Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
11 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Chappellgreen2 sentences2005See People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829, 830-31 (Colo.1996) (previously disciplined attorney disbarred for intentionally aiding a client in the violation of a child custody order amounting to a felony); People v. Viar, 848 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo.1993) (attorney disbarred for bribery, a class three felony); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793, 794-95 (Colo.1991) (attorney disbarred for conviction of bankruptcy fraud). 55 P.3d 126, 130 (Colo.2002). 2002See People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829, 830-81 (Colo.1996) (previously disciplined attorney disbarred for intentionally aiding a client in the violation of a child custody order amounting to a felony); People v. Viar, 848 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo.1993) (attorney disbarred for bribery, a class three felony); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793, 794-95 (Colo.1991) (attorney disbarred for conviction of bankruptey fraud). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Viargreen2 sentences2005See People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829, 830-31 (Colo.1996) (previously disciplined attorney disbarred for intentionally aiding a client in the violation of a child custody order amounting to a felony); People v. Viar, 848 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo.1993) (attorney disbarred for bribery, a class three felony); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793, 794-95 (Colo.1991) (attorney disbarred for conviction of bankruptcy fraud). 55 P.3d 126, 130 (Colo.2002). 2002See People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829, 830-81 (Colo.1996) (previously disciplined attorney disbarred for intentionally aiding a client in the violation of a child custody order amounting to a felony); People v. Viar, 848 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo.1993) (attorney disbarred for bribery, a class three felony); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793, 794-95 (Colo.1991) (attorney disbarred for conviction of bankruptey fraud). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Schwartzgreen2 sentences2005See People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829, 830-31 (Colo.1996) (previously disciplined attorney disbarred for intentionally aiding a client in the violation of a child custody order amounting to a felony); People v. Viar, 848 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo.1993) (attorney disbarred for bribery, a class three felony); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793, 794-95 (Colo.1991) (attorney disbarred for conviction of bankruptcy fraud). 55 P.3d 126, 130 (Colo.2002). 2002See People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829, 830-81 (Colo.1996) (previously disciplined attorney disbarred for intentionally aiding a client in the violation of a child custody order amounting to a felony); People v. Viar, 848 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo.1993) (attorney disbarred for bribery, a class three felony); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793, 794-95 (Colo.1991) (attorney disbarred for conviction of bankruptey fraud). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Maderagreen1 sentence2012People v. Madera, 112 P.3d 688, 690 (Colo.2005). 116 Even if defendant's trial testimony about his discussions with counsel could be viewed as having waived the attorney-client privilege, the record does not reflect any explanation to defendant that he had made such a waiver or what the consequences of such a waiver would be. | 1 | 1 |
In Re DeRosegreen1 sentence2005See People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829, 830-31 (Colo.1996) (previously disciplined attorney disbarred for intentionally aiding a client in the violation of a child custody order amounting to a felony); People v. Viar, 848 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo.1993) (attorney disbarred for bribery, a class three felony); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793, 794-95 (Colo.1991) (attorney disbarred for conviction of bankruptcy fraud). 55 P.3d 126, 130 (Colo.2002). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Wimmershoffgreen1 sentence2003The Supreme Court has previously publicly censured an attorney for failing to comply with the rules governing contingent fees, see In re Wimmershoff, 3 P.3d 417, 420 (Colo.2000)(attorney publicly censured for, charging an unreasonable fee and failing to adequately convey the basis and rate of his fee to the client in violation of Colo. RPC 1.5(b)) and has suspended an attorney for thirty days for advancing funds to the client. