Litigation and disputes
A chronology built from the documents, and authorities you can put before a judge.
The Litigation and Disputes Agent builds the chronology from the matter's own documents, ties every fact to its source, and checks every authority before you read it.
| Authority | Where | Source | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment Rights Act 1996, s.1 | Statutory particulars | legislation.gov.uk | Verified |
| Working Time Regulations 1998, regs 13 and 13A | Clause 4 | legislation.gov.uk | Verified |
| Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 | Clause 9(c) | supremecourt.uk | Verified |
| Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] AC 688 | Clause 9(a) | N/A | Not found |
| ICO: monitoring workers guidance | Clause 11 | ico.org.uk | Needs a check |
| Equality Act 2010, s.39 | Clause 12 | legislation.gov.uk | Needs a check |
The authorities behind a contentious run, each marked verified, needs a check, or not found.
The day this changes
Before
Contentious work has two jobs that eat weeks: getting the facts into order, and getting the law right enough to sign. Both are done by reading, under someone else's deadline.
In Ayinde and Al-Haroun the Divisional Court dealt with fabricated authorities put before the court. A tool that cannot show where it looked is a tool your COLP will stop you using.
Privilege is not something you can retrospectively un-disclose, so pasting the file into a general assistant is not an option.
After
The Litigation and Disputes Agent builds the chronology from the pleadings, statements and correspondence in the matter, and ties every fact to the document it came from.
It keeps the Source Freshness Check as well as the Legal Citation Verifier, because good-law status is existential in contentious work.
Outbound correspondence is send-gated: the product drafts a letter of claim, it never sends it.
Grounded on the matter
Put the pleadings, witness statements, correspondence and exhibits into the matter and the agent reads them. The chronology is built from those documents, and every fact is pin-cited to the page it came from, so a claim chart shows the evidence behind each element. The conflict check runs on open, and privilege stays inside the matter because nothing is pasted into a general tool to get an answer.
See how matters workClient
Calder & Finch LLP
Reference
CF-2026-0184
Practice area
Employment
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Responsible partner
R. Okafor
Status
Open
Conflict check on open: clear across 214 matters searched.
Clear- Matter opened: conflict check run automatically.
- Documents added: employment contract, board minutes.
- Contract Agent run completed: 6 action items, 14 authorities.
The dispute matter, with the conflict check that runs on open.
A deliverable, not a chat
The run returns a claim chart, a privilege log in CPR and PD 57AD form, or a skeleton section in proper form, not a chat reply. Set Prepare for Court-Ready and the citations come out in OSCOLA. Borderline privilege calls are flagged for a human rather than decided silently. What you get is a document a supervising litigator can review, with the borderline calls surfaced.
See the agentsContract Agent Completed
Senior Associate Employment Contract: English Law Review
Calder & Finch LLP · Employment · CF-2026-0184
Summary
Overall risk is HIGH. The UK/Ireland/EU non-compete is likely unenforceable, while the holiday carry-over cap and blanket data/monitoring consent require replacement; the remaining covenants, working-time opt-out and bonus clause should be narrowed and clarified.
- 1. Clause 9(c), non-compete: High: the 12-month prohibition on working for any law firm anywhere in the UK, Ireland or EU is wider than reasonably necessary.§ Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32
- 2. Clause 11, data and monitoring: High: blanket contractual consent is not an adequate basis for general employment processing or unrestricted monitoring.§ UK GDPR
A contentious deliverable with a summary, pin-cited facts and open questions.
Verified, then shareable
Every authority is fetched from a closed list, Find Case Law, BAILII, judiciary.uk, legislation.gov.uk, and Westlaw, Lexis and the other paywalled databases are refused. Each arrives with a verdict and a Where we looked panel, and the Source Freshness Check runs too. Read the ledger, then share the memo with a passcode link and keep the log on the matter.
See how verification works| Authority | Where | Source | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment Rights Act 1996, s.1 | Statutory particulars | legislation.gov.uk | Verified |
| Working Time Regulations 1998, regs 13 and 13A | Clause 4 | legislation.gov.uk | Verified |
| Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 | Clause 9(c) | supremecourt.uk | Verified |
| Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] AC 688 | Clause 9(a) | N/A | Not found |
| ICO: monitoring workers guidance | Clause 11 | ico.org.uk | Needs a check |
| Equality Act 2010, s.39 | Clause 12 | legislation.gov.uk | Needs a check |
The authorities behind a run, each with a verdict and a source.
A research run over a bundle of pleadings and authorities costs on the order of a multi-document pass, more than a single contract. Observed on the matter, not a saving.
See pricingObjections
We already have Copilot.
A general assistant answers from the open web and will cite a case that does not exist. This works from a closed list of primary law and marks each authority verified, needs a check, or not found.
See how verification worksOur COLP will not sign this off.
Sources are a closed list, every citation carries a verdict, and every run, share and check sits on a register you can export or print as an inspection bundle.
See the audit registerOur documents are confidential.
Files sit in Microsoft Azure UK, encrypted in transit and at rest, scoped to the matter, and never used to train a model. The security statement sets out the detail.
Read the security statementBuild a chronology from one of your own bundles.
Free plan, two seats, 500 welcome credits, no card.