# Justis AI — full context > Justis is an AI-native legal platform built for Indian lawyers and legal teams: legal research with verified citations, drafting and redlining, document review and due diligence, meeting transcripts, and matter workspaces the whole team works in. Last updated: 2026-09-19 Short version: https://askjustis.com/llms.txt Justis AI is a software subscription for legal professionals, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice. Every AI output is a draft for a qualified lawyer to verify. Matter content is confidential, is never sold, and is never used to train shared models. Data is hosted in India. ## Products - AI Legal Agents (https://askjustis.com/products/agents): AI legal agents for Indian practice: research case law, draft and redline documents, and analyse files from one workspace, on a plan you approve first. - Projects (matter workspaces) (https://askjustis.com/products/projects): A structured workspace for every matter. Keep documents, timelines and AI output in one place, shared with your whole team or only the people who need access. - Tabular Review (https://askjustis.com/products/tabular-review): Due diligence at scale: ask your questions once across a whole document set and get a structured comparison, every answer linked to its source clause. - Library (https://askjustis.com/products/sc-hc-database): 16M+ Supreme Court and High Court judgments, Order.law orders and 22,000+ central Acts, searched by legal concept. Every result traceable. Free to search on every plan. - Digital Twin (https://askjustis.com/products/digital-twin): An AI persona built from your own work: Justis learns your drafting style and clause preferences once, then applies them in every session. - Memory (https://askjustis.com/products/memory): Every clause, precedent and matter your firm touches becomes institutional knowledge, applied automatically the next time. - Multi Agents (https://askjustis.com/products/multi-agents): Parallel AI workers that process your documents at the same time, so review capacity scales without scaling the team. ## Pricing - Free 7-day trial with 100 credits; Pro ₹999/month with 500 credits; Ultra ₹3,999/month with 2,000 credits; Custom for firms and legal departments. Prices in Indian rupees, taxes included. https://askjustis.com/pricing ## Solutions by role ### Litigators URL: https://askjustis.com/for/litigators Walk into the hearing knowing the record cold. Petitions, replies, orders and annexures land as one pile. Justis reads all of it, builds the chronology, flags the limitation point, and tells you which Supreme Court or High Court authority actually governs the question you are arguing. Every citation links to the paragraph it came from. What Justis does for this practice: - Every date, event and document, mapped: A matter arrives as a petition, three replies and a bundle of annexures. Justis reads all of it and builds the dated chronology, each entry carrying the document it came from, so the sequence you argue from is the record's own rather than a note someone typed on the way to court. - Find the holes before opposing counsel does: Every issue is read from both sides at once and scored: who is actually stronger on it, why, and the page that decides it. The weak points surface while there is still time to plead around them. - Compare testimony and surface the contradictions: Statements, depositions and cross-examination read side by side. Justis puts each witness in a column and every disputed fact in a row, so a contradiction is something you see rather than something you remember. - Upload the case once, ask across it for its whole life: Every document in the matter sits in one project, read and indexed the moment it lands. Ask one question and it is answered for every file at once, and the same holds in eight months when the record has doubled and the junior who uploaded it has moved on. Questions: - Q: Does it cover High Courts, or only the Supreme Court? A: Both. The corpus runs to over 16 million Supreme Court and High Court judgments, reported and unreported, and you can restrict a search to one High Court when the point turns on local practice. - Q: How do I know a citation is real? A: Every authority the agent cites links to the paragraph of the judgment it came from, and the quoted words are verified against the source text before they are shown. If the words cannot be found, the citation is flagged rather than presented as checked. - Q: Can it read a scanned or handwritten FIR or order? A: Yes. Scanned PDFs are run through OCR, and the agent tells you it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where the handwriting is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: Will it draft in our chambers' style? A: Once you train the digital twin on a handful of your own drafts, yes. It learns how you structure a reply, how you cite and how you address the court, and applies that to every new draft. Edits arrive as tracked changes you accept or reject in Word. - Q: Is client material safe to upload? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What does it cost for a single practitioner? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits of usage, and you pay only the real cost of each research or drafting run against those credits. ### Corporate URL: https://askjustis.com/for/corporate Sign off knowing what the record actually says. Corporate work is a paper trail: resolutions, filings, registers and the agreements that depend on them. Justis reads them together, checks what the Companies Act requires at each step, and shows you the page behind every conclusion so a sign-off carries its own working. What Justis does for this practice: - The corporate record, in order and complete: Every resolution, filing and register entry laid out in sequence with the document behind it, so a missing form or an unfiled return is visible rather than discovered by the registrar. - Where the company is exposed, and on what page: Each compliance point weighed against the file: what is done, what is late, what is missing entirely, with the document that decides it. - One question, asked of every agreement the company holds: Change of control, assignment, exclusivity and termination rights pulled from the whole contract base at once, with the clause behind every cell. - Your negotiating positions, applied to every agreement: Write the company's positions down once as a playbook. Every incoming agreement is then read against them, the offending clause is quoted back to you, and the position you take is already drafted. - Review and redline, as tracked changes in Word: The changes land on the original file as Word tracked changes, each with the reason beside it, so the counterparty sees a markup they recognise and you accept or reject clause by clause. Questions: - Q: Does it know the Companies Act? A: It searches the Indian law library of Acts, rules and regulator documents, including MCA material, alongside Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Every conclusion links to the provision or judgment it rests on, and where a point is unsettled it says so. - Q: Can it check our whole contract base at once? A: Yes. Tabular review asks the same question of every agreement in a project and returns a grid with the answer, the clause and the page for each, exportable to Excel for the board pack. - Q: Will it file forms for us? A: No. It reads the record, tells you what is done, late or missing, and drafts what you ask for. Filing stays with you and your secretarial team. - Q: Does it handle scanned minute books? A: Yes. Scanned documents go through OCR first, and the agent tells you when it is working from a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. - Q: Is company data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### M&A URL: https://askjustis.com/for/m-and-a Read the whole data room, not a sample of it. Diligence runs out of time before it runs out of documents. Justis answers your diligence questions across every file in the room at once, ranks what actually threatens the deal, and shows the clause and page behind each finding so the report defends itself. What Justis does for this practice: - One structured view of the entire data room: Point it at the whole set: customer contracts, employment agreements, IP assignments, financing papers. It reads every one, pulls the terms that decide the deal into a grid, and flags what matters, with the clause behind each cell. - Risks flagged before you start: Give it the SPA and the side you act for. It returns a buyer-side issues list: the clause, the problem in one line, and why it actually matters, so the first-pass review starts from an argument rather than a read-through. - Your strongest position for every clause: Give it the clause and the side you act for. It maps the market-standard positions and drafts alternatives from aggressive to middle ground, each with the commercial reason behind it, in language you can use on the call. - The disclosure schedule, built from the room itself: Each warranty checked against what the documents actually show, so the schedule is drafted from the record rather than from what the founders remember. Questions: - Q: How many documents can it review at once? A: A project holds the whole data room, and tabular review asks your question of every document in it, returning the clause and page behind each answer. There is no practical need to sample. - Q: Can it draft the disclosure schedule? A: It checks each warranty against what the documents show and tells you what needs disclosing and why, with the source. You keep the drafting decision; it removes the reading. - Q: Does it handle scanned and non-English documents? A: Scanned files go through OCR first, and it reads Hindi and other Indian languages. It tells you when it is working from a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. - Q: Can two teams work the same room? A: Yes. A project is shared, so everyone on the deal sees the same files, reviews and chats rather than a handover email. - Q: Is the data room safe to upload? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the deal, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: How is it priced for a deal team? A: Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits and Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000. Teams needing seats, shared workspaces and role controls are on the Custom plan. ### In-house counsel URL: https://askjustis.com/for/in-house Answer the business before the deal moves on. Legal is one team and the whole company sends it work: vendor contracts, NDAs, the policy a regulator now expects, a question from sales that needed an answer yesterday. Justis reviews each against the positions you have set, redlines the paper in Word, drafts the memo, and shows the clause behind every answer so the business gets a yes it can act on. What Justis does for this practice: - Your positions, applied to every contract the business sends: The liability cap you hold, the renewal you never accept, the data terms you insist on: set once as a playbook and applied to every agreement that comes in, so the first pass is done before you open the file. - Redlined in Word, with the reason beside each change: The markup lands on the counterparty's own file as tracked changes, each with a one-line reason, so procurement can send it straight back and you accept or reject clause by clause. - Compliance memos from the rule to the action: A new rule lands and the board wants to know what changes. The agent reads the notification against your policies and contracts and drafts the memo: what applies, what is already covered, what has to change and by when, each point cited to the provision. - One question, asked of every contract the company holds: Which agreements auto-renew this quarter, which carry a change-of-control clause, which still name a supplier the company has dropped: asked once across the whole contract base, answered in a grid with the clause and page for each. Questions: - Q: Can it apply our own positions rather than generic ones? A: Yes. A playbook holds the positions and fallbacks you set, per contract type, and the agent applies it to every agreement it reviews. Change a position once and every later review follows it. - Q: Does it work on the counterparty's Word file? A: Yes. Redlines land as tracked changes on the original .docx with a comment giving the reason, so the other side sees a markup they recognise and you accept or reject clause by clause in Word. - Q: Can non-lawyers in the business use it? A: You decide. Shared workspaces carry role controls, so a procurement or HR team can run a playbook review or ask a question of the contract base while the positions themselves stay with legal. - Q: Is company data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: Does it connect to our contract repository? A: It connects to your drive, database and calendar over MCP and answers from live records, so a question about the contract base runs against what the company actually holds. - Q: How is it priced for a legal team? A: Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits and Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000. Teams that need seats, shared workspaces with role controls and company-wide memory are on the Custom plan. ### Real estate URL: https://askjustis.com/for/real-estate Certify title on the record, not on a summary. A title search is a stack of sale deeds, mutation entries, encumbrance certificates and khata extracts, most of them scanned. Justis reads them together, builds the chain of title, flags the break in it, and tells you which document the defect actually sits in. What Justis does for this practice: - The chain of title, document by document: Every transfer in the chain laid out in order, each link carrying the deed it comes from, so a missing mutation or an unregistered transfer is visible rather than inferred. - Diligence without the busywork: Title reports, surveys, environmental checks and leases arrive scattered, and you read all of it just to find what is wrong. Upload the package, ask once, and the issues come back summarised and ranked, with the document behind each. - All your leases in one structured view: Lease review turns into copy-paste: rent, term, renewal and assignment scattered across documents. Justis pulls the key terms from every lease into one table, so you can compare, spot the gap, and move. - Ask the agent, get the answer with the deed attached: The questions that decide a transaction are rarely in one document. Ask in plain words and the agent reads across the package, reaches a view, and cites the deed and page it rests on. Questions: - Q: Can it read scanned deeds and old registers? A: Yes. Scanned documents go through OCR before anything is read, and the agent tells you when it is working from a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where handwriting is genuinely illegible it says so rather than guessing. - Q: Does it understand Indian land records? A: It reads what you give it: sale deeds, mutation entries, khata extracts, encumbrance certificates, conversion orders and survey maps. It builds the chain from those documents rather than from any external land-records database. - Q: Can it check a whole lease portfolio at once? A: Yes. Tabular review asks the same question of every lease in a project and returns a grid with the answer, the clause and the page for each, exportable to Excel. - Q: Will it give a title opinion? A: No. It builds the chain, surfaces the defects and shows you the document behind each one. The opinion is yours, and everything it produces is traceable so you can verify it before you sign. - Q: Is client property data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and you pay only the real cost of each run against those credits. ### Tax URL: https://askjustis.com/for/tax Reply to the notice from the provision, not from memory. Tax work turns on the exact text: the section as amended, the circular that changed the position and the ruling that settled it. Justis reads the notice or order with the transaction papers, finds the provision and authority that govern the point, drafts the reply or opinion in your style, and cites every step to its source so the position holds when it is tested. What Justis does for this practice: - The notice, answered point by point from the record: Each allegation in the show cause notice set against what the invoices, returns and ledgers actually show, with the provision that decides it, so the reply argues from the record rather than from a summary of it. - Structuring memos with the provision beside each step: A slump sale against an itemised sale, a merger against a demerger: the agent walks the structure through direct tax, GST and stamp duty, and writes the memo with the section, the circular and the ruling beside each step. - Every transaction document checked for the tax it triggers: Across a data room or a group's intercompany agreements, tabular review asks the tax questions of every document at once and returns a grid: what is triggered, where the exposure sits and the page it rests on. - Your reply, drafted in your style and cited to the source: The reply or the appeal reads the way your chambers writes, with every proposition cited to the section, the circular or the ruling it relies on, and lands as a Word draft you edit rather than retype. Questions: - Q: Does it cover both direct tax and GST? A: Yes. It searches the Income-tax Act, the CGST and IGST Acts and the rules, notifications and circulars under them, alongside Supreme Court, High Court and tribunal decisions. Every conclusion links to the provision or ruling it rests on. - Q: Does it know the section as amended? A: It works from the current text and checks live sources when it answers, and it tells you when a provision has been amended for the period in question. Where the position is unsettled it says so rather than asserting one. - Q: Can it reconcile invoices against returns? A: Upload the invoices, the ledger and the GSTR-2B export and tabular review returns a grid of what matches, what does not and the page or line for each, exportable to Excel for the reply. - Q: Will it draft in our chambers' style? A: Once you train the digital twin on a handful of your own replies and opinions, yes. It learns how you structure a reply, how you cite and how you address the authority, and edits arrive as tracked changes in Word. - Q: Is client financial data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### Intellectual property URL: https://askjustis.com/for/intellectual-property Hold the portfolio and the argument in one place. IP work is deadlines and distinctions: renewal dates, opposition timelines, and whether a mark is really deceptively similar. Justis keeps the portfolio in view, reads the examination reports and notices, and cites the authority for the position you take. What Justis does for this practice: - Marks compared across every class: Upload the filings, opposition notices and registry orders. Justis extracts the marks, the goods and services and the classes, then tabulates where your portfolio and theirs actually overlap. - Prior art compared, claims mapped: Give it the prior art and the claims. Each element is mapped against what the citation actually discloses, and the gaps, the places your invention distinguishes, are marked as gaps. - Your prosecution standards, applied everywhere: Your firm has preferred arguments for a section 11 citation, an obviousness objection, a descriptiveness refusal. Write them down once and every office action is answered from your own prosecution history. - The whole portfolio, with what falls due next: Marks, applications and renewals in one view, each with its class, status and the next date that matters, so a deadline is something you plan for rather than discover. Questions: - Q: Does it search the trade marks register? A: It reads the search reports, examination reports and registry documents you give it, and researches the case law behind each ground. It does not file at or query the registry for you. - Q: Can it draft replies to examination reports? A: Yes, in your own style once the digital twin is trained on your drafts, with each ground answered and the authority cited to the paragraph. - Q: Will it track our renewal dates? A: Upload the portfolio and it returns what falls due when, per mark and class. It is a working view of your own documents, not a docketing system of record. - Q: How do I know the authority is real? A: Every case it cites links to the paragraph of the judgment, and quoted words are verified against the source before they are shown. - Q: Is client IP material safe? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits and Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000. ### Employment URL: https://askjustis.com/for/employment Every contract and policy, checked against the code that applies. Employment work runs on paper that has to agree with itself: the offer letter, the handbook, the policy the code now requires and the file behind a termination. Justis reads them together, checks them against the labour codes and the state rules in force, drafts and redlines in your style, and shows the page behind every conclusion so an exit or an investigation stands on the record. What Justis does for this practice: - Every contract, checked against the code at once: The whole set of employment contracts read in one pass: notice periods, non-competes, bonus clawbacks and termination grounds, each tested against the code and the state rules, with the clause and page behind every flag. - Policies held to what the code requires: The positions you take on handbooks and policies, set once as a playbook: what a POSH policy must contain, how notice pay interacts with standing orders, where a non-compete stops being enforceable. Applied to every policy that comes in for review. - The disciplinary file, in order and complete: Show cause, reply, enquiry notice, findings, order: every step laid out in sequence with the document behind it, so a gap in the process is visible before a tribunal finds it. - Ask the agent, get the answer with the section attached: Whether the exit was lawful, whether the non-compete holds, what a retrenchment costs: asked in plain words and answered from the file and the code, each conclusion cited to the clause or section it rests on. Questions: - Q: Does it know the labour codes and the state rules? A: It searches the codes, the rules notified under them and the state-specific rules and standing orders, alongside Supreme Court, High Court and tribunal decisions. Every conclusion links to the provision or judgment it rests on, and where a state has not notified rules it says so. - Q: Can it review a whole set of contracts at once? A: Yes. Tabular review asks the same questions of every contract in a project and returns a grid with the answer, the clause and the page for each, exportable to Excel. - Q: Will it draft policies in our house style? A: Once you train the digital twin on a handful of your own policies and letters, yes. It learns how you structure a handbook, how you word a notice and what you leave out, and edits arrive as tracked changes in Word. - Q: Can it run an investigation for us? A: No. It organises the file, builds the chronology, drafts the notices and tells you where the process has a gap. Conducting the enquiry and deciding the outcome stay with you and the committee. - Q: Is employee data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### Healthcare URL: https://askjustis.com/for/healthcare Answer the regulator and the claim from the same record. Hospital legal work runs on documents nobody has time to read twice: consent forms, clinical notes, licences, tender conditions and the notices that follow them. Justis reads the file, maps the regulation that applies, and shows you the page each conclusion rests on. What Justis does for this practice: - Spot the gaps before an auditor does: A breach or an inspection generates hundreds of pages before the exposure is clear. Upload the file and Justis builds the timeline, marks the rule each step answers to, and shows where a deadline was missed. - Your compliance standards, applied to every agreement: Write your positions down once as a playbook. Every provider agreement is then read against them, the offending clause is quoted back to you, and the position you take is already drafted. - Ask the agent, get the exposure with the page attached: A notice alleges a sequence. Ask what the record actually shows and the agent reads the case sheet, the consent record and the discharge summary together, then tells you which allegations hold. - Every licence and clearance, checked in one pass: Registrations, waste authorisation, fire and radiation clearances and their renewal dates read across every unit at once, so a lapse is caught before an inspection finds it. Questions: - Q: Can it read handwritten case sheets? A: It runs scanned and handwritten documents through OCR and tells you it is doing so, because handwriting carries transcription risk. Where an entry is genuinely illegible it says so rather than guessing, which matters when the entry is the point in issue. - Q: Is patient data safe to upload? