Premium and Business plans · v1.0.0
Cross-Jurisdictional Comparator
Lays out how an issue is treated across England and Wales, Ireland and the EU
- Protocols
- 2
- Skills
- 2
- Public sources
- 15
- Workflows
- 1
A chat inside a matter: the question, the answer with cited passages, and the matter chip that keeps every message on the right client.
What it does
Lays out how an issue is treated across England and Wales, Ireland and the EU.
Typical tasks
- 01Compare how a clause is treated under English law versus an EU member state's law
- 02Flag where a cross-border contract needs local counsel
- 03Set out the EU instruments equivalent to a UK regulatory requirement
Best for
- Corporate and commercial teams working a cross-border deal across England and Wales, Ireland and the EU.
- Anyone who needs to know early where a clause needs local counsel, not late.
- Regulatory teams mapping a UK requirement onto its EU equivalent.
How it works
From task to memo, in 5 steps.
Every step is recorded under How this was made on the finished run, with a pass, a needs a look, or a failure against each check. Nothing here is a description of intent. It is what the software does.
01
Ask the comparative question
Ask how an issue is treated across England and Wales, Ireland and the EU.
02
Plan and screen
Planning Protocol maps which jurisdictions and sources answer the question, and Jurisdiction Gatekeeper confirms coverage stays inside England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland and EU instruments.
03
Normalise the vocabulary
Normalises the question into the legal vocabulary of each target jurisdiction, drawing on member-state primary law such as Légifrance, the Bundesgerichtshof and the BOE.
04
Flag divergence
Produces a comparative table and flags material divergences with low, medium or high materiality.
05
Note where local counsel is needed
States plainly where local counsel input is needed rather than guessing at coverage it does not have.
Governed by
2 protocols.
Protocols run before and during the work: they plan, confirm the jurisdiction, screen personal data, check privilege. Gates run after, on the output, and they are code rather than a model's opinion. A failed gate is shown, never hidden.
Protocols
- 01Planning ProtocolMaps out the plan before any work starts: which sources answer which part of the task, in what order.
- 02Jurisdiction GatekeeperConfirms the task sits inside a jurisdiction the firm has enabled, and flags anything that strays outside it.
Skills
- Legal Research Methodology
- Open-Web Source Catalogue
What comes back
A document with its working attached.
- 01Comparative table
- 02Authorities
- 03Open questions
Sources it may cite
- Irish Courts
- Irish Statute Book
- Légifrance
- Bundesgerichtshof
- openJur
- Italgiure
- Normattiva
- BOE
- Rechtspraak
- DRE
- ISAP
- Austrian RIS
- UN Treaties
- WorldLII
- All 74
Connectors in the catalogue
Catalogue tiles, not live integrations today. Documents are uploaded to the matter.
- OpenLaw
Try it
Three tasks to start with.
These are the prompts the agent suggests inside the product. Paste your own document under any of them.
Compare a clause across jurisdictions
Compare how this clause would be treated under English law and under the law of the relevant EU member state, and flag where the two positions diverge:
Flag where local counsel is needed
Review this cross-border contract and flag every point where local counsel input is needed, with the reason for each flag:
Map a UK requirement to its EU equivalent
Set out the EU instruments equivalent to this UK regulatory requirement, and note any material difference in scope:
What it does not do yet
- Coverage outside England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland and EU instruments is out of scope, and the agent flags that rather than guessing.
Workflows