Client invite flowYou send the link; your client onboards directly into a shared workspace.
Practice-tier pricing

$300/month, 25 client seats, month 6+.

One tier, priced for solo and small-firm practice. Flat. No per-seat upsell. Until then, the consumer product works fully on its own — refer a client today and the export still lands on your desk.

Practice tier · available month 6+

Read-only practice dashboard

$300/ month, flat

Up to 25 linked clients. The dashboard, the per-client timeline view, the one-click PDF export. No per-seat add-ons, no hidden export fees, no usage tiers.

  • 25 linked clients (read-only)
  • Per-client violation frequency
  • One-click PDF export, scoped to date range
  • Client invite flow
  • Direct line to the founders during early access

Until then — the consumer product works on its own.

Attorneys who want to refer a client today can send them straight to the consumer signup. They paste the messages, GreyRock builds the timeline, and they hand you the PDF at your next meeting. No practice account required.

If you become a design partner before month 6, your firm gets the practice tier free for the first year.

Confirmed pricing for month 6+. Subject to refinement with design-partner input. We will not raise it after launch without notifying every firm on the waitlist first.
Where we actually are

Early. Live. Honest about both.

GreyRock launched early April 2026. The consumer product is live at mygreyrock.app with active users. The 30-subcategory order-violation taxonomy is in active clinical-legal review with one of our two attorney design partners before final shipment. The practice-tier dashboard is in build, targeting month 6+. We are not going to claim “trusted by 50 firms.” We have two design partners. That’s the entire list.

  • Product statusConsumer product livemygreyrock.app · active users since April 2026
  • TaxonomyIn clinical-legal review30 subcategories. Final wording with design-partner input.
  • Practice tierIn build · month 6+ targetRead-only dashboard. Building with design-partner attorneys.
  • Design partnersTwo family-law attorneysNames withheld until publication consent. Real attorneys. No invented endorsements.
  • What this is notLegal adviceGreyRock surfaces documented events. The attorney makes the legal calls.
Two next steps

Refer a client today, or hear from us when the practice tier opens.

Two CTAs because they serve two different needs — one for cases on your desk now, one for the workflow change later. Both honest about what’s available.

For a case in front of you

Refer a client.

Send your client the consumer product directly. They sign up, paste the messages, and bring you the export when it's useful. No practice tier required — the export lands the same way.

For the practice tier

Get notified when it opens.

One email when the practice-tier dashboard is ready for attorneys outside our two design partners. No newsletter, no follow-up sequence. Names of design partners shared only with their consent.

If a colleague would want to know about this — forward this page · the highest-value outcome on a page like this is one attorney sending it to another