How law firms use Justis AI
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used is in someone's folder, the clause the firm fought for last year is in a closed matter, the template still cites a repealed Act, and the client report is assembled by hand from six trackers the evening before it is due.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.
01
Matter intake and conflict checks from the documents
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
02
Building a precedent bank from past matters
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
03
Consistent drafting across the firm
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
04
Updating templates when the law changes
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
05
Training juniors on the firm's method
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
06
Client meetings into instructions and file notes
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
07
Due diligence at a scale the team could not staff
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
08
Client reporting across a portfolio of matters
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
Make it repeatable
Each matter stays in its own project for its whole life, visible only to the people added to it. Every document, recording and draft added to it is read the moment it lands, so a partner who joins the matter late, or an associate who inherits it, starts from the whole file rather than a handover email.
The firm's own material is what makes the work consistent. A playbook carries the firm's positions, a workflow carries the steps a practice group runs on every matter of a kind, and a skill carries a partner's method so juniors can follow it. Save each once and it is available on every matter, attached with an @-mention.
- A conflict check on the parties in every new matter's papers
- A playbook for each practice group's standard agreements
- A template sweep whenever a law the firm relies on changes
- A review skill for each kind of draft a junior sends to a partner
- A quarterly status report for every client with a portfolio of matters
