No. SleekAI is configured with strict guardrails that decline anything looking like a specific legal opinion, statute interpretation, or strategic recommendation. It consistently refers visitors to the self-help center, the bar's referral service, or a private attorney. The system prompt enumerates declined categories so the refusal behavior is consistent across phrasings; audit-test quarterly with realistic edge-case prompts to confirm the guardrails hold.

It can name forms in the published catalog ("the small claims starter is SC-100") but it will not pick a form based on the visitor's described situation. That distinction matters: naming a form from a catalog is procedural; choosing one for a specific case is closer to legal advice. The bot draws the line consistently and points to the self-help center for the second category, where trained staff can ask the questions a chatbot should not.

Yes. The bot reads your e-filing how-to page and answers about supported case types, vendor portals, accepted file formats, and payment methods. It does not log into the vendor portal on the visitor's behalf or troubleshoot inside the portal; for that the visitor goes through the portal's support channel, which the bot can link to. The clerk's office stays the source of truth on which case types e-file.

If a visitor describes an immediate threat or domestic-violence situation, the bot routes to 911 and to the published self-help center for restraining-order procedure. It does not attempt to walk the visitor through the form or to triage the urgency; that is the work of trained staff. The system prompt is explicit about the routing posture so the bot does not slow down a visitor in danger by walking them through a routine intake.

Yes. Multibot scopes a bot per division: civil, criminal, family, probate, traffic. Each has its own forms, fees, and procedural rules, and the bot embedded on each division's page only references that division's data. This is what keeps the bot from telling a probate visitor about a civil filing window or vice versa. The scope per page matches how clerks already publish content on the site.

Conversations log to your WordPress database with model name, token usage, and page URL. There is no Sleek-hosted log. Retention is configurable; many courts align with public-records policy. For courts subject to FOIA or state public-records laws, treat the log the same way you treat email or web-form intake records and document the retention in your records-management policy.

Yes, but with the same procedural-only scope. Self-represented litigants are exactly who the bot helps the most: they often have procedural questions clerks can answer in seconds but spend hours searching the site for. The bot points to forms, explains fees, names filing windows, and refers to the self-help center for anything strategic. That is the same scope a counter clerk operates under.

No. The bot does not accept filings or process payments; those flow through the e-filing portal or in-person counter. The reason is the same as for legal advice: the bot is a fast information layer, not a system of record. Mixing the two creates audit and security problems courts cannot accept. The bot can deep-link to the portal and walk the visitor through what they need to bring, which is usually the help they were after anyway.