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. You remain responsible for what you choose to upload and for the consents behind it. - Q: Does it know clinical establishment rules? A: It reads the statutes and rules you point it at, and searches the Indian law library of Acts, rules and regulator documents alongside the case law. Where a point is unsettled it says so rather than asserting a position. - Q: Can it track licence renewals across units? A: Upload the registrations and clearances and tabular review returns a grid of what expires when, per unit, with the document behind each row. - Q: Will it decide whether we were negligent? A: No. It shows you what the record supports and what it does not, with the page for each. The judgement is yours, and every conclusion is traceable so you can check it. - Q: How is it priced for a hospital group? A: Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits and Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000. Groups needing seats across units, shared workspaces with role controls and firm-wide memory are on the Custom plan. ### Banking & finance URL: https://askjustis.com/for/banking-finance Enforce the security on the documents, not on the file note. Banking work lives in the sanction letter, the loan agreement, the security documents, the guarantees and the notices that follow a default. Justis reads the loan file end to end, traces each security from creation to registration, checks every recovery step against SARFAESI, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and the IBC, and cites the provision and the ruling behind each one. What Justis does for this practice: - Every security, traced from sanction to perfection: Across the whole loan file, tabular review asks the same questions of every document: what security it creates, whether the charge was registered and filed in time, and what is missing, with the page each answer rests on. - The recovery route, checked step by step: SARFAESI, a recovery application or insolvency: the agent walks the default through each route in order, with the time limit, the notice and the authority for every step, and says which route fits the file. - The borrower's file, answered point by point: Default, limitation and the guarantors, each set against what the account statement, the balance sheet and the guarantee actually say, so the petition argues from the record rather than from the credit note. - Notices drafted in your bank's format, cited to the Act: The demand notice, the possession notice or the reply to a representation reads the way your legal department writes, with each statutory step and time limit checked, and lands as a Word draft you edit rather than retype. Questions: - Q: Does it cover SARFAESI, the RDB Act and the IBC? A: Yes. It searches the statutes, the rules under them and Supreme Court, High Court, DRT and NCLT decisions, and sets out each recovery route with its time limits. Every conclusion links to the provision or ruling it rests on. - Q: Can it check a whole loan file for gaps in the security? A: Upload the file and tabular review asks the same questions of every document at once: what security it creates, whether it was registered and filed in time, and what is missing, with the page for each answer, exportable to Excel. - Q: Does it keep up with RBI directions? A: It checks current RBI directions and circulars through live web search when it answers, cites the version it relied on, and says so when a position has changed or is unsettled rather than asserting one. - Q: Will it draft notices in our bank's format? A: Once you train the digital twin on a handful of your own notices and replies, yes. It learns your structure and wording, checks each statutory step, and edits arrive as tracked changes in Word. - Q: Is borrower data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### Insurance URL: https://askjustis.com/for/insurance Decide the claim on the wording of the policy. Insurance disputes turn on the policy wording, the proposal form and what was disclosed when cover began. Justis reads the policy, the schedule, the endorsements and the claim file together, sets each ground for repudiation against the wording and the Insurance Act, and cites the clause, the provision and the ruling behind every position, whether you act for the insurer or the insured. What Justis does for this practice: - The whole claim file, read clause by clause: The policy, the proposal form, the medical records and the repudiation letter asked the same questions at once, so every fact the claim turns on sits in one grid with the page it comes from. - The repudiation, tested ground by ground: Each ground in the repudiation letter set against the dates, the proposal form and the Insurance Act, so the reply leads with the point that decides the claim instead of arguing every fact. - Motor and general claims, the defences mapped: For a motor accident claim or a property loss, the agent sets out the insurer's defences in order, checks each against the policy and the record, and cites the ruling that governs compensation. - The reply, drafted in your style and cited to the source: The reply to the repudiation, the complaint to the commission or the insurer's defence reads the way your practice writes, with every proposition cited to the clause, the section or the ruling, as a Word draft you edit. Questions: - Q: Do you act for insurers or for policyholders? A: Both. The agent reads the file from whichever side you are on, sets out the grounds and the answers to them, and cites the clause, the provision and the ruling for each. - Q: Does it cover life, health, motor and general insurance? A: Yes. It searches the Insurance Act, the regulations under it and Supreme Court, High Court and consumer commission decisions, and it flags where a rule applies to one line of insurance but not another, such as section 45, which covers life policies. - Q: Does it keep up with IRDAI regulations? A: It checks current IRDAI regulations and circulars through live web search when it answers, cites the version it relied on, and says so when a position has changed rather than asserting one. - Q: Can it review a large portfolio of claims? A: Upload the claim files and tabular review asks the same questions of every one at once, returning a grid of grounds, dates and outcomes with the page for each answer, exportable to Excel. - Q: Is policyholder data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### Law firms URL: https://askjustis.com/for/law-firms Put the firm's best work behind every matter. A firm's quality lives in its precedents, its partners' drafting and what was said in the last client meeting. Justis keeps each matter in its own project with its documents, meeting transcripts, research and drafts, lets the whole team work on it together, and gives every associate the same starting point: research cited to the paragraph and drafts in the firm's style. What Justis does for this practice: - Matter management, one project per matter: Every matter gets its own project: its documents in folders, its chats, reviews and drafts, a matter number, and the matter context the agent reads on every question, visible only to the people working on it. - Client meetings and calls, transcribed into the matter: Record a meeting in the room on a phone, or save the audio of a Google Meet or phone call, and upload it to the matter. Justis transcribes it in English, Hindi and eight other Indian languages, labels speakers where the turn-taking is clear and leaves the wording untouched, and the agent answers from it like any other document in the file. - The whole team on the matter, working in one place: Add colleagues to a matter by email and they work from the same documents, chats and reviews. Comment on a draft and resolve the thread, share a review grid, and accept or reject the agent's tracked changes together, so nobody works from an emailed copy. - Research memos that hold up in front of a partner: The agent plans the search, reads the judgments and writes the memo with every proposition pinned to its paragraph, including the contrary view, so review time goes on the argument rather than on checking citations. - The firm's house style, in every associate's draft: Train the digital twin on the firm's precedents and each partner's drafting, and first drafts arrive in that voice, with changes as tracked changes in Word that the partner accepts or rejects. - Diligence at a scale the team could not staff: Tabular review runs the same questions across hundreds of documents at once and returns a grid with the page behind every answer, so a data room review starts from a finished grid rather than an empty spreadsheet. Questions: - Q: Can each matter be kept separate? A: Yes. Every matter is its own project with its own documents, chats, reviews and meeting transcripts, and only the people added to it can see it. - Q: Can we upload meeting recordings? A: Yes, as audio. Record an in-person meeting on a phone or save the audio of a Google Meet or phone call, then upload it to the matter. It is transcribed in English, Hindi and eight other Indian languages, or the language is detected for you, and the agent can answer from it. Video files are not accepted yet, so for a Google Meet recording upload its audio track. - Q: Can the whole team work on a matter together? A: Yes. Add colleagues to a matter by email. They work from the same documents and chats, comment on drafts and resolve the threads, share review grids, and accept or reject tracked changes. - Q: Will it draft in the firm's style? A: Once you train the digital twin on the firm's precedents and each partner's drafting, yes. It learns structure, wording and how you cite, and edits arrive as tracked changes in Word. - Q: Who checks the work? A: Your lawyers do. Every answer cites its source so it can be verified, edits land as tracked changes you accept or reject, and the agent confirms before anything is deleted or merged. - Q: Can we use it for due diligence? A: Upload the data room and tabular review asks the same questions of every document at once, returning a grid with the page for each answer, exportable to Excel. - Q: Is client data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ## Use cases by role Each workflow as the problem a lawyer has, what Justis does about it, a worked example of the output (names, figures and dates invented; the provisions real) and a prompt to try. ### How litigators use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/litigators Most litigation work starts the same way: a paper book lands in the evening, the matter is listed in the morning, and someone has to know the record before the bench asks the first question. The dates are in the annexures, the limitation point is in an order nobody has read, and the authority that decides the issue is one of four hundred results. Justis does that reading with you. You upload the matter once, and it reads every page, scans included, then works through the task the way a careful junior would: it builds the list of dates, computes the period, drafts the reply, finds the binding judgment and quotes the paragraph. Every fact carries the document and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not guessed. Try this first: Take a matter you already know well. Upload the paper book to a project and ask for the list of dates with a source for each entry. Check ten entries against the file. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it on a matter you do not know. #### Reading in a new brief: the list of dates Problem: A brief arrives the evening before the hearing: a petition, three replies and forty annexures, half of them scanned orders in mixed Hindi and English. Building the list of dates takes a junior two days, and the date that decides the matter is on page 412 of an annexure nobody opened. A chronology typed from memory on the way to court is also where mistakes live. Two documents give different dates for the same service, an interim order is referred to but never placed on record, and nobody notices until the other side does. How Justis handles it: Upload the paper book to a project. Justis reads every document, runs OCR on the scans and tells you when it is reading one, then builds a dated chronology in which every entry cites the document and page it came from. It marks what does not reconcile: dates two documents give differently, orders referred to but not on file, and gaps in the sequence. It flags anything that raises a limitation question, and hands back the list of dates in Word, ready for the synopsis. Example output: - Documents read: 46 files, 1,284 pages, 9 scanned orders read by OCR - Chronology: 63 dated events, each with the document and page - Does not reconcile: Service of notice: 12 May in the petition, 19 May on the courier receipt (Annexure P-7, p. 212) - Not on record: Interim order of 04.02.2025, referred to in the reply at para 9, not in the paper book - Limitation flag: Appeal filed 97 days after the order; no application for condonation of delay on file - Deliverable: List of dates in Word, in the court's synopsis format Prompt to try (List of dates): Read every document in this matter and build the list of dates for the synopsis. Cite the document and page for each date, mark any date that two documents give differently, list anything referred to but not on record, and flag anything that raises a limitation question. #### Limitation and filing deadlines Problem: Limitation is argued at admission, and it is unforgiving. The period depends on the statute: ninety days for a first appeal to the High Court, sixty for a commercial appeal, three months and thirty days under section 34 of the Arbitration Act with nothing after that. Then come the exclusions: the time taken to obtain a certified copy, the day the court was closed, the time spent before the wrong forum. Getting the arithmetic wrong by a day costs the matter, and condonation of delay is increasingly hard to get, especially in commercial matters and for government departments. How Justis handles it: Justis identifies the provision that governs, reads the dates off the documents (the order, the application for the certified copy, the date it was ready) and computes the last date with every exclusion shown line by line, so you can check the working rather than trust a number. It says whether section 5 condonation is available for that proceeding, drafts the delay paragraph or the condonation application when you are already late, and can keep a deadline register for the whole matter list. Example output: - Order: Judgment and decree dated 14.07.2026, District Judge, Pune - Governing period: Article 116, Limitation Act 1963: 90 days for an appeal to the High Court - Plain 90 days: Monday 12 October 2026 - Exclusion, s.12(2): Certified copy applied 16.07.2026, ready 30.07.2026: 14 days excluded - Last date: Monday 26 October 2026 - Condonation: Available under s.5; explain each day of delay if filed after the last date Prompt to try (Compute the last date): From the judgment and the certified-copy application in this matter, compute the last date to file an appeal. Name the article of the Limitation Act, show each exclusion with its date, and tell me whether condonation under section 5 is available if we miss it. #### Replying to a plaint: the written statement Problem: The written statement is due thirty days from service, and in a commercial suit the outer limit of 120 days cannot be extended at all. Every averment must be admitted or specifically denied: a general denial is treated as an admission under Order VIII rule 5. The preliminary objections that win suits early, such as territorial jurisdiction, limitation, valuation, or no pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, are easy to miss when the reply is written against the clock. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the plaint, its documents and your client's instructions, then builds a paragraph-wise table: admit, deny or not within knowledge, with the document that supports each position. It checks the preliminary objections one by one and says which the record supports. It drafts the written statement in your chambers' style, with the verification and the supporting affidavit, and computes both the thirty-day date and the outer limit from the date of service. Example output: - Plaint read: 48 paragraphs, 31 documents - Paragraph-wise reply: Admitted 11, denied 29, not within knowledge 8 - Preliminary objections: No s.12A mediation and no urgent interim relief sought; claim for 2021 invoices time-barred; suit undervalued - Deadlines: Served 07.09.2026: 30 days ends Wed 07.10.2026; commercial outer limit Tue 05.01.2027 - Deliverable: Written statement in Word, 22 pages, with verification and affidavit Prompt to try (Paragraph-wise reply): Read the plaint and its documents and prepare a paragraph-wise reply table: admit, deny or not within knowledge, with the document supporting each. Then list the preliminary objections the record supports, and compute the written statement deadline from service on 7 September 2026. #### Finding the authority that actually governs Problem: A search returns four hundred judgments. What you need is the one that binds your bench: the larger bench, the most recent word, not overruled or referred, and the exact paragraph that holds the point. Reading headnotes to find it takes an afternoon. Citing a judgment that has since been overruled, or quoting a paragraph that does not say what the note claims, is the mistake that costs credibility in court. How Justis handles it: Justis searches over 16 million Supreme Court and High Court judgments, reads the candidates and ranks them by what binds: Supreme Court decisions under Article 141, then larger benches, then your High Court. It looks for later treatment of each authority before relying on it. It quotes the operative paragraph with a link to the judgment, and every quotation is checked against the source text before it is shown. If the words cannot be found, the citation is flagged instead of presented as checked. The research memo ends with a table of authorities and their weight. Example output: - Question: Is pre-institution mediation under s.12A, Commercial Courts Act mandatory? - Controlling authority: Patil Automation v. Rakheja Engineers (2022) 10 SCC 1: mandatory, and a suit filed without it is rejected - Later treatment: Yamini Manohar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382: a suit seeking urgent interim relief may be filed without it - Quotes: Each holding quoted from the judgment, linked to the paragraph, checked against the source text - Deliverable: Research memo: question, short answer, discussion, table of authorities with weight Prompt to try (Research memo): Find the controlling Supreme Court authority on whether pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory, check how later judgments have treated it, and give me a short research memo with the operative paragraphs quoted and linked. #### Bail and anticipatory bail Problem: Bail work is urgent and the papers are poor: an FIR photographed on a phone, remand orders in Hindi, a chargesheet that may or may not have been filed. The sections have changed since 1 July 2024, and an offence committed before that date is still tried under the old codes. The strongest ground is often arithmetic, such as the day the right to default bail accrued, and it is lost if nobody counts the days. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the FIR, the remand orders and the chargesheet, including scans, and classifies each offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: cognizable or not, bailable or not, the court that tries it. It counts the custody period for default bail under section 187(3) BNSS, grades each ground Strong, Weak or Uncertain with the fact behind it, and drafts the application in Indian form, with the list of dates and the authorities. Example output: - FIR: FIR 214/2026, PS Saket: s.318(4) and s.316(2) BNS - Classification: Cognizable, non-bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class - Custody: First remand 10.08.2026; 60-day period (remand day counted) ends 08.10.2026 - Default bail: No chargesheet on file: right under s.187(3) BNSS accrues 09.10.2026; apply that day - Grounds: 6 grounds graded; parity with co-accused granted bail on 21.08.2026 marked Strong - Deliverable: Application with affidavit, list of dates and authorities, in Word Prompt to try (Bail application): Read the FIR, the remand orders and the case diary extracts. Classify each offence under BNS and the BNSS First Schedule, count the custody period for default bail under section 187(3), grade the bail grounds, and draft the application. #### Writ petitions and quashing Problem: Most writ petitions are lost on maintainability, not merits: there is an alternative remedy, the delay is unexplained, or the facts are disputed. The petition has to meet each objection before the bench raises it. The paper book also has a fixed shape (synopsis, list of dates, memo of parties, grounds, prayer, affidavit, index), and assembling it by hand is where filing defects come from. How Justis handles it: Justis grades each maintainability gate for your facts, including the exceptions that let a writ lie despite an alternative remedy: breach of natural justice, an order without jurisdiction, and enforcement of a fundamental right. It builds the grounds, strongest first, each tied to a page of the record. It drafts the petition with the interim application and the affidavit, in the form your High Court expects, and says plainly when two gates look weak so you can decide before drafting. Example output: - Impugned order: RERA authority order of 02.09.2026 dismissing a complaint as time-barred, without a hearing - Alternative remedy: Appeal under s.44 RERA exists; the writ rests on the natural justice exception - Grounds: (A) no hearing; (B) s.31 prescribes no limitation for a complaint; (C) continuing cause of action - Relief: Certiorari quashing the order; mandamus to hear the complaint on merits; interim stay - Deliverable: Petition, interim application, affidavit and index in Word Prompt to try (Writ strategy): The authority dismissed my client's complaint as time-barred on 2 September 2026 without hearing him. Tell me whether a writ under Article 226 is maintainable despite the statutory appeal, build the grounds, and draft the petition with the interim application. #### Preparing a cross-examination Problem: The witness's affidavit in chief says one thing, the documents say another, and the earlier statement says a third. The contradictions that would win the cross are spread across hundreds of pages, and there is one evening to find them. A cross built from memory asks open questions and gives the witness room. The one that works asks closed questions, one fact at a time, with the contradicting document in hand. How Justis handles it: Justis puts each witness in a column and every disputed fact in a row, so a contradiction is something you see, with the page on each side. It builds the cross in chapters: closed, leading questions in sequence, and the prior statement or document to confront the witness with under section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It also lists the questions not to ask, where the answer could hurt your client. Example output: - Witness: PW-2, the plaintiff's accounts manager - Contradictions found: 7; for example, chief affidavit para 6 says notice served by hand on 12.05, courier receipt shows dispatch on 19.05 - Cross plan: 5 chapters, 38 closed questions, each with the answer the record supports - To confront with: Courier receipt (Ex. P-7), email of 14.05 (Ex. D-3), ledger entry of 14.05 - Do not ask: Why the payment was delayed: opens the door to the settlement talks Prompt to try (Cross-examination plan): Compare PW-2's affidavit in chief with the documents on record and her earlier statement. List every contradiction with the page on each side, then build a cross-examination plan in chapters of closed questions, with the document to confront her with for each. #### Written submissions and hearing notes Problem: Benches increasingly ask for short written submissions, and a record of four hundred pages and twenty authorities has to become a few tight pages the night before. Every proposition needs its authority and its page of the record, and every quotation has to be exact. The note of arguments you speak from is a different document again, and it is usually written last and fastest. How Justis handles it: Justis turns the issues into propositions, each with the authority that supports it and the record page it rests on, and drafts the submissions around them. It answers the other side's best point instead of ignoring it. It prepares a one-page note of arguments and a table of authorities, checks every quotation against the judgment it came from, and keeps the draft in your chambers' style. Example output: - Issues: 4 issues framed from the pleadings and the order under appeal - Propositions: 9, each with one authority and one record page - Authorities: 14 cited; every quotation checked against the source text - Answer to the other side: Their reliance on a larger-bench ruling distinguished on facts, with the paragraph - Deliverables: Written submissions, one-page note of arguments, table of authorities Prompt to try (Written submissions): Prepare written submissions on the four issues in this appeal. Give each proposition one authority with the paragraph and one page of the record, answer the respondent's main argument, keep it short, and add a one-page note of arguments. #### When the judgment arrives: appeal, stay or execute Problem: The order arrives and the clock starts. The client wants to know, that day, whether to appeal, how long they have, whether the decree can be stayed, and at what cost. If you won, the question is how quickly the decree can be executed. The grounds of appeal have to come from the judgment itself: the finding, the evidence it ignored and the law it misapplied, paragraph by paragraph. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the judgment against the record, maps each finding to the evidence it rests on, and identifies the errors that make good grounds. It names the forum and the period, computes the last date, and sets out what a stay will usually cost, such as a deposit or security. If the decree is in your favour, it drafts the execution plan instead: the court, the mode of execution and the assets to proceed against. Example output: - Order: Commercial court decree of 30.08.2026 for ₹1.84 crore with interest - Forum and period: Appeal under s.13(1A), Commercial Courts Act, 60 days: last date Thu 29.10.2026, before any copy exclusion - Grounds: 6 grounds, each tied to a paragraph of the judgment and the evidence it overlooked - Stay: Likely conditional on deposit or security; draft application ready - Deliverable: Appeal strategy note and draft grounds of appeal Prompt to try (Appeal strategy): Read this judgment against the record. Identify the findings we can challenge and the evidence each overlooked, name the appellate forum and the last date to file, and draft the grounds of appeal and a stay application. Questions: - Q: Does it know the new criminal codes? A: Yes. It works under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, in force from 1 July 2024, and cites the old IPC, CrPC or Evidence Act section beside the new one where a precedent uses it. For an offence committed before 1 July 2024 it keeps to the old code. - Q: Can it read scanned orders and documents in Hindi? A: Yes. Scanned PDFs and photographs are read with OCR, including Hindi and mixed Hindi-English papers, and the agent tells you when it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where a page is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: How do I know a citation is real? A: Every authority links to the paragraph of the judgment it came from, and quoted words are checked against the source text before they are shown. If the words cannot be found, the citation is flagged rather than presented as checked. - Q: Will it file on e-Courts or send anything for me? A: No. Justis prepares the work: the chronology, the computation, the draft and the research. Filing, signing and anything sent to the court or the other side stays with you. - Q: Is client material safe to upload? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What should a litigator try first? A: The list of dates on a matter you already know. Upload the paper book, ask for the chronology with a source for each entry, and check it against your own notes. It is the fastest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How corporate lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/corporate Corporate work is a paper trail that has to agree with itself. The board approves, the members resolve, the form is filed, the register is written up, and the agreement that depended on all of it is signed. When one link is missing, nobody finds out until a diligence team, an auditor or the registrar does, usually years later and at the worst moment. Justis reads that trail with you. You upload the minute books, the filings, the registers and the company's agreements to one project, and it reads every page, scans included, then checks each step against what the Companies Act and the rules under it require. Every conclusion carries the document and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not assumed. Try this first: Take a company whose records you already know. Upload three years of board and general meeting minutes with the filings for the same period, and ask for the corporate record in date order with every missing or late filing marked. Check ten entries against your own compliance tracker. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it on a company you have just taken over. #### Rebuilding the corporate record Problem: A new client arrives with a decade of minute books, some scanned, some typed, some in a box. Before anyone can advise on the next transaction, someone has to know what the company actually approved, what it filed, and whether the registers agree with both. Doing that by hand takes a secretarial team a fortnight. The gaps are always the same: a special resolution passed but MGT-14 never filed, an allotment made without the return of allotment, a charge satisfied on the lender's books but still open on the register, a director who resigned on paper but was never removed from the record. How Justis handles it: Upload the minute books, the registers and the filed forms to a project. Justis reads every document, runs OCR on the scans, and lays out each corporate action in date order with the resolution, the form and the register entry that should follow it, each cited to its page. It marks what does not line up: a resolution with no filing, a filing with no resolution behind it, a register that disagrees with the minutes, and the statutory period each gap breached. The result comes back as a table you can export to Excel for the compliance file. Example output: - Documents read: 212 files, 3,480 pages, 64 scanned minute pages read by OCR - Corporate record: 141 actions from 2016 to 2026, each with its resolution, filing and register entry - Filing gap: ESOP special resolution passed 16.05.2026; MGT-14 due within 30 days (s.117), by 15.06.2026; not on file - Register mismatch: Transfer of 12,000 shares approved at the board meeting of 03.02.2024, not entered in the register of members - Board meeting gap: 128 days between the meetings of 10.01.2026 and 18.05.2026; s.173(1) allows 120 - Deliverable: Corporate record and gap list in Excel, with a Word note on how to regularise each gap Prompt to try (Corporate record): Read the minute books, registers and filed forms in this project and build the corporate record in date order. For each action give the resolution, the form that should have been filed and the register entry, cite the page for each, and mark every filing that is missing or late with the period it breached. #### Board and general meeting papers Problem: A board meeting is a sequence of small requirements that are easy to get wrong under time pressure: notice at least seven days ahead under section 173(3), a quorum under section 174, interested directors disclosed and kept out of the discussion under section 184, and an agenda that separates what the board can decide from what needs the members. General meetings add their own: twenty-one clear days' notice under section 101, an explanatory statement under section 102 for special business, the right kind of resolution for each item, and the filings that follow within thirty days. A notice that misses one of these is what a dissenting shareholder challenges. