The first source mapping takes too long
An early draft analysis can gather the relevant provisions and show which facts are still missing.
Spend less time on the first draft - keep the legal judgement yourself.
Justera is a working tool for source retrieval, counter-arguments and traceable draft analyses under Norwegian law. It does not replace the lawyer's responsibility or professional judgement.
Does this sound familiar?
The counter-argument arrives late
A separate challenge step looks for weaknesses, alternative readings and conditions that could change the conclusion.
The client needs a trail they can follow
Sources, assumptions and uncertainty can be shown in the same report without giving the client an unqualified answer.
A realistic example
This is a constructed example that shows the format. It is not an assessment of an actual case.
«What customer due diligence must a law firm carry out before assisting with the formation and administration of a company?»
Extract from the sample analysis
Preliminary assessment: the type of engagement may fall within the Norwegian anti-money laundering rules. Before the engagement is carried out, the firm must among other things identify and verify the client and the beneficial owners, and understand the purpose of the relationship. The specific risk assessment and any enhanced measures must be documented by the responsible lawyer.
Kilde: Norwegian Anti-Money Laundering Act, sections 11-13Dokumentene law firms laster opp
And what the analysis extracts from each of them.
Engagement letter
Scope of the engagement, fee model, limitation of liability, conflicts of interest and termination.
The client's contracts
Clause by clause, with deviations from the firm's own standard positions where those are entered.
The counterparty's draft
Changes against the previous version, marked as strengthening or weakening the meaning.
Internal procedures and checklists
Used as a source base of their own, so the analysis answers from the firm's own standards.
Pleadings and correspondence
Assertions, factual assumptions, and which of them are not documented.
The checks that trigger most often here
Vi oppgir ikke hvor ofte hver enkelt feil forekommer — vi har ikke grunnlag for slike tall. Dette er kontrollene analysen faktisk kjører på dokumentene over.
The counter-argument is written too
A separate challenge step looks for alternative readings and conditions that change the conclusion, and the disagreement between the steps is shown in the report.
A source, or no conclusion
Assertions without a stated basis are flagged. If the source basis is too thin, the answer is downgraded rather than dressed up.
Version against version
Two drafts are compared on legal meaning, not on textual differences: which changes move risk, and in which direction.
A trail for the client
Every draft can be retrieved with the same sources, the same prompt version and the same assumptions as when it was produced.
One clause, reviewed
Utdraget under er konstruert for å vise formatet. Det er ikke hentet fra en kundes dokument.
The counterparty's change to a liability clause
Previous version: "The parties' aggregate liability is limited to the contract sum." New version: "The parties' aggregate liability is limited to the contract sum, except for loss caused by gross negligence or wilful misconduct."
Dette flagges
- The change widens liability upwards - the cap no longer applies in all cases.
- The exception is drafted mutually, so the effect has to be assessed from both sides.
- "Aggregate" is not defined - it is unclear whether indirect loss counts towards the cap.
The analysis marks the change as "liability widened", not merely as "text changed", and writes what it means for the client. Whether the change can be accepted is the lawyer's call, not the analysis's.
- 7
- analysis and control steps
- 2
- visible perspectives: analysis and challenge
- 0
- hidden source references
Test the question in a live analysis
The sample question is filled in automatically. You can change the facts before the analysis starts.