Contracts, covenants and dismissals, read against the law that actually applies.

Attach the contract to the matter, run the Employment Agent, and get the covenant question answered with the clause quoted and the authority checked.

Employment teams

Start free Book a 20-minute walkthrough

No credit card required

Document Review · Hartwell matter · contract screen0/12 filled

Document	Parties and effective dateTEXT	Term and renewalTEXT	Limitation of liabilityTEXT	Governing lawTEXT
nda-hartwell-meridian.txt
saas-agreement-northgate.txt
board-minutes-hartwell.txt

Employment contracts read against a covenant question, the clause quoted before you rely on it.

Before

A client rings about a departing sales director and a non-compete drafted in 2019; you need to know by Wednesday whether clause 9(c) actually holds, and what you are willing to put in a letter.

TUPE on an asset acquisition, like Harrowgate Foods', turns on employee liability information nobody has read yet and a transfer date the client keeps moving.

A general assistant will answer a covenant question fluently and attach Tillman v Egon Zehnder to the wrong proposition, or to no real paragraph at all.

After

The Employment Agent reads the contract, quotes clause 9(c), rates the covenant High, Medium or Low, and explains why a UK-wide, Ireland-wide and EU-wide restriction in any capacity is wider than reasonably necessary, authority attached.

Ten contracts before a Harrowgate-shaped restructure go into a grid under the Employment Agreement Review playbook: notice, non-compete scope, severance, governing law, each cell quoted.

The Research Agent answers the covenant point once, then reshapes it: a Work-Stream Memo for the file, a Client Update in plain English, both citing the same checked authorities.

An HR director and an employment lawyer reviewing a contract together.

Grounded on the matter

The contract, the offer letter and the bonus plan go into the matter, and the Employment Agent reads what is actually there rather than a generic template. On a TUPE file it reads the employee liability information you loaded, not a description of what ELI usually contains.

See how matters work

Matters · Project Halcyon · SPA warranties and disclosureOpen

Project Halcyon: SPA warranties and disclosure

Buy-side warranty review, disclosure analysis and cited due-diligence grid.

Client: Halcyon Bidco Ltd
Reference: WC-2026-0412
Practice area: Corporate / M&A
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Responsible partner: E. Vance

No conflict check on file.

Chat, on this matter

Compare warranties with the disclosure letter.

Three high-priority exceptions require action: the unregistered charge, the change-of-control right and the tribunal claim.

Send a message… (@ to mention tools)BalancedPrepare for

25 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Chat
21 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Run · completed · 560 credits
18 Aug
Project Halcyon: Disclosure Letter
Document · indexed
16 Aug
Project Halcyon: Share Purchase Agreement
Document · indexed
4 Aug
Matter opened
Opened

The matter for a departing director, with the covenant question answered against the contract.

A memo, not a chat

The Employment Agreement Review playbook puts ten contracts down the side and eight columns across the top, non-compete scope and severance among them, so a restructure is reviewed as a grid rather than ten separate reads. Every cell carries the quote it came from.

See the review grid

A review grid: documents down the side, questions across the top, and a cited answer in every cell. — Ten employment contracts against eight columns, the non-compete clause quoted in each.

Verified, then shareable

Tillman v Egon Zehnder, the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the guidance on the 48-hour opt-out each carry a verdict before the memo reaches the client. Share the letter before action as a passcode link once you have decided to send it yourself; the product only ever drafts.

See how verification works

Authorities · 14 · Where we looked

#	Reference	Source	Verdict
1	Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32	—	not yet checked
2	Working Time Regulations 1998 SI 1998/1833, regs 4 to 5, 10 to 14	—	not yet checked
3	Coppage v Safety Net Security Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1176	—	not yet checked
4	UK GDPR, Articles 6 and 9 Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679	—	not yet checked
5	Employment Rights Act 1996, s 1 c 18	—	not yet checked
6	Harlow v Artemis International [2008] EWHC 1126 (QB)	—	not yet checked

Tillman v Egon Zehnder, checked against the source before it is relied on.

Named, not generic.

Each agent is built for one kind of work, carries its own protocols and returns the same six-tab run. These are the ones this desk reaches for.

What a run costs.

Credits are metered per run and shown against the matter, so a covenant question and a grid of ten contracts cost what they cost, not what the hourly rate implies.

See pricing

What you will say before you try it.

A covenant opinion is exactly where a hallucinated case would hurt us.: Tillman v Egon Zehnder and every other authority the Employment Agent relies on is fetched from an approved list of public sources and marked verified, needs a check or not found before the memo is finished. The quote behind the clause is checked the same way.
HR data is in these contracts.: A PII screen runs on every agent run with an allow-list, so the names you need are kept and nothing is carried further than it needs to be. Files sit in Microsoft Azure UK and are never used to train a model.
Can a paralegal run the grid without a fee-earner in the room?: Yes, and the audit and compliance register logs who ran it and whether the checks passed, exportable as a spreadsheet your COLP can read without asking you first.

Nearby desks.

Start free

Run the Employment Agent on one of your own contracts.

Ten minutes, no card. Drop in one covenant and see the authority behind the answer.

Start free Book a 20-minute walkthrough