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the matters the company wants approved and its articles. It sorts each item into board or members, says whether it needs an ordinary or special resolution and cites the section, and drafts the notice, the agenda, the explanatory statement and the resolutions in your format. After the meeting, it drafts the minutes from your notes or a recording of the meeting, in English or Hindi, and lists every filing and register entry the meeting triggered, with the last date for each. Example output: - Items: Borrowing above the s.180(1)(c) limit, ESOP pool, change of registered office within the city, appointment of an additional director - Board or members: Borrowing and ESOP go to the members as special resolutions; the office change and additional director are for the board - Articles check: Article 58 requires a quorum of three for any meeting at which borrowing is considered - Notice: EGM notice with the s.102 explanatory statement for each special item; 21 clear days before the meeting - Filings triggered: MGT-14 for both special resolutions and DIR-12 for the new director, each within 30 days - Deliverable: Board notice, agenda, draft resolutions and EGM notice in Word Prompt to try (Meeting papers): The company wants to approve the items in the attached note. Read the articles, tell me which items the board can approve and which need the members and by what resolution, cite the section for each, and draft the board notice, agenda, resolutions and the general meeting notice with the explanatory statement. #### Share allotments and private placements Problem: A fundraise closes on a timetable set by the investor, and the company law steps run alongside it: the special resolution for the private placement under section 42, the valuation report from a registered valuer, the offer letter, the money received from the subscriber's own bank account, the allotment within sixty days of receipt, and the return of allotment within fifteen days of it. When the investor is non-resident, FEMA adds its own layer: the pricing guidelines under the NDI Rules, the sectoral cap and route, and the FC-GPR within thirty days of the issue. Miss the sixty-day window and the money has to be refunded, with interest if the refund is late. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the term sheet, the resolutions, the valuation report and the bank records, and builds the allotment timeline with the last date for every step, computed from the dates on the documents rather than from the deal calendar. It checks the issue price against the valuation and the FEMA pricing rule, drafts the resolutions and the offer letter, and marks anything that is out of order, such as money received before the special resolution was passed. Example output: - Issue: Series A CCPS to a Singapore fund, ₹48 crore, allotted 20.08.2026 - Application money: Received 10.07.2026; allotment due within 60 days (s.42(6)), by 08.09.2026: met - Return of allotment: PAS-3 within 15 days of allotment, by 04.09.2026 - FEMA reporting: FC-GPR within 30 days of the issue, by 19.09.2026 - Pricing: Issue price ₹1,240 per share against a fair value of ₹1,185 in the valuer's report: not below fair value - Out of order: Offer letter dated 02.07.2026, before the special resolution of 05.07.2026 Prompt to try (Allotment timeline): Read the term sheet, the resolutions, the valuation report and the bank statement for this round. Build the allotment timeline under section 42 and the FEMA reporting steps, compute the last date for each from the documents, check the price against the valuation, and mark anything done out of order. #### Related party transactions Problem: The promoter's other company supplies raw material, leases the warehouse and provides the managing director's car. Each arrangement needs to be tested under section 188: is it in the ordinary course and at arm's length, and if not, does it cross the thresholds in the rules that send it to the members, where the related parties cannot vote. For a listed company the Regulation 23 LODR regime runs on top: prior audit committee approval, the materiality test and the disclosures that follow. Getting the test wrong is found out in the board's report, by the auditor, or by a minority shareholder. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the contracts with related parties alongside the financial statements and the register of contracts, identifies each related party under section 2(76), and tests every arrangement for ordinary course, arm's length and the approval thresholds, citing the provision and the figure it used. It lists which approvals were taken and which are missing, drafts the board and member resolutions, and prepares the particulars for Form AOC-2 in the board's report. Example output: - Related parties: 4 identified from the MBP-1 disclosures and the shareholding pattern - Arrangements: 7 contracts; purchase of goods from Sagar Polymers at ₹38 crore a year - Threshold: Turnover ₹310 crore: the purchase is above 10% and needs members' approval unless ordinary course and arm's length - Arm's length: Price 6% above two third-party quotes on file: arm's length not supported by the record - Approvals: Board approval on record; members' resolution not taken - Deliverable: RPT register, note on each arrangement, draft resolutions and AOC-2 particulars Prompt to try (RPT review): Identify every related party of the company from the disclosures and shareholding in this project. For each contract with them, test ordinary course, arm's length and the section 188 thresholds, say which approvals were taken and which are missing, and draft the resolutions and the AOC-2 particulars. #### Asking one question of every agreement Problem: The company is raising money, restructuring or being sold, and someone needs to know which of its four hundred agreements need a counterparty's consent, which terminate on a change in shareholding, and which forbid assignment to a group company. The answer lives in clauses written by different lawyers over fifteen years. Sampling the agreements and hoping the rest look the same is how a key customer's consent right is found after signing. How Justis handles it: Upload the contract base to a project and ask your questions once. Tabular review reads every agreement and returns a grid with one row per agreement and one column per question, each cell citing the clause and page it came from. Filter the grid to what needs action, export it to Excel for the board pack, and ask Justis to draft the consent request letters for the agreements that need one. Example output: - Agreements read: 412, including 38 scanned - Questions: Change of control, assignment, termination for convenience, exclusivity, governing law - Consent needed: 27 agreements require consent to a change of control; 9 of them are with the top ten customers - Termination right: 6 agreements let the counterparty terminate on a change of control, with 30 days' notice - Not readable: 2 scanned pages illegible; marked for manual review, not guessed - Deliverable: Excel grid with the clause cited in every cell, and draft consent letters in Word Prompt to try (Contract base review): Review every agreement in this project for change of control, assignment, termination for convenience, exclusivity and governing law. Give me a grid with the clause and page in each cell, list the agreements that need consent to a change in shareholding, and draft the consent request letters. #### Commercial agreements against the company's positions Problem: Most of a corporate practice's volume is the company's own paper: supply agreements, distribution, services, leases and NDAs. Each one comes in on the counterparty's form, and each one has to be read against the same positions on liability, indemnity, termination and governing law. Reading them one at a time, from memory of what the company usually accepts, means the positions drift and the same clause is argued twice. How Justis handles it: Write the company's positions down once as a playbook, with the preferred term and the fallback for each. Justis reads every incoming agreement against it, quotes the clause that departs, and says which position applies. It then marks up the counterparty's own Word file as tracked changes, with the reason for each change in a comment, so the markup goes back in a form the other side recognises. Example output: - Agreement: Distribution agreement on the distributor's form, 34 pages - Off position: 5 clauses: liability cap, exclusivity, termination, stock buy-back, governing law - Liability: Cap at one month's margin against a standing position of twelve months' fees - Exclusivity: Exclusive for all of India with no minimum purchase commitment - Governing law: Arbitration seated in Singapore; the playbook requires a seat in India - Deliverable: Tracked-change markup on the distributor's .docx, one comment per change Prompt to try (Playbook review): Review this distribution agreement against the commercial contracts playbook. List every clause that departs from our position with the clause quoted, apply the preferred position or the fallback, and mark up the document as tracked changes with the reason for each change in a comment. #### Listed company disclosures and insider trading Problem: For a listed company the board meeting is also a disclosure event. Under Regulation 30 of the LODR, the outcome of the meeting goes to the exchanges within thirty minutes of its close, other events arising within the company within twelve hours, and events from outside it within twenty-four. Deciding what is material, under the policy and the tests in the regulation, has to happen before the meeting ends. The PIT Regulations run alongside: the trading window closed from the end of the quarter until forty-eight hours after the results are published, the structured digital database of everyone who received unpublished price sensitive information, and pre-clearance for designated persons. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the board agenda, the draft outcome and the company's materiality policy. It says which items are disclosable under Regulation 30 and by when, drafts the disclosure in the form the exchanges expect, and marks items where materiality is a judgment for you. It checks the trading window dates against the results calendar, reads the pre-clearance requests against the window and the code of conduct, and drafts the entries for the structured digital database. Example output: - Agenda: Q2 results, acquisition of a 60% stake in a logistics company, resignation of the CFO - Disclosable: All three under Regulation 30; results and acquisition within 30 minutes of the meeting closing - Materiality: Acquiring control is listed in Para A of Schedule III: disclosable without applying the materiality test - Trading window: Closed from the end of the quarter, 30.09.2026, until 48 hours after the results are published - Pre-clearance: 2 requests from designated persons fall inside the closed window: to be refused - Deliverable: Draft outcome and Regulation 30 disclosures, SDD entries, note on each pre-clearance request Prompt to try (Disclosure check): Read this board agenda, the draft outcome and our materiality policy. Tell me which items are disclosable under Regulation 30 of the LODR and by when, draft each disclosure, check the trading window against the results date, and review the pending pre-clearance requests. Questions: - Q: Can it find filings that were never made? A: It finds the gap between what was resolved and what is on file. It reads the minutes and the filed forms together and marks each resolution that should have been followed by a form that is not in the project. It works from the documents you upload, so it cannot see the registrar's records directly. - Q: Does it read the company's articles? A: Yes. The articles are read with the rest of the record, and where they add to the Act, such as a higher quorum or a reserved matter, the check follows the articles and cites the article number. - Q: Does it handle FEMA as well as company law? A: Yes. For an issue or transfer involving a non-resident, it applies the NDI Rules on pricing, sectoral caps and reporting alongside the Companies Act, and cites the provision for each step. - Q: Can it draft minutes from a recording? A: Yes. Upload the recording, in English or Hindi, and it transcribes the meeting and drafts the minutes in your format, with each resolution in its final wording for you to approve. - Q: Is it useful for listed companies? A: Yes. It works through the LODR, the SAST Regulations and the PIT Regulations as well as the Companies Act, and marks where a disclosure turns on a materiality judgment that stays with you. - Q: What should a corporate lawyer try first? A: The corporate record for a company you already know. Upload the minutes and filings for three years, ask for every action in date order with the gaps marked, and check it against your own tracker. It is the fastest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How M&A lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/m-and-a Every deal runs on the same compressed clock. The data room opens with eight hundred documents, the first draft of the SPA arrives a week later, and the client wants the red flags before the price is agreed. Diligence gets sampled because there is no time to read everything, and the finding that matters is in the part nobody read. Justis reads the whole room with you. You upload the data room to one project, and it reads every file, scans included, then answers your diligence questions across all of it at once, ranks what actually threatens the deal, and carries each finding through to the SPA, the disclosure schedule and the closing checklist. Every finding cites the document, clause and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not assumed. Try this first: Take a deal you have already closed. Upload the data room to a project and ask for change of control and assignment across every contract in it. Compare the grid with the consents list you actually worked from. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it on a room you have not yet opened. #### Reading the whole data room Problem: A mid-market target puts eight hundred documents in the room: customer and supplier contracts, leases, loan papers, employment agreements, IP assignments, licences and litigation files, a fifth of them scanned. The diligence report is due in three weeks, and the associate team can read perhaps half of it with care. The report that results is organised by who read what, not by what threatens the deal. The unregistered lease, the licence that lapsed last year and the guarantee given for a promoter's company sit in different sections, with equal weight. How Justis handles it: Upload the room to a project. Justis reads every document, runs OCR on the scans, and answers your diligence questions across the whole set in a tabular review: one row per document, one column per question, each cell citing the clause and page. It then ranks the findings by what they do to the deal, from conditions to closing down to disclosure items, and drafts the red flag report in that order, with every finding linked to its source. Example output: - Documents read: 812 files, 14,600 pages, 171 scanned documents read by OCR - Questions asked: 22, from title to shares and charges to licences, litigation and data protection - Deal-level findings: Factory lease of 29 years, unregistered and under-stamped; a corporate guarantee for ₹18 crore given for a promoter entity - Licence gap: Consent to operate under the Water Act for the second plant expired 31.03.2026, renewal application on file - Not readable: 3 scanned pages illegible; listed for a request to the seller, not guessed - Deliverable: Red flag report in Word, ranked by effect on the deal, with the grid in Excel Prompt to try (Red flag report): Review every document in this data room against the diligence questions in the attached list. Give me the answers in a grid with the clause and page in each cell, then rank the findings by their effect on the deal and draft a red flag report in that order. #### Change of control and third-party consents Problem: The share purchase changes control of the target, and some of its contracts and loans say what happens next: consent required, notice only, a right to terminate, or an acceleration of the loan. The consents list decides the conditions precedent, and a missed consent from a lender or a key customer is the problem that surfaces after closing. The clauses do not use the same words. One agreement defines change of control by shareholding, another by board control, a third by any change in the promoter group, and several say nothing at all. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every agreement in the room for change of control, assignment and anti-assignment, termination and acceleration, and applies each clause's own definition to the deal structure you describe, rather than a generic test. It returns the consents list with the clause quoted, the counterparty, the notice period and what happens without consent, and drafts the consent request letters for the ones that need them. Example output: - Agreements read: 436 contracts, loan agreements and leases - Consent needed: 31, including the term loan from the lead bank and 4 of the top ten customers - Acceleration: Term loan, clause 21.3: a change in the promoters' shareholding below 51% is an event of default - Different definitions: The largest customer contract triggers on a change in board control, not shareholding: caught by this deal - Notice only: 58 agreements need notice within 30 days of closing - Deliverable: Consents list in Excel with the clause quoted, and draft consent letters in Word Prompt to try (Consents list): The buyer is acquiring 76% of the target from the promoters. Read every agreement in this data room and apply its own change of control definition to that structure. Give me the consents list with the clause quoted, the notice period and the consequence of no consent, and draft the consent request letters. #### The SPA issues list and negotiating positions Problem: The seller's first draft of the share purchase agreement arrives, and the client wants the issues list before the call tomorrow. The points that matter are spread across definitions, warranties, the limitations schedule and the boilerplate: an indemnity cap well below the exposure, a survival period shorter than the tax limitation period, an exclusive remedy clause that shuts out claims the buyer will need. The issues list also has to connect to diligence. A warranty is only worth negotiating if you know what the room says about it. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the draft and the side you act for. It builds the issues list clause by clause, with the problem in one line and why it matters for this deal, linking each point to the diligence finding that makes it important. For the points you choose, it drafts positions from firm to middle ground with the commercial reason for each, and marks up the draft as tracked changes in Word with a comment explaining each change. Example output: - Draft: Seller's first draft SPA, 84 pages, 11 schedules - Issues: 37 points, 9 marked for the call; each linked to the clause and, where relevant, the diligence finding - Indemnity cap: 10% of the price against a ₹18 crore guarantee exposure found in diligence: raise or carve out as a specific indemnity - Survival: 18 months for all warranties; tax warranties need to survive for the period in which the tax authority can reopen the years concerned - Exclusive remedy: Clause 12.1 as drafted excludes claims for fraud; carve fraud out expressly - Deliverable: Issues list, positions note for the call, and tracked-change markup of the SPA Prompt to try (SPA issues list): We act for the buyer. Review this draft SPA and build an issues list clause by clause, with the problem in one line and why it matters, linking each point to the diligence findings in this project. Mark the ten points for tomorrow's call and draft our positions on each. #### The disclosure schedule and warranty cross-check Problem: When you act for the seller, the disclosure letter is the seller's protection, and it is only as good as its specificity. A general disclosure of the whole data room may not be accepted, and a specific disclosure drafted from what the founders remember leaves out what the documents show. When you act for the buyer, the same exercise runs the other way: what does the room show that the seller has not disclosed against each warranty? How Justis handles it: Justis reads each warranty in the SPA against the documents in the room and says what needs disclosing, with the document and page, so the schedule is drafted from the record rather than from memory. For the buyer it produces the reverse: each warranty, what the room shows, what the seller has disclosed, and the gap between them, ready for a specific indemnity or a price conversation. Example output: - Warranties read: 64 warranties in Schedule 4 - Disclosure needed: 19 warranties; for example, employment: provident fund contributions for four months deposited late - Litigation: Two pending matters: an appeal against a tax demand and a consumer complaint, with the forum and amount - Property: Warehouse lease of 11 years not registered under the Registration Act - Nothing to disclose: Title to shares: register of members, share certificates and filings agree - Deliverable: Disclosure letter in Word, each disclosure cited to the data room index Prompt to try (Disclosure schedule): We act for the seller. Read each warranty in Schedule 4 of the SPA against the documents in this data room, tell me what needs specific disclosure with the document and page, and draft the disclosure letter referenced to the data room index. #### CCI, FEMA and the regulatory path Problem: Before the timetable is fixed, someone has to know which approvals the deal needs. Under the Competition Act 2002, a combination above the asset or turnover thresholds, or since September 2024 one valued above ₹2,000 crore where the target has substantial business operations in India, cannot close until the CCI approves it or the review period runs out. A cross-border deal adds FEMA: the NDI Rules on sectoral caps and the approval route, the pricing guidelines, deferred consideration limits, the FC-TRS filing, and the government approval that Press Note 3 of 2020 requires for any investor with a beneficial owner in a country sharing a land border with India. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the structure, the parties' figures and the target's business. It works through the CCI thresholds and exemptions in order, including the deal value threshold and the target exemption, and says whether a notice is needed, citing the provision and the figures it used. It then maps the FEMA steps for the structure: route and cap, the price floor or ceiling, how much of the price can be deferred and for how long, and each filing with its last date. The result is a regulatory path note that sets the timetable. Example output: - Deal: Acquisition of 100% of an Indian SaaS company by a US buyer for ₹2,450 crore - Asset and turnover tests: Target below the de minimis limits; parties' Indian figures below the s.5 thresholds - Deal value threshold: Value above ₹2,000 crore and a large share of the target's users in India: notice to the CCI needed before closing - FEMA route: Automatic route, no sectoral cap for this activity; no land-border beneficial owner found in the buyer's chain - Deferred consideration: Earn-out of ₹400 crore is within 25% of the price and payable within 18 months: permitted - Filing: FC-TRS within 60 days of receipt of the consideration; if received 15.09.2026, by 14.11.2026 Prompt to try (Regulatory path): Here is the deal structure and the parties' figures. Tell me whether the deal needs CCI approval, working through the asset and turnover thresholds, the deal value threshold and the exemptions with the figures. Then map the FEMA route, pricing, deferred consideration and filings, with the last date for each. #### Listed targets: takeover code and insider trading Problem: When the target is listed, the SAST Regulations decide the deal's shape. Crossing 25% of the voting rights, acquiring more than 5% in a financial year above that, or acquiring control triggers an open offer for at least 26% more, at a price the regulations fix, announced on the day the agreement is signed. The PIT Regulations apply from the first conversation: every person brought inside has to be recorded, diligence information is unpublished price sensitive information, and sharing it with a bidder needs the board's view that the deal is in the company's interest. How Justis handles it: Justis works through the triggers for the structure you describe, including indirect acquisitions through a parent, and says which regulation is triggered, when the public announcement is due and the minimum offer size. It lists the inputs the offer price has to be tested against and marks each figure you still need from the merchant banker, drafts the insider list entries and the board note for sharing information in diligence, and builds the takeover timetable from the announcement date. Example output: - Deal: Acquirer buys 22% from the promoters and 8% by preferential allotment, reaching 30% - Trigger: Regulation 3(1): crosses 25% of voting rights; open offer required - Offer size: At least 26% of the expanded share capital - Public announcement: On the day the SPA is signed and the board approves the preferential issue - Price inputs: Negotiated price, preferential issue price, 52-week and 26-week tests: figures from the merchant banker marked as pending - Deliverable: Trigger note, takeover timetable, board note on sharing UPSI, insider list entries Prompt to try (Takeover check): Our client will buy 22% of a listed company from the promoters and subscribe to 8% by preferential allotment. Tell me which SAST regulations are triggered, when the public announcement is due and the minimum offer size, list the price inputs we need, and draft the board note for sharing information in diligence. #### Conditions, closing and post-closing filings Problem: Closing is a checklist of forty items held by six parties: consents, regulatory approvals, board and shareholder resolutions, resignations and appointments, the share transfer, the payment and the escrow. The checklist is kept in a spreadsheet that falls out of date with every draft of the SPA. After closing the filings start, each with its own clock: the FEMA reporting, the change in directors, the register of members, any new allotment's return, and the notices that the consents list promised. How Justis handles it: Justis builds the closing checklist from the executed SPA itself: every condition precedent and every closing deliverable, with the clause, the party responsible and the document that satisfies it. As documents are added to the project, it marks items as satisfied and cites the document. It then produces the post-closing list with the last date for each filing and notice, computed from the closing date, and drafts the board resolutions and forms for the closing meeting. Example output: - Conditions precedent: 14 conditions from clause 5; 11 satisfied, each cited to the document on file - Open: Lender consent (clause 5.1(c)), CCI approval (clause 5.1(a)), no-objection from the landlord (clause 5.1(f)) - Closing deliverables: 26 items from clause 7, each with the party responsible - Post-closing: DIR-12 for 3 nominee directors within 30 days; FC-TRS within 60 days of receipt of the consideration - Notices: 58 notice-only counterparties, draft notices ready - Deliverable: Closing checklist and post-closing tracker in Excel, closing board resolutions in Word Prompt to try (Closing checklist): Build the closing checklist from the executed SPA in this project: every condition precedent and closing deliverable with the clause, the party responsible and the document on file that satisfies it. Then give me the post-closing filings and notices with the last date for each, assuming closing on 30 October 2026. Questions: - Q: Does it read every document or a sample? A: Every document in the project. Tabular review asks each question of each file and returns the clause and page behind every answer, so the report is built on the whole room. - Q: Can it tell us whether the deal needs CCI approval? A: It works through the thresholds, the deal value threshold and the exemptions with the figures you give it, and says whether a notice looks necessary and why. The decision to file, and the filing itself, stay with you. - Q: Does it know the FEMA rules for cross-border deals? A: Yes. It applies the NDI Rules on routes, caps, pricing and deferred consideration, and Press Note 3 of 2020 on investors from countries sharing a land border, and cites the provision for each step. - Q: Can it mark up the SPA in Word? A: Yes. Changes land as tracked changes on the other side's own file, with a comment giving the reason for each, so the markup goes back in a form they recognise. - Q: What happens when the seller adds documents late? A: They are read as soon as they are added to the project. Ask the same questions again and the grid, the red flag report and the closing checklist pick up the new material, with the new documents cited. - Q: What should an M&A lawyer try first? A: Change of control across a data room from a deal you have already closed. Compare the grid with the consents list you actually used. It is the fastest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How in-house teams use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/in-house An in-house legal team is small and the whole company sends it work. Procurement needs the vendor contract back today, sales has a customer's paper with a deadline, HR has a complaint that has to be handled by the book, and the board wants to know what the new data protection rules mean for the business. The work that matters most waits behind the work that is merely urgent. Justis takes the first pass off the queue. It reviews contracts against the positions your team has set, redlines the counterparty's Word file, answers the business's questions with the provision behind the answer, and turns a new law into a list of what the company has to change. Every conclusion cites the clause, page or section it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not assumed. Try this first: Take a vendor agreement your team has already negotiated. Write down your positions on five clauses as a playbook, run the counterparty's first draft through it, and compare the markup with the one you actually sent. