Missing a filing deadline in immigration law is not a minor slip. A late response to a Request for Evidence or a missed motion to reopen can get a case dismissed or a client's status lost, with malpractice exposure sitting behind either one. None of that changes because software did the missing instead of a paralegal. If anything it raises the bar: a practice needs to know exactly what the system is responsible for and what it still checks by hand. That is the same question we ask before building anything, and it is also what we cover directly in what happens when an AI agent makes a mistake.
We do not let an agent make the final call on a deadline-critical filing by itself. It can watch the docket and flag anything approaching a set window, say 14 days out and again at 3, pulling case status straight from whatever case management software is already in place. What it does not do is submit a time-sensitive filing without a lawyer confirming it first. That split, what the system owns outright and what it only prepares, gets decided before a line of code is written, the same mapping work covered in what can AI automate for an independent immigration law practice. Guardrails like this are not bolted on afterward; they are wired in from the start, tied to the tools already in use.
This is also where we are honest about fit. If a practice wants a system that decides and files on its own with nobody checking, we would not build that, and we would say so upfront. What we do instead is operate the system after it ships: watch the escalation queue and adjust timing windows as real deadlines come and go. Look at how the system escalates, not just whether it tracks dates: who gets the alert and what happens if nobody responds in time. What running unattended actually means in practice is worth reading before handing deadline work to any agent, ours or anyone else's.