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Gibsongreen1 sentence2003In Re Gibson, 991 P.2d 277, 278 (Colo.l999)(attorney suspended for thirty days for, among other rule violations, advancing funds to his client in violation of Colo. RPC 1.8(e)). | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Donovangreen2 sentences1987However, in general the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed "in the interest of bringing to light relevant facts." People v. Donovan, 19 Cal.Rptr. 473, 478 , 57 Cal.2d 346 , 354, 369 P.2d 1, 5 (1972). [4] A. I believe that analysis of the expert's testimony requires that we recognize distinctions between testimony as to confidential communications that occurred between the client and a defense-retained expert, and testimony regarding "things which [the expert] observed or discovered himself without resort to the client's admissions." Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Par 1987However, in general the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed "in the interest of bringing to light relevant facts." People v. Donovan, 19 Cal.Rptr. 473, 478 , 57 Cal.2d 346 , 354, 369 P.2d 1, 5 (1972). [4] A. I believe that analysis of the expert's testimony requires that we recognize distinctions between testimony as to confidential communications that occurred between the client and a defense-retained expert, and testimony regarding "things which [the expert] observed or discovered himself without resort to the client's admissions." Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Par | 1 | 1 |
Zika v. Eckelgreen2 sentences1986Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294 , 435 P.2d 228 (1967); see also Zika v. Eckel, 150 Colo. 302 , 372 P.2d 165 (1962); Dudley v. Keller, 33 Colo.App. 320 , 521 P.2d 175 (1974). 1986Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294 , 435 P.2d 228 (1967); see also Zika v. Eckel, 150 Colo. 302 , 372 P.2d 165 (1962); Dudley v. Keller, 33 Colo.App. 320 , 521 P.2d 175 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fearnley v. Fearnley
neutral
2 sentences1912We extract the following excerpt from Fearnley v. Fearnley, 44 Colo., 417 , viz.: “The object of the statute is to extend to the client the privilege that his communication shall not be disclosed without his consent. 1912We extract the following excerpt from Fearnley v. Fearnley, 44 Colo., 417 , viz.: “The object of the statute is to extend to the client the privilege that his communication shall not be disclosed without his consent. | 2 | 1912–1912 |
Buckmiller v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023We have further held that a trial court, “in determining whether a party has established excusable neglect under C.R.C.P. 60(b), should not impute the gross negligence of an attorney to the client for the purpose of foreclosing the client from rule 60(b) relief.” Buckmiller, 727 P.2d at 1116 . ¶15 Here, the trial court found Encompass established excusable neglect. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Maul v. Shaw
red
1 sentence1995Maul v. Shaw, 843 P.2d 139 (Colo.App.1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences1994In State v. Carter, 641 S.W.2d 54 (Mo.1982), the Supreme Court of Missouri concluded that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications between a client and a defense-retained psychiatrist in an effort to obtain a favorable opinion supporting the defendant’s defense of mental disease or defect. 1994In State v. Carter, 641 S.W.2d 54 (Mo.1982), the Supreme Court of Missouri concluded that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications between a client and a defense-retained psychiatrist in an effort to obtain a favorable opinion supporting the defendant's defense of mental disease or defect. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Dudley v. Keller
green
2 sentences1986Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294 , 435 P.2d 228 (1967); see also Zika v. Eckel, 150 Colo. 302 , 372 P.2d 165 (1962); Dudley v. Keller, 33 Colo.App. 320 , 521 P.2d 175 (1974). 1986Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294 , 435 P.2d 228 (1967); see also Zika v. Eckel, 150 Colo. 302 , 372 P.2d 165 (1962); Dudley v. Keller, 33 Colo.App. 320 , 521 P.2d 175 (1974). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Coerber v. Rath
green
2 sentences1986Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294 , 435 P.2d 228 (1967); see also Zika v. Eckel, 150 Colo. 302 , 372 P.2d 165 (1962); Dudley v. Keller, 33 Colo.App. 320 , 521 P.2d 175 (1974). 1986Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294 , 435 P.2d 228 (1967); see also Zika v. Eckel, 150 Colo. 302 , 372 P.2d 165 (1962); Dudley v. Keller, 33 Colo.App. 320 , 521 P.2d 175 (1974). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.