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it with the next contract in the queue. #### Vendor and customer contracts against your playbook Problem: Most of the queue is the same kind of paper: a SaaS subscription, a services agreement, a distribution contract, each on the counterparty's form. Each one has to be read against the same positions on liability, indemnity, renewal, data and governing law, and each one is wanted back by the business the same day. When the positions live in one senior lawyer's head, they drift. A cap accepted under pressure last quarter becomes the precedent the next vendor cites. How Justis handles it: Write the company's positions down once as a playbook, per contract type, with the preferred term, the fallback and the point at which it goes to the General Counsel. Justis reads each incoming agreement against it, quotes the clause that departs, and says which position applies. It marks up the counterparty's own Word file as tracked changes with the reason for each change in a comment, and writes a short note for the business owner in plain language: what was changed, what is still open and what needs their decision. Example output: - Agreement: SaaS subscription for an HR platform, vendor's form, 26 pages - Off position: 6 clauses: liability cap, auto-renewal, data processing, sub-processors, price escalation, governing law - Liability: Cap at one month's fees against a position of twelve months; fallback of six with data breach carved out - Data: No processing terms although employee personal data is shared; company DPA to be attached - Escalation: Annual price increase of up to 12% at the vendor's discretion; playbook allows 5% or CPI - Deliverable: Tracked-change markup on the vendor's .docx and a half-page note for the HR head Prompt to try (Playbook review): Review this vendor agreement against our SaaS playbook. List every clause that departs from our position with the clause quoted, apply the preferred position or the fallback, mark up the document as tracked changes with the reason in a comment, and write a short note for the business owner on what is still open. #### NDAs at volume Problem: The business signs dozens of NDAs a month, for vendors, partners, candidates and potential acquirers. Each one is short and none of them is identical: one is one-way when it should be mutual, one has no end date for the obligations, one includes a non-solicit that nobody asked for. Reading them properly takes more time than they seem to deserve, and skimming them is how a residuals clause or an unlimited indemnity gets signed. How Justis handles it: Set the NDA positions once and let Justis triage each incoming NDA: sign as is, sign with the listed changes, or send to a lawyer. It gives the reason for each call with the clause quoted. For a batch, a tabular review puts every NDA in a row with the points that matter in columns, so the team sees the whole week's NDAs on one screen. Example output: - NDAs reviewed: 18 received this week - Sign as is: 11 match the playbook - Sign with changes: 5: three one-way where the discussion is mutual, two with no end date for the confidentiality obligation - To a lawyer: 2: a residuals clause letting the other side use what its people remember, and a non-solicit of employees for 24 months - Deliverable: Triage grid in Excel and tracked-change markups for the five that need changes Prompt to try (NDA triage): Review every NDA in this folder against our NDA playbook. For each one say sign as is, sign with changes, or send to a lawyer, with the clause quoted for each issue, and mark up the ones that need changes as tracked changes. #### Renewals, notice periods and the contract base Problem: The company holds several hundred signed contracts, many of which renew automatically unless notice is given months in advance. Nobody owns the calendar, so the renewals that should have been renegotiated simply roll over at the vendor's new price. The same contract base is where the business's other questions land: which contracts can we exit for convenience, which ones still name the supplier we replaced, which ones let the customer audit us. How Justis handles it: Upload the signed contracts to a project and ask once. Tabular review returns a grid of every agreement with the term, the renewal mechanism, the notice period and the last date to give notice, each cell citing the clause and page. Sort it by the last date for notice, export it to Excel, and ask Justis to draft the non-renewal or renegotiation notices for the ones the business wants to act on. Example output: - Contracts read: 286 signed agreements, 41 of them scanned - Auto-renewing: 74, of which 12 renew in the next quarter - Next deadline: Cloud hosting renews 01.01.2027 for 24 months; 90 days' notice needed, last date 03.10.2026 - Exit for convenience: 39 agreements allow it, with notice from 30 to 180 days - Not readable: One scanned signature page illegible; marked for manual review, not guessed - Deliverable: Renewal calendar in Excel with the clause in every cell, and draft non-renewal notices in Word Prompt to try (Renewal calendar): Review every signed contract in this project for term, renewal mechanism, notice period and termination for convenience. Give me a grid with the clause and page in each cell, sorted by the last date to give notice, and draft non-renewal notices for the contracts I select. #### Questions from the business, answered with the source Problem: Marketing wants to launch a free trial that converts to a paid plan, sales wants to promise a customer a service credit, and finance asks whether a vendor can be paid in advance. Each question needs a quick, correct answer, and a quick answer given without the provision behind it is the one that gets relied on later. The same questions come back from different people, and the answer given last time is in someone's email. How Justis handles it: Ask Justis the question as the business put it. It searches the Indian law library of Acts, rules, regulator circulars and judgments, answers in plain language, and cites the provision or document for each point, including the company's own policies and contracts in the project. It marks what depends on facts it does not have and what is a judgment for you, and can turn the answer into a short note for the business in your team's format. Example output: - Question: Can a 14-day free trial convert automatically into a paid monthly plan charged to the saved card? - Consumer law: The CCPA's dark patterns guidelines of 2023 list the subscription trap: cancellation must be easy and the conversion disclosed clearly before the trial starts - Card payments: RBI's e-mandate framework for recurring card payments: registration with additional factor authentication, and a pre-debit notice at least 24 hours before each charge - Company policy: The refund policy in this project does not cover the first paid month; a gap to fix - Deliverable: One-page note for the marketing head with the conditions for launch Prompt to try (Answer the business): Marketing wants to launch a 14-day free trial that converts automatically into a paid monthly plan on the customer's saved card. Tell me what consumer protection law and the RBI rules on recurring payments require, check our refund policy and terms in this project, and write a one-page note for the marketing head. #### DPDP Act readiness Problem: The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules were notified in November 2025, and most of the obligations under the Act apply eighteen months later. In that window the company has to know what personal data it holds and why, rewrite its notices so that consent is informed and specific, put processing terms into every vendor contract, and build a breach process that informs the Data Protection Board and the affected people. The work is spread across the privacy policy, the consent flows, dozens of vendor contracts and the HR systems, and the board wants one answer: what do we have to change, and by when. How Justis handles it: Upload the privacy policy, the consent notices, the vendor contracts and any data map the company has. Justis reads them against the DPDP Act 2023 and the Rules 2025, and returns the gap list: each obligation, what the company has today, what has to change, and the date from which it applies, each cited to the provision. It runs a tabular review of the vendor contracts for processing terms, drafts the revised notice and the data processing addendum, and prepares the memo for the board. Example output: - Documents read: Privacy policy, 4 consent notices, HR policy, 63 vendor contracts - Notice: Current notice bundles consent to marketing with consent to the service: consent under section 6 must be specific - Vendors: 41 vendors process personal data; 29 contracts have no processing terms - Breach: No process to inform the Board and each affected person; the Rules also require a detailed report within 72 hours - Children: Sign-up allows users under 18 with no verifiable parental consent (section 9) - Deliverable: Gap list with dates, revised notice, DPA template and a board memo Prompt to try (DPDP gap list): Read our privacy policy, consent notices and vendor contracts against the DPDP Act 2023 and the DPDP Rules 2025. Give me a gap list with each obligation, what we have today, what must change and the date it applies from, review the vendor contracts for processing terms, and draft a memo for the board. #### Moving HR onto the Labour Codes Problem: The four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025, replacing twenty-nine central labour laws. The company's appointment letters, salary structures, standing orders and HR policies still cite the old Acts, and some of what they do has changed in substance. The definition of wages is the change that moves money: allowances above half of total remuneration are added back into wages, which changes the base for provident fund, gratuity and bonus. Fixed-term employees now earn gratuity after one year of service. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the appointment letters, salary structures and HR policies against the Code on Wages, the Industrial Relations Code, the Code on Social Security and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code. It lists each place the company's documents cite a repealed Act or conflict with a Code, with the provision. It tests the salary structures against the wages definition, flags the grades where the base will move, and redrafts the appointment letter template and the policies as tracked changes. Example output: - Documents read: 4 appointment letter templates, 12 HR policies, salary structures for 9 grades - Old references: 37 references to repealed Acts, such as the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Industrial Disputes Act - Wages definition: Basic pay is 35% of CTC in grades 1 to 4: allowances above 50% are added back, raising the PF and gratuity base - Fixed-term staff: Contract template excludes gratuity; fixed-term employees now qualify after one year - Deliverable: Gap list by document, grade-wise effect on the wage base in Excel, redlined templates in Word Prompt to try (Labour Codes review): Read our appointment letters, HR policies and salary structures against the four Labour Codes in force from 21 November 2025. List every reference to a repealed Act and every conflict with a Code, test each grade's salary structure against the definition of wages, and redline the templates. #### POSH complaints and the Internal Committee Problem: A complaint of sexual harassment reaches the Internal Committee, and from that moment the POSH Act sets the procedure: the complaint within three months of the incident, the inquiry completed within ninety days, the report within ten days of completing it, and the employer's action on its recommendations within sixty days. Internal Committee members are usually not lawyers, and an inquiry that skips a step, such as giving the respondent the complaint and a chance to reply, is the one that is set aside. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the complaint, the reply and the witness statements, including recorded hearings transcribed in English or Hindi, and builds the timeline of the inquiry with every statutory date computed from the documents. It prepares a procedural checklist for the committee, a summary of each party's account with the page it comes from, and a draft of the inquiry report structured around the findings the committee has to make. The findings themselves are the committee's. Example output: - Complaint: Received by the Internal Committee on 04.08.2026, incident of 22.07.2026: within three months - Inquiry: To be completed within 90 days, by 02.11.2026 - Report: Within 10 days of completing the inquiry; if completed on 02.11.2026, by 12.11.2026 - Employer action: Within 60 days of receiving the report; if received 12.11.2026, by 11.01.2027 - Procedure: Copy of the complaint sent to the respondent and the reply are on file; two witness statements not shared with the complainant - Deliverable: Inquiry timeline, procedural checklist, statement summaries and a draft report structure Prompt to try (POSH inquiry): Read the complaint, the reply and the witness statements in this project. Build the inquiry timeline with every date under the POSH Act computed from the documents, give the Internal Committee a procedural checklist showing what is done and what is missing, and summarise each account with the page it comes from. Questions: - Q: Can procurement or HR send contracts straight to it? A: They can run a review in a shared workspace if you give them access, using the playbook your team has set. The positions stay with legal, and anything outside the playbook is marked for a lawyer rather than decided. - Q: Does it keep up with new rules such as the DPDP Rules? A: It searches the Indian law library of Acts, rules and regulator material, and cites the provision for every point. Where a rule is recent or its application is unsettled, it says so rather than presenting the point as settled. - Q: Can it read contracts that were signed on paper and scanned? A: Yes. Scanned contracts go through OCR first, including Hindi, and the agent tells you when it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where a page is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: Is it suitable for POSH matters? A: It helps the Internal Committee with the timeline, the procedure and the record, and drafts the report structure. Findings and recommendations are the committee's, and access to the project can be limited to its members. - Q: Can the answer to one person's question be reused? A: Yes. Answers, notes and memos stay in the project, and a workflow or skill saved by your team gives the next person the same method and format. - Q: What should an in-house team try first? A: A playbook review of a vendor agreement you have already negotiated. Set five positions, run the vendor's first draft through it, and compare the markup with the one you sent. It is the fastest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How property lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/real-estate Property work is paper work in the literal sense. A title search is thirty years of sale deeds, mutation entries, encumbrance certificates, khata extracts and conversion orders, most of them scanned, some in Hindi or a regional language. The defect that matters is usually a missing link, not a bad one: a mutation never recorded, a gift deed executed on an unregistered power of attorney, a mortgage released in part. Justis reads the whole file with you. You upload the documents to a project once, and it reads every page, scans included, then builds the chain, the encumbrance list, the stamp duty working or the lease grid the way a careful associate would. Every entry carries the document and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm on the record is marked as a gap rather than filled in. Try this first: Take a property whose title you have already certified. Upload the title documents to a project and ask for the chain of title with a source for each link and every break flagged. Compare it with your own report. That shows you, on a file you know, how far to rely on it for the next one. #### Tracing the chain of title Problem: A buyer or a lender wants a title opinion covering thirty years, and the file arrives as sixty scanned documents in no particular order. Building the chain by hand means reading every deed for the schedule, the extent, the parties and the recital of how the vendor came to own the land, then checking that each recital matches the deed before it. The defects hide in the joins. The extent shrinks by four guntas between two deeds with no explanation, a transfer rests on a general power of attorney rather than a registered conveyance, or the revenue record still shows an owner from two transfers back. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every deed, mutation entry and extract in the project, runs OCR on the scans and tells you when it is reading one, and lays out the chain in order: each transfer with the parties, the date, the registration details, the extent and the document and page it comes from. It checks each link against the next and flags what does not reconcile: a vendor who does not appear as the purchaser in the previous deed, a schedule or extent that changes, an unregistered instrument where section 17 of the Registration Act requires registration, and a mutation that was never made. The chain and the list of requisitions come back in Word. Example output: - Documents read: 58 files, 612 pages, 41 scanned documents read by OCR - Chain: 9 transfers from the 1996 grant to the 2019 sale, each with the deed and page - Break: 2013 gift deed executed by an attorney under an unregistered GPA (Gift deed, p. 3); no registered conveyance to the donor - Does not reconcile: Extent 2 acres 10 guntas in the 2004 deed, 2 acres 6 guntas in the 2019 deed; no rectification on file - Revenue record: RTC still shows the 2009 holder; 2016 mutation never recorded - Deliverable: Chain of title and list of requisitions in Word Prompt to try (Chain of title): Read every title document in this project and build the chain of title for the last thirty years. For each transfer give the parties, date, registration details, extent and the document and page. Flag every break, every unregistered instrument that needed registration, every change in extent and every missing mutation, and list the requisitions to raise with the seller. #### Encumbrances, charges and pending litigation Problem: The encumbrance certificate is the start of the search, not the end of it. It shows registered transactions, but an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds under section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act may never appear on it, and a partial release deed is easy to read as a full one. Pending suits matter just as much. A sale made while a suit concerning the property is pending is subject to its result under the doctrine of lis pendens in section 52 of the Act, so a partition suit filed by a family member can bind the buyer who never heard of it. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the encumbrance certificates, the search reports you upload, the bank's sanction and release letters and any court papers, and lists every charge with its creation, its release and what remains. It marks the years the certificates do not cover and the charges shown in a sanction letter that the certificate does not show. For litigation, it reads the plaints and orders on file, identifies the suits that concern this property, and states what each could do to the title if it succeeds. The result is a ranked list of encumbrances, each with the document behind it. Example output: - Certificates read: EC for 1996 to 2026; no certificate for 2001 to 2003 - Registered charge: 2021 mortgage to a bank for ₹2.4 crore; release deed of 2024 covers Sy. No. 41/2 only (Release deed, p. 2) - Not on the EC: Sanction letter of 2018 refers to deposit of title deeds; no memorandum registered, no release on file - Litigation: Partition suit of 2023 by the donor's brother over the trust share; buyer bound by the result under s.52 TPA - Deliverable: Encumbrance schedule and requisitions, ranked by risk Prompt to try (Encumbrance schedule): Read the encumbrance certificates, bank letters and court papers in this project. List every charge with its creation, release and what remains outstanding, mark any years the certificates do not cover and any charge referred to elsewhere that the certificates do not show, and tell me which pending suits concern this property and what each could do to the title. #### Stamp duty and registration before execution Problem: Stamp duty is a state question. The article that applies, the rate, the basis of valuation and the concessions differ between states, and a single transaction can involve an agreement for sale, a power of attorney, a sale deed and a rectification, each stamped under a different article. Getting it wrong has consequences beyond the deficit. An instrument that is not duly stamped can be impounded and is not admissible in evidence until the duty and penalty are paid, and a document that needs registration but is not registered does not affect the property under section 49 of the Registration Act. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft instruments and the valuation papers you upload, identifies which instruments need registration and which article of the applicable state stamp schedule governs each, and sets out the duty working with the rate and the value it is charged on. It tells you where the state schedule you uploaded or cited is the source, so the working can be checked. It also checks the drafts for the registration points that cause rejections at the sub-registrar's office: the schedule and boundaries, the extent in words and figures, the presentation period under section 23 and the documents to annex. Example output: - Agreement for sale: Possession to pass under it: stamped as a conveyance in many states, such as Maharashtra; registration required - Power of attorney: In favour of the developer, with power to sell: stamped under the state article for such powers - Sale deed: Duty on the higher of consideration and guidance value; duty paid on the agreement adjusted where the state allows - Presentation: Executed 20.08.2026: to be presented within four months under s.23 Registration Act - Flag: Schedule in the draft omits the eastern boundary given in the 2019 deed - Deliverable: Stamp duty and registration note in Word, with the working shown Prompt to try (Stamp duty working): Read the draft instruments in this project. For each, tell me whether it must be registered, which article of the state stamp schedule applies, and the duty payable on what value, with the working shown. Then check each draft for the schedule, boundaries and extent against the title deeds and list anything the sub-registrar is likely to object to. #### Agreements for sale against your positions Problem: The developer's standard agreement for sale runs to forty pages, and the buyer's lawyer has a day to mark it up. The clauses that matter are predictable: the possession date and what happens if it slips, the carpet area and how it is measured, the payment plan, the defect liability period and the cancellation deductions. For a registered RERA project the agreement must follow the form in the state rules, so a clause that departs from it in the promoter's favour is a point to push back on, not a matter of taste. How Justis handles it: Write your negotiating positions down once as a playbook: possession, delay interest, carpet area, defect liability, cancellation, and the rest. Justis reads each agreement against it, flags every clause that departs from your position and from the rights the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 gives the allottee, and proposes the change. The mark-up comes back as tracked changes in the Word document, with a short issues list explaining each change so the client or the developer's counsel can follow it. Example output: - Agreement: Developer's standard form, 42 pages, 3 BHK in a registered project - Possession: Clause 7 allows a 12-month grace period beyond the date in the RERA registration; flagged - Delay: Clause 7.4 caps delay compensation at ₹5 per sq ft a month; inconsistent with interest under s.18 RERA - Defect liability: Clause 14 gives 1 year; s.14(3) RERA provides 5 years from possession - Cancellation: Forfeiture of 20% of the price; playbook position is the booking amount only - Deliverable: Tracked-changes mark-up and issues list in Word Prompt to try (Mark up the agreement): Review this agreement for sale against our buyer-side playbook and against the allottee's rights under RERA and the state rules. Flag every clause that departs from our position, propose the change as a tracked edit, and give me a short issues list explaining each one. #### RERA complaints and appeals Problem: A flat promised for March 2024 has still not been handed over, and the buyer wants either the money back with interest or possession with interest for the delay. Section 18 of RERA gives both routes, but the complaint has to be built from the agreement, the registration details, the payment receipts and two years of correspondence. When the order comes, the losing side has sixty days to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 44, and a promoter who appeals must first deposit the amount directed under section 43(5). How Justis handles it: Justis reads the agreement, the receipts, the demand letters and the correspondence, builds the payment schedule and the delay period with the page for each figure, and drafts the complaint under section 31 with the relief under section 18: refund with interest, or interest for every month of delay until possession, at the rate the state rules prescribe. When an order arrives, it reads the order against the record, computes the last date to appeal, and drafts the grounds for whichever side you act for. Example output: - Agreement: Registered agreement of 14.06.2021; possession promised by 31.03.2024 - Paid: ₹86.4 lakh in 11 instalments, each tied to a receipt and page - Delay: 30 months to September 2026 and continuing - Relief: Refund with interest at the state-prescribed rate under s.18(1), or interest for delay if the buyer stays - Appeal clock: Order copy received 03.09.2026: 60 days under s.44(2) ends Monday 2 November 2026 - Deliverable: Complaint with annexure index and payment schedule, in Word Prompt to try (RERA complaint): Read the agreement, receipts and correspondence in this project. Build the payment schedule and the delay period with a source for each figure, set out the relief available under section 18 of RERA, and draft the complaint under section 31 with the annexure index. #### Lease portfolios and lease abstracts Problem: A client acquiring a building, or taking over a retail chain, inherits forty leases on forty different templates. Someone has to pull out the rent, the escalation, the lock-in, the term, the renewal option, the assignment clause and the security deposit from every one of them. The legal points are in the same pile. A lease for more than a year must be made by registered instrument under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and an unregistered one gives a much weaker position than the tenant believes. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same questions of every lease in the project and returns a grid: one row per lease, one column per term, each cell with the clause and page it came from. You can add a column mid-review and export the grid to Excel. Justis flags the leases that need attention: unregistered leases over a year, assignment or change-of-control clauses the transaction will trigger, lock-ins that end before the deal closes, and escalations that do not match the rent actually being paid. Example output: - Leases read: 38 leases, 1,140 pages, 12 scanned - Columns: Tenant, term, rent, escalation, lock-in, renewal, assignment, deposit, registration - Unregistered: 4 leases of 5 years or more with no registration endorsement - Change of control: 9 leases need landlord consent on a share transfer of the tenant - Mismatch: Unit 4B: escalation of 15% every 3 years in the lease, rent roll shows no escalation since 2022 - Deliverable: Lease grid in Excel with cited cells, and an exceptions memo in Word Prompt to try (Lease grid): Review every lease in this project and build a grid with the tenant, term, rent, escalation, lock-in, renewal, assignment and change-of-control clause, security deposit and registration status, citing the clause and page for each cell. Then list the leases that need attention and why. #### Joint development agreements Problem: A landowner is offered a joint development agreement: land in exchange for a share of the built-up area. The document decides who controls the approvals, what happens if the developer stalls, and whether the power of attorney the owner signs can be used to sell the owner's share. Under RERA the landowner who shares in the built area can be treated as a promoter, with obligations to allottees, and the stamp duty on the agreement and the power of attorney depends on the state and on how much control passes. