Still working: heavy queries on the fallback index can run 20-40 seconds.
Your account
Signed in as—
MCP handle—
Plan—
Your details
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 MCP token
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:
Pro — $30/month
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.
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.
(225 ILCS 110/8.2) (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2028) Sec. 8.2. Remote practice of audiology and speech-language pathology. (a) An audiologist licensed under this Act may conduct the practice of audiology remotely subject to the following conditions: (1) the practice of audiology may be conducted
remotely using video conferencing;
(2) the use of telephone, email, instant messaging,
store and forward technology, or facsimile must be in conjunction with or supplementary to the use of video conferencing;
(3) an audiologist who practices audiology remotely
must follow all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy and security regulations;
(4) an audiologist who practices audiology remotely
is subject to the same standard of care required of an audiologist who practices audiology in a clinic or office setting; and
(5) services delivered remotely by an audiologist
must be equivalent to the quality of services delivered in person in a clinic or office setting.
(b) A speech-language pathologist licensed under this Act may conduct the practice of speech-language pathology remotely subject to the following conditions: (1) the practice of speech-language pathology may
be conducted remotely using video conferencing;
(2) the use of telephone, email, instant messaging,
store and forward technology, or facsimile must be in conjunction with or supplementary to the use of video conferencing;
(3) a speech-language pathologist who practices
speech-language pathology remotely must follow all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy and security regulations;
(4) a speech-language pathologist who practices
speech-language pathology remotely is subject to the same standard of care required of a speech-language pathologist who practices speech-language pathology in a clinic or office setting; and
(5) services delivered remotely by a
speech-language pathologist must be equivalent to the quality of services delivered in person in a clinic setting.
(c) An out-of-state person providing speech-language pathology or audiology services to a person residing in Illinois without a license issued pursuant to this Act submits himself or herself to the jurisdiction of the Department and the courts of this State. (Source: P.A. 100-530, eff. 1-1-18.)
Stachler v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 221092 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “” 225 ILCS 110/8.2(b)(5) (West 2018). Moreover, the allegations in Stachler’s complaint about her work rotation at three schools and regular meetings with special education teachers highlight that telework was impractical and not reasonable.”
— 225 ILCS 110/8.2(b)(5) — 1 case
Stachler v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 221092 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “” 225 ILCS 110/8.2(b)(5) (West 2018). Moreover, the allegations in Stachler’s complaint about her work rotation at three schools and regular meetings with special education teachers highlight that telework was impractical and not reasonable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.