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft agreement, the power of attorney and the title file, and sets out the commercial and legal terms in one note: the sharing ratio, the timelines, the approvals, the default and termination rights, the scope of the power of attorney and the landowner's exposure as a promoter. Against your landowner-side or developer-side playbook, it marks the clauses to change and drafts the revisions as tracked changes, including a power of attorney limited to the developer's share. Example output: - Agreement: Draft JDA for 1.8 acres; 40:60 sharing of saleable area, owner to developer - Timeline: Plan sanction in 12 months, completion in 48; no consequence stated for missing either - Power of attorney: Covers sale of all units, including the owner's 40%; flagged - RERA: Owner's share to be sold by the owner: owner likely a promoter for those units - Termination: No right for the owner to terminate on the developer's default; playbook requires one - Deliverable: Term note, issues list and tracked-changes JDA in Word Prompt to try (Review the JDA): We act for the landowner. Read this joint development agreement and the draft power of attorney against the title file and our playbook. Summarise the sharing, timelines, approvals and default rights, flag the owner's exposure under RERA, and mark up the agreement and the power of attorney as tracked changes. Questions: - Q: Can it read deeds in regional languages? A: It reads English and Hindi reliably, including scanned documents through OCR. For deeds in other Indian languages, upload the translation or the typed copy alongside the original and it will work from both, and it tells you which one each entry relies on. - Q: Does it check the land records portal or the sub-registrar's index? A: No. It works from the documents you upload: encumbrance certificates, extracts, mutation entries and search reports. It tells you which records are missing so you can obtain them. - Q: Does it know each state's stamp duty rates? A: Stamp duty is set by each state and changes often, so it names the article it relies on and shows the working. Upload the current schedule or cite the notification and it will compute from that, and it says when it is unsure the rate is current. - Q: Can it prepare the sale deed? A: Yes. It drafts the sale deed, agreement for sale, power of attorney or release deed in Word from the title file and the agreed terms, with the schedule taken from the deeds. You settle the draft and the parties execute and register it. - Q: Is client property data kept confidential? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What should a property lawyer try first? A: The chain of title on a property you have already certified. Upload the title documents, ask for the chain with a source for each link and every break flagged, and compare it with your report. It is the quickest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How tax lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/tax Tax work is reading exact text under time pressure. A show cause notice arrives with thirty days to reply, the allegation rests on a return the client filed three years ago, and the answer turns on the section as it stood for that period, a circular issued since, and a ruling that settled the point in one High Court but not in another. Since 1 April 2026 there is also the question of which Act governs: the Income-tax Act 2025 for the current tax year, the 1961 Act for many notices still arising for earlier years. Justis reads the notice with the client's papers. You upload the notice, the returns, the ledgers and the invoices to a project, and it sets each allegation against what the record shows, finds the provision and the authority that decide the point, and drafts the reply or the opinion in your format. Every figure carries the document and line it came from, and where the law is unsettled it says so instead of choosing a side for you. Try this first: Take a notice you have already replied to. Upload the notice and the papers you relied on, and ask for a point-by-point analysis with the provision and the record behind each answer. Compare it with the reply you filed. On a matter you know, you will see quickly where it saves time and where you still want your own read. #### Replying to a GST show cause notice Problem: A show cause notice under section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act runs to twenty pages and a set of annexed spreadsheets. Each allegation has to be met from the record: the invoice, the return, the ledger entry and the provision it satisfies. For periods from 2024-25 onwards the notice will usually be under section 74A instead, with its own time limits. The first questions are often the strongest. Is the notice within time for the section invoked? Does a section 74 notice actually allege fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with particulars, or does it simply assert them to reach the longer period? How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice and its annexures, lists every allegation and the amount attached to it, and sets each one against the invoices, returns and ledgers in the project with the document and page or line. It checks the notice for jurisdiction and limitation under the section invoked, and whether the extended period is properly pleaded. It then drafts the reply in Word, preliminary objections first, each ground cited to the provision, the notification or circular and the ruling that supports it, with the record references in the margin. Example output: - Notice: Section 74 SCN dated 12.03.2026 for FY 2022-23, demand of ₹1.36 crore with interest and penalty - Allegations: 4: ITC on cancelled suppliers, ITC beyond s.16(4) time limit, short payment on rent, e-way bill mismatch - Record: Supplier registrations active on every invoice date; tax reflected in GSTR-2B (Ledger, lines 212 to 260) - Time limit: ITC for FY 2022-23 claimed in the October 2023 return, within the s.16(4) limit of 30 November 2023 - Extended period: No particulars of fraud or suppression; s.74 not available, demand if any lies under s.73 - Deliverable: Reply in Word with preliminary objections, grounds and record references Prompt to try (Reply to the SCN): Read this show cause notice and its annexures against the returns, ledgers and invoices in this project. List every allegation with the amount, set out what the record shows for each with the page or line, check whether the notice is within time and whether the extended period is properly invoked, and draft the reply. #### Reconciling input tax credit against GSTR-2B Problem: Most ITC disputes come down to a reconciliation: the purchase register against GSTR-2B, supplier by supplier and invoice by invoice. It is two days of spreadsheet work before the legal argument can start, and the argument depends on getting it right. The conditions in section 16(2) are cumulative, including the requirement that the invoice appear in the statement under section 16(2)(aa), so a mismatch on a single invoice can decide whether a credit is defensible. How Justis handles it: Upload the purchase register, the GSTR-2B exports and the ledger. Justis matches them invoice by invoice and returns a grid: matched, missing from 2B, mismatched in value or tax, supplier cancelled, or claimed late, each with the line on both sides. It totals the exposure by category, says which condition in section 16 each unmatched credit fails, and exports the grid to Excel as the annexure to the reply. Example output: - Read: Purchase register of 4,812 lines, 12 months of GSTR-2B, ITC ledger - Matched: 4,655 invoices, ₹3.92 crore of credit - Not in 2B: 118 invoices, ₹21.4 lakh; 96 of them from 3 suppliers who filed late - Value mismatch: 31 invoices, ₹2.1 lakh, mostly rounding and debit notes - Supplier cancelled: 8 invoices, ₹1.7 lakh; cancellation effective after the invoice dates - Deliverable: Reconciliation grid in Excel with both-side references, and a summary note Prompt to try (ITC reconciliation): Reconcile the purchase register against the GSTR-2B exports in this project for FY 2022-23, invoice by invoice. Give me a grid of matched, missing from 2B, value mismatch, supplier cancelled and claimed late, with the line on each side, total each category, and say which condition in section 16 each unmatched credit fails. #### Reassessment notices and the question of which Act Problem: The client receives a notice proposing to reopen an assessment for an earlier year. The Income-tax Act 2025 has been in force since 1 April 2026, but a reopening for an assessment year under the 1961 Act still runs through the 1961 procedure: the show cause under section 148A, the time limits in section 149 and the monetary threshold that decides whether the longer period is available. The best answer is often jurisdictional. If the escaped income alleged is below ₹50 lakh and the three-year period has passed, the notice fails before the merits are reached. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice, the information relied on, the return and the original assessment, identifies which Act and which procedure govern the year, and checks each jurisdictional condition: the period, the threshold, the approval and whether the information was already before the assessing officer. It then drafts the reply to the show cause on jurisdiction and merits, with each proposition cited to the section and the ruling, and flags where a writ is worth considering if the objection is rejected. Example output: - Notice: Show cause under s.148A(b), 1961 Act, dated 18.08.2026, for AY 2022-23 - Alleged: Unexplained credit of ₹38 lakh in a savings account - Governing law: 1961 Act procedure, as amended from 1 September 2024, for an assessment year before the 2025 Act - Time limit: AY ended 31.03.2023; the three-year period has passed and the amount is below the ₹50 lakh threshold for the longer period - Merits: Credit is a loan from a relative, with bank statement and confirmation on file (p. 14 to 19) - Deliverable: Reply to the show cause, jurisdiction first, in Word Prompt to try (Reassessment reply): Read this reassessment notice, the information relied on, the return and the original assessment. Tell me which Act and procedure govern this year, check every jurisdictional condition including the time limit and the ₹50 lakh threshold, then draft the reply on jurisdiction and merits. #### Research and opinions on unsettled points Problem: The client wants an opinion on a question the statute answers only in part. Is GST payable on a corporate guarantee given by a parent for a subsidiary's loan, and on what value? The answer depends on a rule inserted in October 2023, the circulars that followed, and whether the subsidiary can take full credit. An opinion that states one view without the rule, the circular and the counter-argument is not one a client can rely on in an audit. How Justis handles it: Justis searches the Acts, rules, notifications and circulars with Supreme Court, High Court and tribunal decisions, and builds the answer step by step: the provision, the amendment and its date, the circular and what it clarifies, and the decisions on each side. Every quotation links to its source. It writes the opinion in your format, with a short answer, the analysis and the risk stated plainly, and marks where the position is unsettled rather than presenting it as settled. Example output: - Question: GST on a parent's guarantee of a ₹50 crore loan to its subsidiary - Provision: Rule 28(2), CGST Rules, from 26 October 2023: 1% of the guaranteed amount a year, or the actual consideration if higher - Credit: Where the recipient is eligible for full input tax credit, the invoice value is deemed to be the open market value - Earlier periods: Before the rule, valuation contested; decisions summarised and linked - Short answer: Taxable; if the subsidiary takes full credit, declared value accepted and exposure is neutral - Deliverable: Opinion in Word with table of authorities Prompt to try (Tax opinion): Research whether GST is payable on a corporate guarantee given by a parent company for its subsidiary's bank loan, and on what value, for periods before and after 26 October 2023. Cite the rule, the circulars and the decisions on each side, and write a short opinion with the risk stated plainly. #### Tax review of a transaction's documents Problem: In an acquisition, the tax questions sit across fifty documents: the share purchase agreement, the business transfer agreement, the intercompany agreements, the ESOP plan, the earn-out. Each can trigger withholding, capital gains, transfer pricing or GST, and the indemnity has to match the exposure. The review usually happens in the last week of the deal, when there is no time to read everything twice. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same tax questions of every document in the data room: what is triggered, who bears it, what withholding applies, and whether the tax warranties and indemnity cover it. Each answer comes back as a cited cell, with the clause and page. Justis then drafts the tax section of the diligence report, ranked by exposure, and proposes the tax indemnity and escrow language as tracked changes in the SPA. Example output: - Documents: 54 in the data room, 2,310 pages - Withholding: Payment to a non-resident seller: withholding under the Income-tax Act 2025 not addressed in the SPA - Transfer pricing: Intercompany services at cost with no mark-up (Services agreement, cl. 5) - GST: Brand licence royalty paid to a foreign affiliate: reverse charge not reflected in returns - Indemnity: Tax indemnity capped at 10% of the price and limited to 3 years; flagged - Deliverable: Tax grid in Excel, diligence section and SPA mark-up in Word Prompt to try (Tax diligence): Review every document in this data room for tax. For each, tell me what tax is triggered, who bears it, what withholding applies and whether the SPA warranties and indemnity cover it, citing the clause and page. Then draft the tax section of the diligence report and propose indemnity language as tracked changes. #### Structuring memos Problem: The client wants to sell a business division and asks whether to sell it as a going concern or sell the assets one by one. The answer runs through capital gains, the treatment of depreciable assets and stock, GST on the transfer and stamp duty on the documents, and each head can point a different way. The memo has to show its working. The board will ask why, and the assessing officer may ask later. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the balance sheet, the asset register and the term sheet, walks each option through income tax, GST and stamp duty, and computes the tax under each with the assumptions stated. It names the provision behind each step, including the GST exemption for the transfer of a going concern. It writes the memo with a comparison table and a recommendation, and lists the conditions the transaction must meet for the recommended treatment to hold. Example output: - Transaction: Sale of a manufacturing division for ₹42 crore - Slump sale: Capital gains on the division's net worth under the Income-tax Act 2025; single rate, no item-wise allocation - Itemised sale: Depreciable assets through the block, stock taxed as business income; higher total tax on these figures - GST: Transfer of a going concern exempt under Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate); itemised sale taxable asset by asset - Conditions: Whole undertaking transferred, lump sum consideration, no values assigned to individual assets - Deliverable: Structuring memo with comparison table, in Word Prompt to try (Structuring memo): Using the balance sheet, asset register and term sheet in this project, compare a slump sale of the division with an itemised sale of its assets across income tax, GST and stamp duty. Compute the tax under each with the assumptions stated, name the provision for each step, and recommend one with the conditions it depends on. #### When the order arrives: appeal and pre-deposit Problem: The adjudication order confirms the demand, and the client wants to know the same day whether to appeal, by when, and what must be paid first. A first appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act has to be filed within three months of communication, with a further month only for sufficient cause, and the pre-deposit must be made before it is admitted. The grounds have to come from the order itself: the submission it did not deal with, the document it ignored and the provision it misread. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the order against the reply and the record, lists each submission and whether the order dealt with it, and identifies the grounds, strongest first. It computes the last date and the pre-deposit, and notes where recovery of the balance is stayed once the deposit is made. It drafts the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts in Word, each ground tied to a paragraph of the order and a page of the record. Example output: - Order: Order under s.74 dated 12.08.2026, communicated 14.08.2026, tax of ₹96 lakh confirmed - Last date: Three months under s.107(1): 14 November 2026; further one month for sufficient cause to 14 December 2026 - Pre-deposit: 10% of the tax in dispute: ₹9.6 lakh, with the admitted amount paid in full - Not dealt with: 3 of 7 submissions, including the limitation objection (Reply, para 4) - Grounds: 6 grounds, each tied to a paragraph of the order and the record - Deliverable: Grounds of appeal and statement of facts in Word Prompt to try (Appeal the order): Read this adjudication order against our reply and the record. List each submission and whether the order dealt with it, identify the grounds of appeal strongest first, compute the last date and the pre-deposit under section 107, and draft the grounds and the statement of facts. Questions: - Q: Does it work under the Income-tax Act 2025? A: Yes. The 2025 Act has been in force since 1 April 2026, and Justis works under it for the current tax year. For notices and proceedings about earlier years it applies the 1961 Act where that still governs, and tells you which Act each conclusion rests on. - Q: Can it read GST returns and ledgers in Excel? A: Yes. It reads Excel and CSV exports of returns, registers and ledgers alongside PDFs and scans, and cites the sheet and line for each figure it uses. - Q: Does it connect to the GST or income-tax portals? A: No. It works from what you download and upload: notices, returns, 2B statements and orders. Filing and replying on the portals stays with you. - Q: Will it tell us when the courts disagree? A: Yes. Where High Courts or tribunals have gone different ways, it sets out each line of authority with links and says which binds your forum, rather than presenting one view as settled. - Q: Is client financial data kept confidential? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What should a tax lawyer try first? A: A notice you have already answered. Upload it with the papers you relied on, ask for a point-by-point analysis with the provision and the record for each answer, and compare it with the reply you filed. It shows you quickly where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How IP lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/intellectual-property IP practice runs on two things at once: dates that cannot be missed and distinctions that have to be argued well. The opposition window closes four months after the Journal, a counter-statement not filed in time means the application is abandoned, and a patent FER has a fixed period to answer. Inside those dates sit the real questions: whether two marks are deceptively similar, whether a claim involves an inventive step, whether the client actually owns the copyright it is licensing. Justis holds the portfolio and the argument in one place. You upload the filings, the examination reports, the notices and the agreements to a project, and it reads every page, then extracts the dates, compares the marks or maps the claims, and drafts the reply in your format. Every point carries the document and page it came from, and every authority links to the paragraph it relies on. Try this first: Take an examination report you have already answered. Upload it with the application and the cited marks, and ask for a ground-by-ground reply with the authority for each. Compare it with the reply you filed. On a matter you know, you will see quickly what it gets right and where your judgment still decides. #### Replying to a trade mark examination report Problem: The examination report raises two objections: the mark is said to be descriptive under section 9, and three earlier marks are cited under section 11. The reply is due within a month, and it has to meet each objection on its own terms, with evidence of use where acquired distinctiveness is the answer. Section 11 citations are where replies go wrong. The comparison has to be of the marks as a whole, their appearance, sound and idea, with the goods, the trade channels and the purchasers, not a list of differing letters. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the report, the application and the cited marks' details, and answers each objection separately. For a section 9 objection it argues the mark as suggestive where the record supports it and marshals the evidence of use. For each section 11 citation it compares the marks as a whole and the goods, and says honestly which citations are hard to overcome. It drafts the reply in Word in your format, with the grounds, the authority for each and the list of documents to file with it, and computes the reply date from the date the report was received. Example output: - Application: SWIFTKART, word mark, class 35, proposed to be used - Section 9: Said to be descriptive of fast online retail; reply argues a coined combination needing a step of imagination - Section 11: 3 citations: SWIFTCART (class 35) marked hard to overcome; SWIFT KARE and SWIFTCRAFT distinguishable on idea and goods - Option: Restrict the specification to exclude online grocery retail, to meet the SWIFTCART citation - Reply date: Report received 07.09.2026: reply due within one month, by Wednesday 7 October 2026 - Deliverable: Reply in Word with grounds, authorities and document list Prompt to try (Examination reply): Read this examination report, the application and the details of the cited marks. Answer each objection separately: for section 9, the case for distinctiveness and the evidence to file; for each section 11 citation, a comparison of the marks as a whole and the goods, with an honest view of which are hard to overcome. Then draft the reply and give me the due date. #### Oppositions: notice, counter-statement and evidence Problem: A competitor's mark appears in the Trade Marks Journal. The notice of opposition under section 21 must be filed within four months of the advertisement, and the grounds have to be pleaded then: similarity under section 11, bad faith, prior use, and the mark's lack of distinctiveness. On the other side, an applicant served with an opposition has two months to file the counter-statement, and missing that date means the application is treated as abandoned. The evidence stages that follow each have their own clock. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the Journal extract, the client's registrations and evidence of use, and drafts the notice of opposition with each ground tied to a fact and a document. For an applicant, it reads the notice and drafts the counter-statement, answering each ground and pleading the applicant's own use. It computes every date from the documents in the project and keeps them in the matter's schedule, and when the evidence stage comes it builds the affidavit from the use evidence, with the exhibits indexed. Example output: - Advertised: NYSO, class 5, Journal dated 06.07.2026 - Opposition window: Four months from advertisement: last date Friday 6 November 2026 - Grounds: s.11(1) similarity to the client's NISO in class 5; prior use since 2012; bad faith, given a failed distributorship - Evidence: Sales of ₹48 crore since 2019, invoices across 14 states, 3 earlier registrations - Counter-statement clock: If served on the applicant 16.09.2026: two months, to Monday 16 November 2026 - Deliverable: Notice of opposition and statement of case in Word Prompt to try (Notice of opposition): Read the Journal extract for this mark, our client's registrations and the evidence of use in this project. Tell me the last date to oppose, draft the notice of opposition with each ground tied to a fact and a document, and list the evidence we will need at the evidence stage. #### The portfolio and what falls due next Problem: A client with two hundred marks across twenty classes, and a handful of patents, moves its work to you. The records arrive as registration certificates, renewal receipts, examination reports and a spreadsheet last updated two years ago. A trade mark registration lasts ten years and can be renewed within the year before it expires; after that there is a short window with a surcharge and then restoration. Patent renewal fees fall due every year. A date missed in a portfolio this size is almost always a date nobody extracted. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every certificate, receipt, report and notice in the project and builds the portfolio grid: mark or patent, class, status, the last action and the next date that matters, each with the document and page it was read from. It flags the entries where the documents disagree with the spreadsheet, the marks with no renewal on file, and the applications with an open action. The grid exports to Excel. It is a working view of your documents, not a docketing system of record. Example output: - Read: 212 trade mark records, 9 patents, 1,460 pages - Grid: Mark, class, number, status, last action, next date, each cited - Renewal due: 14 registrations expire in the next 12 months; 3 within 90 days - Disagrees: INDUS POWER, class 11: spreadsheet says renewed, no renewal receipt or certificate on file - Open action: NIMBUS, class 35: examination report of 22.08.2026 unanswered - Deliverable: Portfolio grid in Excel and an action list in Word Prompt to try (Portfolio grid): Read every certificate, renewal receipt, examination report and notice in this project and build a portfolio grid: mark or patent, class, number, status, last action and next date, citing the document for each. Flag every entry where the documents disagree with the client's spreadsheet and every renewal due in the next twelve months. #### Answering a patent First Examination Report Problem: The First Examination Report objects that the claims lack inventive step over two cited documents, and that the main claim is a computer programme per se under section 3(k). The response period is six months from the date of the report, extendable by three, and the application is deemed abandoned if nothing is filed. An obviousness objection is answered element by element. Which feature of the claim does each citation actually disclose, and is there any reason a skilled person would have combined them? How Justis handles it: Justis reads the specification, the claims, the FER and the cited documents, and maps each claim element against what each citation discloses, with the column or paragraph. The elements no citation discloses are marked as gaps, and those are where the argument and any amendment start. It drafts the response with the argument on inventive step, the technical effect relied on against the section 3(k) objection, and proposed claim amendments shown as tracked changes, supported by the specification as filed. Example output: - FER: Issued 10.08.2026: lack of inventive step over D1 and D2; claims 1 to 9 objected under s.3(k) - Claim map: 12 elements: 6 disclosed, 2 partly disclosed, 4 not disclosed by D1 or D2 - Gap relied on: Adaptive threshold that retrains on sensor drift: not in D1 or D2 (specification, p. 14) - s.3(k): Technical effect: reduced false trips in a physical sensor array, not a programme per se - Deadline: Six months from the FER: Wednesday 10 February 2027, extendable by three months to Monday 10 May 2027 - Deliverable: FER response with claim amendments as tracked changes, in Word Prompt to try (FER response): Read the specification, the claims, this First Examination Report and the cited documents. Map each claim element against what each citation discloses, with the column or paragraph, and mark the gaps. Then draft the response on inventive step and section 3(k), with proposed claim amendments supported by the specification, and give me the response deadline. #### Infringement, passing off and interim injunctions Problem: The client finds a competitor selling a product under a similar mark in a similar get-up. The question is whether to send a notice or go straight to court for an interim injunction, and the answer depends on the evidence: the registration, the length and extent of use, the similarity, and how quickly the client has acted. An infringement suit under section 29 of the Trade Marks Act needs a registration. Passing off does not, but it needs proof of goodwill and misrepresentation. A commercial suit seeking urgent interim relief can be filed without pre-institution mediation, but only if the urgency is real. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the client's registrations and use evidence, the photographs of the competing product and any correspondence, and compares the marks and the get-up. It sets out the case for infringement and for passing off, and grades the interim injunction factors, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm, with the evidence for each. It drafts the cease and desist notice or the plaint and the interim application, with the jurisdiction pleaded, the evidence indexed and the authorities linked to the paragraph. Example output: - Marks: Client's KAVACH (class 9, registered 2016) against KAVACHH on identical goods - Similarity: Phonetically identical, visually near-identical; same goods, same retail channel - Get-up: Same colour scheme and shield device on the pack (Photos 3 to 7) - Delay: First sale seen 02.08.2026; notice not yet sent; urgency supportable if filed promptly - Causes of action: Infringement under s.29 and passing off; both pleaded - Deliverable: Plaint, interim application and evidence index in Word Prompt to try (Infringement assessment): Read our client's registrations and use evidence and the photographs of the competing product. Compare the marks and the get-up, set out the case for infringement and passing off, grade the interim injunction factors with the evidence for each, and tell me whether to send a notice or file for urgent interim relief. Then draft whichever you recommend. #### IP diligence and the chain of ownership Problem: An investor is paying for the target's brand, software and content, and the diligence has to show the target actually owns them. The marks may be registered in a founder's name, the software may have been written by contractors with no assignment, and the content may have been licensed for a period that has run out. Under the Copyright Act the author is the first owner unless an exception applies, an assignment must be in writing, and an assignment that does not state its period or territory is read as five years and India. Each of those can mean the target owns less than it thinks. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same questions of every agreement, certificate and assignment in the data room: what IP it covers, who owns it, whether the assignment is in writing, its period and territory, and whether it is recorded. Each answer comes back as a cited cell. Justis then lists the ownership gaps, ranked by what they mean for the deal, and drafts the confirmatory assignments and the conditions precedent to close them. Example output: - Read: 86 documents: registrations, employment and consultancy agreements, licences - Marks: 4 of 11 registered in the founder's name; assignment to the company not recorded - Software: Core modules written by 3 contractors; consultancy agreements have no IP assignment clause - Content: Photo library assigned with no period stated: treated as 5 years, expired in 2025 - Employees: Employment agreements assign work made in the course of employment; clean - Deliverable: IP grid in Excel, issues memo and draft confirmatory assignments in Word Prompt to try (IP diligence): Review every agreement, certificate and assignment in this data room for intellectual property. For each, tell me what IP it covers, who owns it, whether any assignment is in writing, its period and territory, and whether it is recorded, citing the clause and page. Then list the ownership gaps ranked by risk and draft the confirmatory assignments. #### Licences and assignments against your playbook Problem: A brand licence, a technology licence and a content licence cross the desk in the same week, each on the other side's paper. The points that matter repeat: scope and exclusivity, quality control, sublicensing, royalty and audit, improvements, termination and what happens to stock on termination. Quality control is not a formality in a trade mark licence: a licence with no control over the goods can weaken the mark itself. Recording a registered user or an assignment with the registry is a separate step that is easily forgotten. How Justis handles it: Write your positions down once as a playbook, licensor side and licensee side. Justis reads each licence against it, flags every departure, and proposes the change as a tracked edit, with a short note on why. It also checks what the statute asks of the document, such as writing and the terms of an assignment under the Copyright Act, and lists the filings to make with the registry after signing. Example output: - Licence: Exclusive brand licence for India, 5 years, from a foreign licensor - Quality control: No inspection or approval rights for the licensor; playbook requires both - Sublicensing: Permitted without consent; flagged - Royalty: 6% of net sales; no audit right for the licensor - Termination: No sell-off period for stock; playbook allows 90 days - Deliverable: Tracked-changes licence, issues list and post-signing filing list in Word Prompt to try (Review the licence): We act for the licensor. Review this brand licence against our licensor playbook. Flag every departure on scope, exclusivity, quality control, sublicensing, royalty and audit, improvements and termination, propose each change as a tracked edit with a short reason, and list what needs recording with the registry after signing. Questions: - Q: Does it compare marks the way the courts do? A: It compares marks as a whole, by appearance, sound and idea, together with the goods, the trade channels and the likely purchaser, rather than letter by letter. It gives a view on each citation with the reasons, and says plainly when a citation will be hard to overcome. - Q: Can it read patent specifications and prior art? A: Yes. It reads specifications, claims and cited documents in PDF, including scans, and maps each claim element against each citation with the column, paragraph or figure it relies on. - Q: Does it cover copyright and designs? A: It works under the Copyright Act 1957 and the Designs Act 2000 as well as the Trade Marks Act 1999 and the Patents Act 1970, and researches the case law under each. - Q: Can it draft the plaint for an infringement suit? A: Yes. It drafts the plaint, the interim application and the evidence index from the documents in the project, with the authorities linked. You settle, sign and file it. - Q: Is client IP material safe? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What should an IP lawyer try first? A: An examination report you have already answered. Upload it with the application and the cited marks, ask for a ground-by-ground reply with the authority for each, and compare it with the reply you filed. It is the quickest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How employment lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/employment Employment work since 21 November 2025 means reading old paper against new law. The four labour codes replaced twenty-nine statutes, but the offer letters, handbooks and standing orders your clients rely on were written for the old ones. Add the state shops and establishments rules, the POSH Act and a termination file assembled in a hurry, and the question is rarely what the law says. It is whether this client's documents agree with it, and with each other. Justis reads the documents with you. Upload the contracts, the policies or the disciplinary file to a project and it reads every page, scans included, checks each clause against the code and the state rules that apply, and drafts in your style. Every conclusion carries the clause, the page or the section it rests on, and anything it could not confirm, such as a state rule that has not been notified, is marked rather than assumed. Try this first: Take a client whose contracts you already know. Upload twenty of them to a project and run a tabular review for notice period, non-compete, wage structure and termination grounds. Check five rows against the contracts yourself. That tells you in twenty minutes how far to trust the grid on a set of four hundred. #### Auditing a contract set against the labour codes Problem: A client has four hundred employment contracts on three templates written over ten years. Since the codes came into force, the wage definition drives gratuity, social security contributions and retrenchment cost, and a basic pay set at thirty per cent of CTC now has consequences. Nobody knows which contracts still carry a post-exit non-compete or a notice period below what the rules allow. Reading them one by one takes a team a fortnight, and the summary that comes out is a spreadsheet nobody can check because it has no page references. How Justis handles it: Upload the contracts to a project and tabular review asks the same questions of every one: wage components and whether allowances cross the fifty per cent line in the Code on Wages, notice period, non-compete and non-solicit, fixed-term status, and termination grounds. Each cell cites the clause and page it came from. Justis then groups the contracts by risk, explains each flag against the provision behind it, and drafts the replacement clauses, so the client gets both the finding and the fix. The grid exports to Excel. Example output: - Contracts read: 412 contracts on 3 templates, 37 scanned - Wage structure: 288 contracts where allowances exceed 50% of remuneration, so the excess counts as wages under the Code on Wages - Non-compete: 61 contracts with a post-exit non-compete, void after employment under s.27 Contract Act - Fixed-term staff: 44 fixed-term contracts silent on pro rata gratuity after one year under the Code on Social Security - Deliverables: Grid in Excel with a cited cell for each answer, and replacement clauses in Word Prompt to try (Contract audit): Run a tabular review of every employment contract in this project. For each, extract the wage components, notice period, non-compete, non-solicit, fixed-term status and termination grounds, flag anything inconsistent with the labour codes or the state rules, and cite the clause and page for every answer. #### Rewriting the handbook for the codes Problem: The handbook still cites the Industrial Disputes Act, the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Maternity Benefit Act, all now subsumed in the codes. The leave policy, the grievance procedure and the misconduct list were written for the old law, and the client operates in five states with different shops and establishments rules on working hours, leave and women working at night. Updating it means knowing which parts changed in substance and which only changed their citation, and getting the state variations right. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the handbook and every policy together, and marks each provision as unchanged, recited to the new code, or changed in substance. It checks the state variations for each location you name and says where a state has not notified its rules under a code. Your positions go into a playbook once, such as what a POSH policy must say or how you handle notice pay, and every policy that comes in is read against them. The revised handbook comes back as tracked changes in Word. Example output: - Documents read: Handbook of 64 pages and 11 standalone policies - Changed in substance: Grievance procedure: a Grievance Redressal Committee is required under the Industrial Relations Code for 20 or more workers - Citation only: Maternity leave of 26 weeks, now under the Code on Social Security - State variation: Night shifts for women in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu: consent and safeguards differ, both listed - Deliverable: Revised handbook in Word with tracked changes and a table of what changed and why Prompt to try (Handbook update): Read this handbook and the policies in the project. Mark each provision as unchanged, needing only a new citation to the labour codes, or changed in substance, check the state rules for Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, and redraft the handbook as tracked changes. #### Running a POSH inquiry to the timetable Problem: A complaint reaches the Internal Committee, and the POSH Act sets the clock: a complaint within three months of the incident, extendable by three more, an inquiry completed within ninety days, the report within ten days of completion, and the employer's action within sixty days of the report. Miss a step and the outcome is challenged on process, whatever the merits. The committee members are not lawyers, the witness statements arrive as WhatsApp screenshots and handwritten notes, and the report has to be reasoned on the evidence. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the complaint, the reply and the evidence, including scans and images, and builds the timetable from the date of the complaint with every statutory step. It checks the committee's constitution under section 4, with the presiding officer and the external member. It prepares the notices, the questions for each witness, and a draft report that sets each allegation against the evidence for and against it with the page. The findings stay with the committee: Justis organises the record they decide on. Example output: - Complaint: Received Tuesday 4 August 2026; incident of 20 June 2026, within three months under s.9 - Committee: Presiding officer and external member in place; one member's term expired, flagged for reconstitution - Inquiry to finish: Within 90 days under s.11(4): by Monday 2 November 2026 - After the report: Report within 10 days of completion; employer acts within 60 days of receiving it under s.13 - Deliverables: Notices, witness questions and a draft report with each allegation tied to the evidence Prompt to try (POSH timetable): Read the complaint, the reply and the evidence in this project. Check the Internal Committee's constitution under the POSH Act, build the inquiry timetable from the date of the complaint with every statutory step, and prepare the witness questions and a draft report structure tied to the evidence. #### Checking the disciplinary file before the order Problem: A dismissal for misconduct is usually lost on process. The chargesheet was vague, the documents relied on were never given to the employee, the enquiry report was not shared before the penalty, or the misconduct is not one the certified standing orders list. By the time the file reaches the lawyer, the order is drafted and management wants it issued the same week. How Justis handles it: Upload the file. Justis lays out every step in sequence, from complaint to show cause, reply, chargesheet, enquiry, findings and penalty, each with the document behind it, and checks it against the standing orders and the principles of natural justice. It marks the gaps a tribunal would find, says which can still be cured before the order issues, and drafts the curing step, such as the notice sharing the enquiry report and inviting a reply on penalty. Example output: - File read: 23 documents, 3 sets of handwritten enquiry minutes read by OCR - Sequence: 12 steps from complaint of 03.02.2026 to the draft order - Gap: Enquiry findings not shared with the employee before the penalty - Gap: Chargesheet cites 'gross misconduct' without the clause of the standing orders - Curable now: Share the report and invite a reply on penalty; draft notice ready in Word Prompt to try (Process check): Lay out every step of this disciplinary file in date order with the document behind each. Check it against the certified standing orders and natural justice, mark every gap a tribunal would find, and tell me which gaps can still be cured before the termination order issues. #### Pricing and papering an exit or a retrenchment Problem: The client wants to let twelve people go by the end of the month and asks what it costs and what could go wrong. The answer depends on who is a worker under the Industrial Relations Code, how long each has served, what counts as wages, the size of the establishment and whether prior permission is needed. The full and final settlement then has to be paid within two working days under the Code on Wages, and the settlement agreement has to release the right claims without overreaching. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the appointment letters, salary records and attendance, sorts each person as a worker or not, and computes the cost line by line: notice pay, retrenchment compensation, the re-skilling fund contribution, gratuity and leave encashment, each with the provision behind it. It checks the retrenchment conditions, including notice to the appropriate government and last come, first go, drafts the notices and the settlement agreements, and exports the cost table to Excel. Example output: - Employee: Technician, a worker under the IR Code; 6 years 8 months' service; monthly wages ₹39,000 - Notice pay: One month: ₹39,000 - Retrenchment compensation: 15 days' pay for 7 years, part year over six months counted: ₹1,57,500 - Re-skilling fund: 15 days' last drawn wages paid to the fund: ₹22,500 - Gratuity: 15 days' wages for 7 years under the Code on Social Security: ₹1,57,500 - Timing: Terminated Wednesday 9 September 2026; wages due by Friday 11 September under the Code on Wages Prompt to try (Exit cost): From the appointment letters and salary records in this project, tell me who is a worker under the Industrial Relations Code, compute the cost of retrenching each person line by line with the provision for each, say whether prior permission is needed, and draft the notices. #### A senior employee leaves for a competitor Problem: The head of sales resigns and joins a competitor a week later. The client wants an injunction on the non-compete, and the question is what will actually hold. A restraint after employment is void under section 27 of the Contract Act, but confidentiality, non-solicitation and garden leave during the notice period are different questions. The evidence that matters is on the laptop and in the email logs, and the client has sent a folder of four hundred exported files. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the contract, the policies the employee signed and the exit evidence, and separates the covenants that hold from the ones that will not. It searches the case law on each and quotes the paragraph, with a link to the judgment. It builds the evidence table, such as what was downloaded and when, drafts the cease and desist notice for you to send, and drafts the suit and the interim application if the client wants to go to court. Example output: - Non-compete: Clause 14: 24 months after exit; unenforceable under s.27 Contract Act - Non-solicit: Clause 15: customers and staff for 12 months; arguable, with authorities - Confidentiality: Clause 12: enforceable, no time limit on trade secrets - Evidence: Customer list exported on the last working day, from the access log at p. 38 - Deliverables: Cease and desist notice, and a draft interim application on clauses 12 and 15 Prompt to try (Covenant strategy): Read the employment contract, the signed policies and the exit evidence. Tell me which restrictive covenants are enforceable, with authority for each, set out the evidence of any breach with the page, and draft a cease and desist notice on the covenants that hold. #### Answering a claim before the conciliation officer or tribunal Problem: A dismissed worker raises an industrial dispute claiming reinstatement with back wages. The claim statement is long on grievance and short on dates, and the client's file is spread across HR, payroll and the plant. The reply has to take every averment, raise the preliminary objections, such as whether the claimant is a worker at all, and build the record the employer will lead evidence on. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the claim statement against the employer's file and builds a paragraph-wise reply table: admitted, denied or not within knowledge, with the document supporting each. It tests the preliminary objections on the record, including the claimant's duties and wages for the worker question. It drafts the reply in your format with the list of documents, and prepares the list of dates the tribunal will want. Example output: - Claim read: 31 paragraphs, 9 annexures, 2 in Hindi - Paragraph-wise reply: Admitted 7, denied 19, not within knowledge 5 - Preliminary objection: Claimant supervised a team and drew ₹42,000 a month, above the IR Code's ₹18,000 line for supervisors - Record: Appointment letter, three warning letters, enquiry file, F&F receipt - Deliverable: Reply in Word with list of dates and list of documents Prompt to try (Reply to claim): Read the claim statement and the employer's documents in this project. Prepare a paragraph-wise reply table with the supporting document for each, test whether the claimant is a worker under the Industrial Relations Code, and draft the reply with a list of dates. Questions: - Q: Does it work under the new labour codes or the old Acts? A: Under the codes in force from 21 November 2025: the Code on Wages, the Industrial Relations Code, the Code on Social Security and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code. Where a judgment or a document relies on an old Act, it names the provision of the code that replaced it. - Q: How does it handle state rules and standing orders? A: It reads the state rules and the certified standing orders you add to the project and searches the published ones, and applies them for each location you name. Where a state has not notified its rules, it says so rather than assuming the central position. - Q: Can it read handwritten enquiry minutes and chat screenshots? A: Yes. Scans, photographs and screenshots are read with OCR, including Hindi, and it tells you when it is reading one so you know transcription errors are possible. Where an entry is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: Will it tell the client whether to dismiss someone? A: No. It sets out what the record supports, where the process has gaps and what each option costs. The advice to the client and the decision stay with you. - Q: Can it compute gratuity and retrenchment cost? A: Yes. It reads the service and salary records and computes each line with the provision it rests on and the working shown, so you can check the arithmetic and the wage definition it used. - Q: What should an employment lawyer try first? A: A tabular review of a contract set you already know. Ask for notice, non-compete, wage structure and termination grounds across twenty contracts, check a few rows, then run it on the rest. ### How healthcare legal teams use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/healthcare Hospital legal work is a reading problem. A negligence notice arrives and the answer is in a case sheet of three hundred handwritten pages. An inspection is due and the licences for six units sit in six folders with six renewal dates. A trial site agreement, a consultant's contract and a device supply agreement all wait on the same two people, and each one answers to a different regulator. Justis reads the record with you. Upload the file to a project and it reads every page, handwritten notes and scans included, sets the facts against the rule that applies, and drafts the reply or the redline. Every conclusion carries the document and page it came from, and where an entry is illegible or a point of law is unsettled, it says so rather than filling the gap. Try this first: Take a closed negligence matter whose outcome you know. Upload the case sheet, the consent forms and the notice, and ask which allegations the record supports, with the page for each. Compare the answer with how the matter actually went. That tells you in half an hour how far to trust it on the next one. #### A negligence notice, read against the case sheet Problem: A legal notice or a consumer complaint alleges a sequence: delayed diagnosis, no consent, a missed referral, a discharge too early. The answer is in the case sheet, the nursing notes, the anaesthesia record and the discharge summary, much of it handwritten, and the treating team remembers it differently from how it was written. Under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 the written version is due within thirty days of service, extendable by no more than fifteen, so there is little time to read the record twice. How Justis handles it: Upload the complaint and the medical record. Justis reads both, runs OCR on the handwritten pages and tells you when it is doing so, then sets each allegation against what the record shows, with the page on each side. It marks entries that are undated, overwritten or missing, which matter as much as what the record says, checks the forum's pecuniary jurisdiction and the limitation period, and drafts the written version in your format. Example output: - Record read: Case sheet of 286 pages, 212 handwritten, read by OCR - Allegation holds: No fresh consent for the second procedure on 06.02.2026; only the first consent is on file (p. 41) - Allegation fails: Referral to cardiology within 36 hours, recorded in the nursing notes at p. 118 - Record risk: Two progress notes undated and one overwritten, pp. 131 and 134 - Forum and time: Served 02.09.2026: written version due 02.10.2026, outer limit 17.10.2026 - Deliverable: Draft written version in Word with a list of dates Prompt to try (Allegations against the record): Read the complaint and the full medical record in this project. For each allegation, say whether the record supports it, with the page on each side, list any undated, overwritten or missing entries, and compute the deadline for the written version from service on 2 September 2026. #### Auditing consent forms across departments Problem: Each department has its own consent forms, some printed years ago, some translated by whoever was available. Consent is specific to the procedure consented to, and a form that says 'any further procedure the doctor considers necessary' does not protect the hospital when the further procedure is the one in dispute. Nobody has read all of them side by side, and a gap is usually found by the claimant's lawyer first. How Justis handles it: Tabular review reads every consent form in one pass and asks the same questions of each: the procedure named, risks and alternatives set out, language versions, the witness line, and blanket clauses. Each cell cites the page. Justis then drafts a revised template for each department, in English and Hindi where you need both, and a short note for the clinical teams on what changed and why. Example output: - Forms read: 38 consent forms across 11 departments, 14 scanned - Blanket clause: 17 forms authorise 'any further procedure', flagged for procedure-specific wording - Risks and alternatives: 9 forms list neither - Language: Hindi version of the anaesthesia form omits two risks listed in English - Deliverables: Grid in Excel with a cited cell for each answer, and revised templates in Word Prompt to try (Consent audit): Run a tabular review of every consent form in this project. For each, extract the procedure named, the risks and alternatives disclosed, the language versions and any blanket authorisation, compare the Hindi and English versions, and flag every form that would not support procedure-specific consent. #### The licence register for every unit Problem: A hospital runs on registrations and clearances: the clinical establishment registration under the state Act, biomedical waste authorisation, the fire NOC, AERB licences for imaging, PC-PNDT registration, drug licences for the pharmacy and the blood centre licence. Each has its own renewal date and its own conditions. They are scanned into different folders by different units, and the register that tracks them is a spreadsheet last updated before the new wing opened. How Justis handles it: Upload the licences and tabular review returns a register: the licence, the unit, the authority, the expiry date and the conditions attached, with the document and page behind each row. Justis flags what has lapsed or will lapse within the window you choose, lists the conditions a unit may not be meeting, and drafts the renewal cover letters for your team to file. Example output: - Documents read: 54 licences and clearances across 4 units - Lapsed: Fire NOC for the main block, expired 12.02.2026 - Due within 90 days: AERB licence for the CT unit and the biomedical waste authorisation - Condition at risk: PC-PNDT registration lists two machines; the imaging inventory shows three - Deliverables: Licence register in Excel and renewal cover letters in Word Prompt to try (Licence register): Read every licence and registration in this project and build a register by unit: licence, issuing authority, expiry date and attached conditions, with the page for each. Flag anything lapsed or expiring in the next 90 days and any condition the unit may not be meeting. #### Consultant and doctor engagement agreements Problem: Visiting consultants are engaged on dozens of agreements: fixed retainers, fee-for-service, revenue shares. A share tied to referred diagnostics looks like a commission for referrals, which the professional conduct regulations for doctors prohibit, and an uncapped indemnity for clinical acts puts the hospital's balance sheet behind a doctor it does not employ. The agreements were negotiated one at a time, and nobody knows how many carry which terms. How Justis handles it: Your positions go into a playbook once: how compensation may be structured, who indemnifies whom and up to what cap, what insurance the doctor carries, and how patient data may be used. Every agreement is read against it, the offending clause is quoted back, and your position is already drafted. Across the whole set, tabular review shows which agreements carry which terms, and the redlines arrive as tracked changes in Word. Example output: - Agreements read: 126 consultant agreements on 5 templates - Referral-linked pay: 8 agreements pay a share of revenue from referred imaging, flagged under the professional conduct regulations - Indemnity: 31 agreements have the hospital indemnifying clinical acts without a cap - Insurance: 19 agreements silent on professional indemnity cover - Deliverables: Grid in Excel, and tracked-change redlines in Word against your playbook Prompt to try (Playbook review): Review every consultant agreement in this project against our playbook. Flag compensation linked to referrals, one-sided or uncapped indemnities, missing professional indemnity cover and patient data terms, quote each clause with its page, and redline to our positions as tracked changes. #### Clinical trial agreements at the site Problem: A sponsor sends a clinical trial agreement drafted for another jurisdiction. The New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019 require free medical management for trial-related injury and compensation for injury or death as the Central Licensing Authority determines, and the draft caps the sponsor's liability, routes compensation through the site's insurance and says nothing about the ethics committee's registration. The site signs as a party, and its liability for a sponsor's obligations is the question the legal team is asked to answer by Friday. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the agreement, the protocol synopsis, the insurance certificate and the ethics committee approval together, and checks each obligation against the Rules: who pays for medical management and compensation, the ethics committee's registration, trial registration before enrolment, and the site's record retention duties. It marks the clauses that shift a sponsor obligation to the site, drafts the redline and a short note for the investigator on what the site is agreeing to. Example output: - Documents read: Agreement of 48 pages, protocol synopsis, insurance certificate, EC approval - Compensation: Clause 11 caps sponsor liability at the budget; the Rules leave the amount to the licensing authority - Medical management: Clause 11.3 routes costs through the site's insurance; flagged as a sponsor obligation - Ethics committee: Registration number not in the approval letter; asked for before signing - Deliverables: Redline in Word and a one-page note for the principal investigator Prompt to try (Trial agreement review): Read the clinical trial agreement, the protocol synopsis, the insurance certificate and the ethics committee approval. Check each obligation against the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019, mark every clause that shifts a sponsor obligation to the site, and redline it. #### Supply agreements for drugs and devices Problem: Procurement signs supply agreements for implants, consumables and equipment on the vendor's paper. Under the Medical Devices Rules 2017 every class of device now needs a licence to import or manufacture, and drugs move only through licensed wholesalers under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. A vendor without the right licence leaves the hospital holding stock it should not have bought. The agreements also rarely say who manages a recall, who bears the cost, or what happens to traceability records for implants. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the agreement with the vendor's licences and checks that the licence covers the product, its class and the premises, and is current. It tests the agreement against your procurement playbook on recall, warranty, traceability, indemnity and liability caps. It lists what to ask the vendor for before signing and drafts the redline in Word. Example output: - Product: Orthopaedic implants, Class C devices, imported - Licence: Vendor's import licence covers the knee system but not the new hip range listed in Schedule 2 - Recall: Agreement silent on recall cost and notification - Traceability: No obligation to supply lot and serial numbers for each implant - Deliverables: List of documents to request from the vendor, and a redline in Word Prompt to try (Supply agreement check): Read this supply agreement and the vendor's licences. Check that each product listed is covered by a current licence under the Medical Devices Rules 2017 or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for its class, test the agreement against our playbook on recall, traceability and indemnity, and redline it. #### A patient data breach Problem: The IT team reports unauthorised access to the lab system. CERT-In's 2022 directions require the incident to be reported within six hours of noticing it, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and the Rules 2025 add intimation to the Data Protection Board and to each affected patient as their obligations come into force. The facts arrive in pieces: a log export, a vendor's email, a count of records that changes every hour. Someone has to keep the timeline straight while it is still moving. How Justis handles it: Justis builds the incident timeline from the documents as they land, marks the rule each step answers to and the time it was due, and says which obligations apply today and which apply once the DPDP Rules take effect. It reads the vendor contract for notification and indemnity terms, drafts the reports and the patient notice for your team to review and send, and keeps the record of what was known when. Example output: - Detected: Unauthorised access noticed 12.01.2026 at 09:40, from the SOC ticket - CERT-In: Report due within six hours; draft ready, facts still unconfirmed marked - Scope: 2,140 patient records, including lab results, from the log export - Vendor: Lab software contract: vendor must notify within 24 hours; notified on day 3, clause 9.2 - Deliverables: Incident timeline, draft CERT-In report, draft patient notice, note on DPDP duties Prompt to try (Breach timeline): Build the incident timeline from the documents in this project, with the rule each step answers to and when it was due. Say which reporting obligations apply now under CERT-In's directions and the DPDP Act, read the vendor contract for notification terms, and draft the reports for our review. Questions: - Q: Can it give a medical opinion on the standard of care? A: No. It reads what the record says and sets it against the allegation, with the page on each side. Whether the care met the standard is for the clinicians and the expert you instruct, and the legal view is yours. - Q: Which healthcare laws does it work with? A: It searches the Acts, rules and regulator documents alongside the case law: the Clinical Establishments Act and the state Acts, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019, the Medical Devices Rules 2017, the PC-PNDT Act, the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the DPDP Act 2023. Each conclusion links to the provision it rests on. - Q: Does it know which DPDP obligations apply today? A: It works from the DPDP Rules 2025 and their phased commencement, and says which duties apply on the date you ask and which apply later. Where a point is unsettled, it says so rather than asserting a position. - Q: Can it compare the Hindi and English versions of a form? A: Yes. It reads both, including scans, and lists every point where the two differ, with the page for each. - Q: Will it send the breach report or the reply for us? A: No. It drafts the report, the notice or the reply. Reviewing, signing and sending stay with your team. - Q: What should a healthcare legal team try first? A: A closed negligence matter whose outcome you know. Upload the record and the notice, ask which allegations the record supports with a page for each, and compare the answer with how the matter went. ### How banking and finance lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/banking-finance Banking work turns on documents signed years before anyone needed them. When the account turns NPA, the questions are all about paper: whether the charge was registered in time, whether the guarantee was authorised by the board, whether the balance sheet acknowledged the debt, whether the demand notice went to every guarantor. The file that answers them runs to two thousand pages and was put together by three different branches. Justis reads the file with you. Upload the loan file to a project and it reads every document, scans included, traces each security from creation to registration, and walks the default through SARFAESI, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and the IBC with the time limit for each step. Every conclusion carries the document and page it came from, and a gap is marked as a gap, not papered over. Try this first: Take a loan file you have already been through. Upload it to a project and run a tabular review asking, for each document, what security it creates and how it was perfected. Check the rows against your own note. That tells you in twenty minutes how far to trust it on a file you have not seen. #### Is every security actually perfected? Problem: The credit note says the facility is secured by a mortgage, a hypothecation, a share pledge and two guarantees. Whether it is depends on the paper: a charge filed with the Registrar within the time the Companies Act allows, the security interest registered with CERSAI, the pledge recorded with the depository, the mortgage deed stamped under the state stamp Act, the board resolution behind the corporate guarantee. A single defect is found at the worst moment, when the borrower's lawyer or the resolution professional reads the file. How Justis handles it: Upload the loan file and tabular review asks the same questions of every document: what security it creates, over what, the date of creation, whether the charge and the CERSAI filing were made in time, and whether the stamp duty and authorisations are on file. Each cell cites the page. Justis lists every gap with what would cure it, if anything still can, and exports the grid to Excel for the credit team. Example output: - File read: 41 documents, 1,960 pages, 12 scanned - Charge filing: Assignment of project contracts: charge filed 52 days after creation, within the extended period on additional fees - Share pledge: Pledge agreement signed; no depository confirmation of the pledge on file - Corporate guarantee: No board resolution; guarantee exceeds the s.186 limit, so a special resolution was needed - Deliverables: Security grid in Excel with a cited cell for each answer, and a cure list in Word Prompt to try (Perfection check): Run a tabular review of the loan file in this project. For each document, extract the security created, the asset, the date of creation, the charge filing and CERSAI registration, stamp duty and authorisations, with the page for each, and list every gap in perfection with what would cure it. #### Negotiating the facility agreement Problem: The borrower's counsel returns the facility agreement with two hundred comments. Some are fine, some quietly narrow the events of default, and a few move the bank off positions its credit policy does not allow, such as cross-default thresholds, the material adverse change clause, or penal charges that the RBI's directions no longer let a bank add to the interest rate. The term sheet, the sanction letter and the draft each say something slightly different, and the credit team wants to know which differences matter by the end of the day. How Justis handles it: Your bank's positions go into a playbook once. Justis reads the marked-up draft against the playbook and the sanction letter, and sorts every comment into accept, counter or reject, with the reason and the fallback drafted. It lists where the draft departs from the sanction terms, checks the penal charge and interest reset clauses against the RBI directions in force, and returns the counter-draft as tracked changes in Word. Example output: - Comments read: 214 comments on a ₹48 crore term loan agreement - Sorted: Accept 131, counter 62, reject 21, each with the playbook position - Departs from sanction: Security cover reduced from 1.5x to 1.25x in clause 8.2 - Penal charges: Borrower's wording capitalises penal charges into interest; replaced to meet the RBI directions - Deliverables: Issues list for the credit team and a counter-draft with tracked changes Prompt to try (Mark-up response): Read the borrower's mark-up of the facility agreement against our playbook and the sanction letter. Sort every comment into accept, counter or reject with the reason, list every departure from the sanction terms, check the penal charge clauses against current RBI directions, and return a counter-draft as tracked changes. #### Can the guarantors be held? Problem: The borrower is heading for insolvency and the recovery will come from the guarantors. A guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the principal debtor's under section 128 of the Contract Act, but it can be discharged by a variation of the contract made without the guarantor's consent, and a corporate guarantee given without the right resolution is open to challenge. The file has three restructurings, two top-ups and a change of promoter, and nobody has checked which of them each guarantor signed. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every guarantee and every later amendment, and builds a table of who consented to what. It flags variations a guarantor did not sign, checks whether each guarantee is continuing, and tests the corporate guarantees against sections 185 and 186 of the Companies Act and the resolutions on file. It sets out the route against each guarantor, including an application against a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor under Part III of the IBC, and drafts the invocation notices for you to send. Example output: - Guarantees: 2 personal, 1 corporate; all expressed as continuing - Variations: 2024 restructuring signed by both personal guarantors; 2025 top-up signed by only one - Corporate guarantee: Special resolution under s.186 on file, dated before execution - Route: Invoke all three; personal guarantors also answerable under Part III, IBC - Deliverables: Consent table with pages, and draft invocation notices Prompt to try (Guarantor check): Read every guarantee and every amendment, restructuring and top-up in this loan file. Build a table of which guarantor consented to which change, flag any variation that could discharge a guarantor, check the corporate guarantee's authorisation under the Companies Act, and draft the invocation notices. #### SARFAESI: from demand notice to possession Problem: SARFAESI is fast only when every step is right. The demand notice under section 13(2) must go to the borrower and every guarantor, state the amount and the secured assets, and give sixty days. A representation must be answered within fifteen days under section 13(3A). A slip at any step is the first ground in the borrower's application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The branch sends the file with the notice already issued and asks for possession next week. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice, the proof of service, any representation and the bank's reply, and checks each step against SARFAESI and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, with the date each was due and the date it happened. It says whether the bank can take possession under section 13(4) now, drafts the possession notice and the section 14 application if the borrower resists, and sets out the sale timetable. Example output: - NPA: Account classified NPA on 31.03.2026 - Demand notice: s.13(2) notice dated Monday 15 June 2026; sixty days end Friday 14 August 2026 - Representation: Received Wednesday 1 July; reply due by Thursday 16 July under s.13(3A); replied on 14 July - Service gap: No proof of service on the second guarantor; re-serve before acting against her property - Possession: s.13(4) possession on Friday 21 August 2026; borrower's s.17 window of 45 days ends Monday 5 October Prompt to try (SARFAESI check): Read the demand notice, the proof of service, the representation and our reply in this project. Check each step against SARFAESI and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules with the date due and the date done, tell me whether we can take possession under section 13(4) now, and draft the possession notice. #### A section 7 petition against the corporate borrower Problem: The bank wants to start insolvency. The default must be at least ₹1 crore, the petition must be within three years of default unless the debt has been acknowledged, and the record of default and the financial contracts have to be in order. Limitation is where most contested petitions are argued. The acknowledgments are scattered across balance sheets, restructuring letters and one-time settlement proposals, some signed and some not. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the account statement, the loan documents, the balance sheets and the correspondence, fixes the date of default, and lists every document that may acknowledge the debt under section 18 of the Limitation Act, with who signed it and when. It computes the limitation with each acknowledgment shown, checks the record of default from the information utility, and drafts the petition in Form 1 with its annexures and the list of dates. Example output: - Default: ₹36.4 crore; date of default 31.07.2023 from the statement of account - Plain three years: Ends 31.07.2026, already passed - Acknowledgment: FY24 balance sheet signed 15.05.2024 records the loan as payable to the bank (p. 88) - Fresh period: Runs to 15.05.2027 from the signed acknowledgment - Deliverables: Limitation note with the working, and a draft Form 1 petition with annexures Prompt to try (Section 7 petition): From the statement of account, the loan documents, the balance sheets and the correspondence, fix the date of default, list every document that may acknowledge the debt under section 18 of the Limitation Act, compute the limitation for a section 7 IBC petition, and draft the petition. #### An original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal Problem: Where SARFAESI does not fit, such as unsecured exposure or a shortfall after sale, the bank files an original application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act for a debt of ₹20 lakh or more. The application has to prove the debt from the documents, account for every credit and the interest, and pray for the right relief against each defendant. The statement of account runs to eight hundred lines and the interest was reset four times. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the loan documents and the statement of account, reconciles the claim, and shows the principal, interest and charges separately with the rate that applied in each period. It flags entries the defendants will dispute, such as charges not provided for in the agreement. It drafts the application with the list of dates, the documents relied on and the prayer against each defendant, and exports the reconciliation to Excel. Example output: - Statement read: 812 entries from 2019 to 2026, in Excel - Claim: Principal ₹3.12 crore, interest ₹1.07 crore, charges ₹6.4 lakh - Interest: Four resets, each tied to the rate letter on file - Likely dispute: ₹2.1 lakh of processing charges debited in 2024 with no clause in the agreement - Deliverables: Draft original application in Word, and the reconciliation in Excel Prompt to try (Recovery application): Read the loan documents and the statement of account. Reconcile the amount due into principal, interest and charges with the rate for each period, flag any debit not supported by the agreement, and draft an original application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act against the borrower and the guarantors. #### Answering a customer complaint before the Ombudsman Problem: A customer complains to the RBI Ombudsman under the Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 about a disputed debit, a delayed release of title deeds or a charge they say was never disclosed. The Ombudsman decides largely on the bank's reply and the documents it furnishes, and can award compensation of up to ₹20 lakh for consequential loss. The branch's file is a string of emails and a call log, and the reply is due before anyone has read the account opening form. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the complaint, the customer's documents and the branch file, sets each grievance against what the record shows, and checks the bank's conduct against the RBI directions that apply, such as the timeline for returning property documents after closure. It says where the bank is exposed and where it is not, and drafts the reply with the documents to furnish, for the nodal officer to review and submit. Example output: - Complaint: Title deeds returned 74 days after the loan closed - Record: Closure on 12.05.2026 from the statement; deeds dispatched 25.07.2026 from the courier log - Exposure: Delay beyond the RBI's timeline for releasing property documents; daily compensation payable - Not supported: Allegation of an undisclosed foreclosure charge: disclosed in the sanction letter, p. 3 - Deliverable: Draft reply with the documents to furnish, in Word Prompt to try (Ombudsman reply): Read the complaint, the customer's documents and the branch file. Set each grievance against the record with the page, check the bank's conduct against the RBI directions that apply, say where we are exposed, and draft the reply to the Ombudsman with the documents to furnish. Questions: - Q: Can it compute limitation on acknowledgments of debt? A: Yes. It lists every document that may acknowledge the debt, with who signed it and when, and computes the period with each one shown, so you can check the working and decide which acknowledgments you rely on. - Q: Does it check stamp duty on security documents? A: It reads the stamp paper or e-stamp certificate on each document and compares it with the state stamp Act for the kind of instrument, and marks anything that looks short. Where the rate depends on facts it cannot see, it says so. - Q: Can it reconcile a statement of account? A: Yes. It reads the statement in Excel or PDF, splits the claim into principal, interest and charges with the rate for each period, and flags debits the agreement does not support. The reconciliation exports to Excel. - Q: Will it file a petition or check a registry for us? A: No. It does not file anything or connect to the Registrar, CERSAI, a depository or a tribunal. It reads what you upload and drafts; filing and searches stay with you. - Q: Can it read old scanned security documents? A: Yes. Scanned deeds and letters are read with OCR, including Hindi, and it tells you when it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where a page is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: What should a banking lawyer try first? A: A perfection check on a loan file you already know. Upload it, ask what security each document creates and how it was perfected, and compare the grid with your own note. ### How insurance lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/insurance Insurance work rarely turns on a big question of law. It turns on the wording of one clause, one answer in a proposal form signed years ago, and a date that decides whether the insurer can still question the policy at all. The facts are spread across a policy schedule, three endorsements, a surveyor's report, hospital records and a repudiation letter, and the answer is in how they read together. Justis reads the whole file with you, whichever side you act for. You upload the claim once, and it reads every page, scans included, then sets each ground the insurer relies on against the wording, the dates, the Insurance Act 1938 and IRDAI's rules. Every fact carries the document and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not guessed. Try this first: Take a repudiated claim you have already advised on. Upload the policy, the proposal form and the repudiation letter to a project and ask for each ground tested against the wording and the dates, with a source for every point. Compare it with your own opinion. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it on a file you have not read. #### Death claims repudiated for non-disclosure Problem: A death claim is repudiated for suppression of a medical history in the proposal form. Whether that holds depends first on dates: under section 45 of the Insurance Act, a life policy cannot be called in question on any ground after three years from the date of the policy, the date risk commenced, the date of revival or the date of a rider, whichever is later. Within those three years the insurer can still repudiate, but it has to show the fact was material to the expectancy of life, that it was suppressed or misstated, and it has to communicate the grounds in writing. The answer usually sits in the medical records: when the condition was first diagnosed, and whether the proposer could have known of it when the form was signed. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the policy, the proposal form, the medical records, the investigation report and the repudiation letter together. It works out the relevant three-year date from the policy's own dates, then tests each ground: what the proposal asked, what was answered, what the records show and when. It separates fraud from innocent misstatement, notes where premiums fall to be refunded, and drafts the reply to the repudiation or the insurer's defence, each point cited to the page and the provision. Example output: - Policy: Term life, ₹75 lakh, issued 10.06.2023; death on 02.04.2026 - Section 45 date: Three years from issue ends 10.06.2026: death and repudiation both fall inside, so the policy can still be questioned - Ground relied on: Non-disclosure of diabetes (repudiation letter of 15.07.2026, p. 2) - What the records show: First diagnosis recorded on 22.01.2024, seven months after the proposal was signed (Hospital records, p. 14) - Assessment: No fact to suppress on the proposal date; the ground does not hold on the insurer's own records - Deliverable: Reply to the repudiation in Word, cited to 9 pages and section 45 Prompt to try (Test a repudiation): Read the policy, the proposal form, the medical records and the repudiation letter. Work out whether section 45 of the Insurance Act bars the repudiation, test each ground the insurer relies on against what the proposal asked and when each condition was first recorded, and draft the reply. #### Health claims: pre-existing disease and waiting periods Problem: Health claims are rejected on a short list of grounds: a pre-existing disease, a waiting period not yet served, an exclusion, or a document not produced. Each depends on dates across several policy years, and often across a portability from another insurer, so the continuity of cover has to be rebuilt before the ground can be tested. IRDAI's rules set limits the rejection letter rarely mentions: the maximum waiting period for pre-existing diseases, the moratorium after which a health policy cannot be contested except for proven fraud and the policy's permanent exclusions, and the credit a ported policyholder carries with them. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every schedule and renewal notice, the portability papers, the discharge summary and the rejection, and builds the continuity of cover year by year. It then sets the ground against the policy wording and the IRDAI health insurance rules current when it answers, citing the version it relied on. It drafts the grievance to the insurer and, if that fails, the complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman or the consumer commission, with the timeline and the documents annexed in order. Example output: - Cover: Family floater since 01.04.2019, ported on 01.04.2023 with continuity; renewed each year without a break - Claim: Knee replacement, ₹4.6 lakh, rejected for pre-existing osteoarthritis - Continuity: Over seven years of continuous cover on the admission date, counting the ported years - Moratorium: Continuous cover beyond the five-year moratorium: contestable only for proven fraud or a permanent exclusion, neither alleged - Next forum: Grievance to the insurer first; Ombudsman complaint within one year of its final reply - Deliverable: Grievance letter and draft Ombudsman complaint with an annexure index Prompt to try (Health claim rejection): Read the policy schedules, renewal notices, portability papers and the rejection letter. Build the continuity of cover year by year, test the rejection ground against the wording and IRDAI's current health insurance rules on waiting periods and the moratorium, and draft the grievance to the insurer. #### Motor accident claims before the tribunal Problem: A claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is decided on two things: whether the insurer can escape liability and how much compensation is due. The insurer's defences under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 are narrow, such as no valid driving licence or use outside the permit, and proving one often still leaves the insurer paying the third party and recovering from the owner. The compensation is arithmetic on the record: income, age, future prospects, dependants and the multiplier. Get the income proof or the age wrong and the award moves by lakhs, in either direction. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the FIR, the charge sheet, the driving licence, the permit, the policy and the claimant's income papers, including scans in Hindi, and sets each defence against the documents that prove or defeat it. It checks the limitation for the claim petition under section 166(3). It computes compensation on the multiplier method with every step shown, so both sides can argue the inputs rather than the total, and drafts the written statement for the insurer or the claim petition for the claimant. Example output: - Accident: 14.05.2026, Nashik; claim petition to be filed within six months, by 14.11.2026 - Licence defence: Driver's licence expired 03.03.2026 and not renewed on the accident date (Licence extract, p. 3) - Likely outcome: Insurer pays the third party and recovers from the owner - Income: Salaried, age 34, ₹40,000 a month on the salary slips; permanent job - Computation: ₹4.8 lakh a year, plus 50% future prospects, less one quarter for personal expenses, times multiplier 16: ₹86.4 lakh before conventional heads - Deliverable: Written statement for the insurer, with the computation as an annexure Prompt to try (Motor claim defence): Read the claim petition, the FIR, the driving licence, the permit and the policy. Set out the insurer's defences under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act with the document behind each, compute compensation on the multiplier method with every step shown, and draft the written statement. #### Fire and property losses: the surveyor's report Problem: In a fire or burglary loss, liability is often admitted and the fight is over quantum. The surveyor's report cuts the claim with depreciation, salvage, an average clause for under-insurance and items said to fall outside the policy, and each deduction sits on a different page of a long report. The policy's arbitration clause may cover only disputes on quantum where liability is admitted, so whether the dispute goes to arbitration or to a commission depends on how the insurer framed its response. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the policy, the schedule and endorsements, the surveyor's report and the claim bill, and puts every deduction in a table: the amount, the reason given, the clause relied on and whether the wording supports it. It checks the average clause arithmetic against the declared sum insured, identifies whether the insurer has admitted liability, and says which forum the dispute belongs in, then drafts the objection to the survey report or the notice invoking arbitration. Example output: - Loss: Warehouse fire; claim for stock of ₹1.5 crore under a fire and special perils policy - Survey assessment: ₹88 lakh after 7 deductions, each tied to a page of the report - Average clause: Sum insured ₹4 crore against value at risk of ₹5 crore: loss scaled by four fifths, ₹1.2 crore before other deductions - Deductions challenged: 3 of 7 not supported by the wording, including salvage valued twice (Survey report, pp. 18 and 26) - Forum: Liability admitted in the insurer's letter of 24.09.2026, so the quantum-only arbitration clause applies - Deliverable: Objections to the survey report and a draft notice invoking arbitration Prompt to try (Survey report review): Read the policy, the endorsements, the surveyor's report and our claim bill. Put every deduction in a table with the amount, the reason given, the clause relied on and whether the wording supports it, check the average clause arithmetic, and tell me whether the arbitration clause applies. #### Coverage opinions on liability and D&O policies Problem: A director receives a show cause notice from SEBI, or a company is served with a professional negligence claim, and the first question is whether the policy responds. Claims-made wordings turn on definitions: what counts as a claim, when it was first made, whether notice was given in time, and whether the facts were known before the retroactive date. The exclusions interact with each other and with the endorsements, and a coverage opinion that misses one endorsement is wrong from the start. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the policy wording, the schedule and every endorsement together, then the notice or claim, and walks through cover in order: insuring clause, definitions, period and notice, retroactive date, exclusions, then the limits and retention. It quotes each operative clause with the page, marks where the wording is ambiguous and the reading that favours each side, and drafts the coverage opinion or the notification to insurers. Example output: - Event: SEBI show cause notice to two independent directors, received 02.09.2026 - Is it a claim: Definition includes a formal regulatory proceeding against an insured person (Wording, cl. 2.3, p. 6) - Notice: Must be given as soon as practicable within the policy period; period ends 31.03.2027 - Exclusions: Conduct exclusion applies only on a final adjudication; prior notice exclusion not triggered on the file - Endorsement: Endorsement 4 sub-limits regulatory defence costs to ₹2 crore - Deliverable: Coverage opinion and a draft notification to insurers Prompt to try (Coverage opinion): Read the D&O policy wording, the schedule, every endorsement and the SEBI show cause notice. Walk through cover in order: insuring clause, definition of claim, notice, retroactive date, exclusions and limits, quoting each clause with its page, and draft a coverage opinion. #### Consumer commission complaints and defences Problem: Most insurance disputes end up before a consumer commission, and the first objections are procedural. Pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 turns on the consideration paid, which for a policy is the premium, not the amount claimed, and complaints filed on the claim value go to the wrong forum. The complaint has to be filed within two years of the cause of action, and the insurer's reply has to meet the allegation of deficiency in service head on, with the policy clause and the claim papers, not a general denial. How Justis handles it: Justis identifies the forum from the premium paid, computes the limitation date from the rejection, and builds the complaint or the reply paragraph by paragraph, each point tied to a page of the claim file and the clause of the policy. It lists the preliminary objections the record supports, such as limitation, a pending Ombudsman complaint on the same facts or a quantum dispute covered by arbitration, and drafts the evidence affidavit with the documents in order. Example output: - Claim: Health claim of ₹18 lakh rejected on 20.08.2025 - Forum: Premium paid ₹62,000: District Commission, although the claim is ₹18 lakh - Limitation: Two years under section 69: complaint by 20.08.2027 - Deficiency alleged: Rejection without reasons, and claim decided 94 days after the last document - Preliminary objections: None supported for the insurer on the file; Ombudsman complaint withdrawn before filing - Deliverable: Consumer complaint, evidence affidavit and index of documents in Word Prompt to try (Consumer complaint): Read the policy, the claim papers and the rejection letter. Tell me which consumer commission has jurisdiction on the premium paid, compute the limitation date under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, and draft the complaint with each allegation tied to a page of the file. #### Reviewing a book of claims and litigation Problem: An insurer's legal team carries hundreds of pending matters across tribunals, commissions and courts, and the panel advocates report in different formats. Knowing which files share a losing ground, which are close to a hearing and where the exposure sits means opening every file. The same is true when a reinsurer, a new panel counsel or an internal audit asks for a view of the book by the end of the week. How Justis handles it: Upload the claim files and tabular review asks the same questions of every one at once: forum, stage, amount claimed, ground of repudiation, next date and the defence taken. Every cell cites the page it came from. Justis then groups the book by ground and outcome, marks the files where the defence looks weak on the insurer's own papers, and exports the grid to Excel or a short summary deck for the review meeting. Example output: - Files read: 312 matters, 41,000 pages, 58 of them scanned - Grid: 12 questions per file, each answer cited to the document and page - Pattern: 47 life claims repudiated for non-disclosure after the three-year date in section 45 - Exposure: ₹38.6 crore claimed in matters listed in the next 60 days - Flag: 19 files where the investigation report does not support the ground relied on - Deliverable: Excel grid, a note on settlement candidates and a six-slide summary Prompt to try (Portfolio review): Review every claim file in this project. For each, give the forum, the stage, the amount claimed, the ground of repudiation, the next date and the defence taken, with the page for each answer. Then group the files by ground and flag those where our own papers do not support the ground. Questions: - Q: Can it tell whether section 45 bars a repudiation? A: It reads the policy's dates, including any revival or rider, works out when the three-year period ends and sets the date of the repudiation against it, with the working shown. Within the three years it tests whether the fact was material, whether it was suppressed and whether the grounds were given in writing. - Q: Can it read hospital records and surveyor's reports? A: Yes. Discharge summaries, prescriptions, investigation reports and survey reports are read whether they are typed or scanned, including Hindi, and the agent tells you when it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where handwriting is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: Does it know the IRDAI rules in force today? A: It checks IRDAI's regulations and master circulars through live web search when it answers, cites the version it relied on, and flags where the rule at the date of the policy or the claim may differ from today's. - Q: Can it help decide between the Ombudsman and a consumer commission? A: It sets out both routes for your facts: whether the complaint fits the Ombudsman's scope, the time limits for each, which commission has jurisdiction on the premium paid, and what each forum can award. The choice stays with you and the client. - Q: Can we keep our standard positions on wordings? A: Yes. Save them as a playbook, such as the exclusions you accept, the definitions you insist on and the fallback for each, and Justis applies it to every wording you review, with each departure marked as a tracked change in Word. - Q: What should an insurance lawyer try first? A: A repudiated claim you already know. Upload the policy, the proposal form and the repudiation letter, ask for each ground tested against the wording and the dates, and check it against your own opinion. It is the quickest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How law firms use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/law-firms A firm's quality is decided less by its best partner than by its most junior associate on a busy night. The precedent that should have been used is in someone's folder, the clause the firm fought for last year is in a closed matter, the template still cites a repealed Act, and the client report is assembled by hand from six trackers the evening before it is due. Justis gives the whole firm one place to do that work. Each matter is its own project with its documents, meetings, research and drafts, and the firm's own material, its precedents, its positions and its methods, can be saved once and used on every matter. Every answer cites the document and page it came from, drafts arrive as tracked changes in Word, and a partner still signs off on everything that leaves the firm. Try this first: Take one kind of agreement the firm drafts often, such as a shareholders' agreement. Upload the last twenty the firm has signed to a project and ask for the key clauses compared across all of them, with the page for each. Look at where the firm's position has drifted. That tells you in an afternoon what your precedent bank should say. #### Matter intake and conflict checks from the documents Problem: A new matter arrives as a bundle: a notice, a draft agreement, a set of board resolutions. The conflict check runs on the one name in the email, while the names that matter are inside the papers: the group companies, the directors, the guarantors and the counterparty's parent. The Bar Council of India Rules bar an advocate from acting against a client in a matter where they have advised the other side, and a group-company hit found after the engagement letter is signed is the hardest kind to unwind. How Justis handles it: Upload the intake papers and the firm's client and matter list as a spreadsheet. Justis pulls every party out of the documents, including directors, signatories, guarantors and group companies, with the page each appears on, and compares them against the list, allowing for variations in how a name is written. It returns the possible hits for the partner to clear, a short intake note on the matter, and the facts the engagement letter needs, such as the parties, the scope and any deadline already running. Example output: - Intake papers: Legal notice, draft supply agreement, 2 board resolutions: 38 pages - Parties found: 14, including 3 directors and a guarantor named only in the resolution (p. 31) - Possible hit: Counterparty's parent, Harbour Crest Holdings, is an existing client (matter list, row 812) - Name variant: Director "R. K. Anand" matches "Rakesh Kumar Anand", adverse party in a closed 2024 matter - Clock already running: Notice demands a reply within 15 days of receipt - Deliverable: Conflict report for the partner and a draft intake note Prompt to try (Intake and conflicts): Read the intake papers and list every party named in them, including directors, signatories, guarantors and group companies, with the page each appears on. Compare them against the firm's client and matter list in this project, allowing for spelling variations, and list the possible conflicts for a partner to clear. #### Building a precedent bank from past matters Problem: Every firm says it has precedents. In practice the best version of a clause is in a signed agreement in a closed matter, the template on the shared drive is three years older, and each partner keeps a private set. Associates start from whatever they found last. Knowledge management teams know the answer is a curated bank with notes on when to use each clause, but building one means reading hundreds of signed documents, and nobody has the time. How Justis handles it: Upload the firm's signed agreements of one type and tabular review asks the same questions of every one at once: the liability cap, the indemnity, the termination rights, the governing law and seat, with the page behind every cell. Justis groups the variants, shows which the firm has used most and which appeared only when the firm had the stronger hand, and drafts a clause library with a short drafting note on each: when to use it, the fallback, and what the other side usually asks for. Example output: - Agreements read: 64 signed shareholders' agreements, 2019 to 2026 - Grid: 22 clauses per agreement, each answer cited to the document and page - Variants found: Drag-along: 5 versions; threshold ranges from 51% to 75% - Drift: Tag-along excluded for transfers to affiliates in 19 agreements, missing from the firm's template - Clause library: 22 clauses, each with a standard form, a fallback and a drafting note - Deliverable: Excel grid and a precedent bank note in Word Prompt to try (Build a precedent bank): Review every shareholders' agreement in this project. For each, extract the drag-along, tag-along, pre-emption, reserved matters, exit and deadlock clauses with the page. Then group the variants of each clause, say which the firm uses most, and draft a clause library with a drafting note on each. #### Consistent drafting across the firm Problem: Two associates on the same team produce two different agreements for the same client: different defined terms, different boilerplate, a limitation of liability the firm stopped accepting last year. The partner corrects the same points on every draft. The firm's positions exist, but they live in partners' heads and old emails, so they are applied only when the right partner reviews the draft. How Justis handles it: Save the firm's negotiating positions as a playbook: the standard position on each clause, the fallback and the point at which a partner must approve. Justis applies it to every draft or counterparty paper, and each departure comes back as a tracked change in Word with the reason beside it. Train the digital twin on the firm's precedents and each partner's drafting, and first drafts arrive in that voice. Justis also checks the mechanics a partner should not have to: defined terms used but never defined, cross-references that point nowhere and schedules that do not match the body. Example output: - Draft: Master services agreement, 41 pages, counterparty's paper - Playbook applied: Firm's technology contracts playbook: 26 positions - Departures: 9, for example, uncapped indemnity for IP infringement (cl. 14.2) against a firm position of 2x annual fees - Partner approval: 2 points exceed the fallback and are marked for a partner - Mechanics: 3 undefined terms, 2 broken cross-references, Schedule 3 fees differ from cl. 6.1 - Deliverable: Redline in Word, with a one-page issues list for the client Prompt to try (Apply the firm's playbook): Review this master services agreement against the firm's technology contracts playbook. Mark every departure from our standard position as a tracked change with the reason, flag the points that go beyond our fallback for partner approval, and check the defined terms, cross-references and schedules. #### Updating templates when the law changes Problem: The law has changed under the firm's templates several times in two years. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and its companion codes replaced the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act from 1 July 2024, the four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025, and the Income-tax Act 2025 replaced the 1961 Act from 1 April 2026. Every employment agreement, indemnity, tax clause and notice template that cites the old law is now wrong, and finding them means opening every template in the bank. How Justis handles it: Upload the firm's templates and ask Justis to find every reference to a repealed or replaced law, with the page and the clause. It proposes the replacement reference where the mapping is clear and marks the ones that need a lawyer's judgment because the new law changed the substance, not just the number. The updates come back as tracked changes in Word, one template at a time, with a change log the knowledge management team can circulate to the firm. Example output: - Templates read: 118 templates across 6 practice groups - Stale references: 213, in 71 templates - Straight update: Employment agreement cl. 9: Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 now under the Code on Social Security 2020 - Needs judgment: Tax indemnity cites sections of the Income-tax Act 1961: mapping to the 2025 Act marked for the tax team - Criminal references: Complaint templates cite IPC sections; BNS equivalents proposed for offences after 1 July 2024 - Deliverable: 71 redlined templates and a change log in Excel Prompt to try (Find stale references): Review every template in this project and list each reference to a repealed or replaced law, including the Income-tax Act 1961, the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act, and the labour laws replaced by the four Labour Codes, with the clause and page. Propose the updated reference where the mapping is clear and mark the rest for review. #### Training juniors on the firm's method Problem: Juniors learn by having their drafts marked up, and a partner's markup rarely says why. The same mistakes return with every new batch of associates, and the partner who knows the method for a due diligence report or a reply to a legal notice is too busy to write it down. When that partner is on leave or moves on, the method goes with them. How Justis handles it: Write the method down once as a skill: the checklist for a notice reply, the structure of a diligence report, the questions to ask before a limitation opinion. Juniors attach it to a message with an @-mention, and Justis follows it step by step on their matter. Justis also reviews a junior's draft against the skill before it reaches the partner and returns a review note: each point it would change, the reason and the source, so the associate learns the rule rather than just the correction. Example output: - Skill: Reply to a legal notice: the firm's 12-point method, written by a partner - Draft reviewed: Associate's reply to a recovery notice, 6 pages - Points raised: 7, for example, denial of paras 3 to 7 is general, not specific; admission in para 4 should be withdrawn - Missing: No reservation of rights; no reply to the demand for interest - Review note: Each point with the reason and the page of the notice it answers - Deliverable: Tracked changes in Word and a review note for the associate Prompt to try (Review a junior's draft): Review this draft reply to a legal notice against the firm's notice reply skill. For every point you would change, give the change, the reason and the paragraph of the notice it answers, list anything the reply does not deal with, and return the draft with tracked changes. #### Client meetings into instructions and file notes Problem: The instructions that decide a matter are given in a meeting: the figure the client will settle at, the facts they did not put in writing, the decision taken on the call. The file note is written days later from memory, if at all. When the client later disputes what was agreed, or a new associate joins the matter, there is nothing reliable to go back to. How Justis handles it: Record the meeting on a phone, or save the audio of a call, and upload it to the matter. Justis transcribes it in English, Hindi and other Indian languages, labels speakers where the turn-taking is clear and leaves the wording untouched. It then prepares the file note from the transcript: the instructions given, the decisions taken, the open questions and the next steps, each tied to the point in the recording, and drafts the documents that follow from it. Example output: - Recording: 52-minute client meeting in Hindi and English - Instructions: Settle if the counterparty pays ₹1.2 crore within 60 days; no admission of liability - Decided: Without-prejudice offer to go this week, approved by the managing director - Open question: Whether the 2024 side letter was ever countersigned - Next steps: Draft the offer; ask the client for the countersigned side letter - Deliverable: File note and a draft without-prejudice offer letter in Word Prompt to try (Meeting to file note): Transcribe this client meeting and prepare a file note: the instructions given, the decisions taken, the open questions and the next steps, each with the point in the recording. Then draft the without-prejudice offer letter from those instructions. #### Due diligence at a scale the team could not staff Problem: A data room of four hundred documents lands on a deal with a three-week timeline, and the team is four associates. The review splits between them, each reads differently, and the red flags report is assembled from four spreadsheets in four formats. The partner then spends the last two days checking whether a finding is really in the document it cites. How Justis handles it: Tabular review runs the firm's diligence questions across every document at once and returns one grid, with the page behind every answer, so every associate works from the same finished first pass rather than an empty spreadsheet. Justis then drafts the red flags report from the grid in the firm's format, each finding linked to its page, and the associates spend their time on the documents that need a lawyer's reading. Example output: - Data room: 412 documents, 18 diligence questions - Change of control: Consent required in 23 contracts, 4 of them material by revenue - Title: 2 properties with gaps in the chain of title; one sale deed unregistered - Employment: Standing orders not updated for the Industrial Relations Code 2020 - Stamping: 7 agreements appear under-stamped under the state stamp act - Deliverable: Excel grid and a red flags report in Word, each finding cited Prompt to try (Diligence grid): Run the firm's diligence questions across every document in this data room, with the page for each answer. Then draft a red flags report in our format, grouping findings by severity, each linked to the page it rests on. #### Client reporting across a portfolio of matters Problem: A client with forty matters at the firm wants a quarterly report: where each matter stands, what happened, what comes next and the exposure. The information is in forty projects, several trackers and the associates' memories. The report is always late, always assembled by the most junior person on the team, and always checked line by line by a partner. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the latest orders, correspondence and file notes in each matter and builds the status grid: forum, stage, last event, next date, exposure and the action required, each cell cited to the document it came from. It drafts the covering report in the firm's format and a short slide deck for the client's review meeting, and marks every matter where the file does not show a recent event, so the partner knows which ones to check. Example output: - Matters: 42 matters for one client across 5 practice groups - Status grid: 7 columns per matter, each cell cited to the order or letter it came from - Movement this quarter: 11 matters listed, 3 disposed, 2 new notices received - Exposure: ₹14.3 crore across pending claims, largest single claim ₹4.1 crore - Check: 6 matters with no document added in 90 days, marked for the associate - Deliverable: Excel tracker, a covering report in Word and a 10-slide deck Prompt to try (Quarterly client report): For each of this client's matters, give the forum, the stage, the last event, the next date, the exposure and the action required, citing the document each answer comes from. Then draft the quarterly report in our format and a short slide deck, and flag any matter with no recent document. Questions: - Q: Can it run conflict checks against our records? A: It compares the parties it finds in a matter's papers against a client and matter list you upload, such as an export from your practice management system in Excel. It does not connect to that system directly, and clearing a conflict stays with the partner. - Q: Can we build a precedent bank from our past work? A: Yes. Upload signed agreements of one type and tabular review compares their clauses in one grid with the page for each answer. Justis groups the variants and drafts a clause library with notes, which your knowledge management team edits and keeps. - Q: Will every associate draft to the same standard? A: Save the firm's positions as a playbook and its methods as skills, and every associate's draft is checked against the same standard, with departures returned as tracked changes. A partner still reviews what goes out. - Q: Does it help when the law changes? A: It finds every reference to a repealed or replaced law across your templates, such as the Income-tax Act 1961, the old criminal codes or the labour laws replaced by the Labour Codes, and proposes updates as tracked changes, marking the ones that need a lawyer's judgment. - Q: Can it prepare client reports and presentations? A: Yes. It builds a status grid across a client's matters with each cell cited to its source, and drafts the covering report in Word, the tracker in Excel and a slide deck for the review meeting. Nothing is sent to the client by Justis. - Q: What should a law firm try first? A: A precedent comparison. Upload twenty signed agreements of one type, ask for the key clauses compared across all of them with the page for each, and check a few against the documents. It shows quickly where the firm's practice has drifted and what the bank should say. ## Legal - Terms of Service: https://askjustis.com/terms - Privacy Policy: https://askjustis.com/privacy - Cancellation and Refund Policy: https://askjustis.com/refund-policy ## Contact - Email: help@askjustis.com - Book a demo: https://cal.com/nxsumityadav/askjustis