How law firms use Justis AI

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The problem

Once a conflict is cleared, the engagement letter is drafted from the partner's approval note, the client's email and the firm's template, usually by whoever is free. The client's name is copied from the email signature, the scope from memory, and the fee terms from the note even where the note proposes something the firm cannot agree to.

The letter is the contract the firm will rely on when a fee is disputed or the scope is stretched, so these errors surface at the worst time.

How Justis handles it

Justis drafts the letter on the firm's own template from the approval note, the client's email and the board resolution. It takes the client's legal name and CIN from the resolution, writes the scope and exclusions from the note, and lists anything the client asked for that the note has not priced.

It checks each term against the law and the firm's policy as it goes: a fee contingent on the result is barred for advocates by the Bar Council of India Rules, and a business-entity client pays GST on legal services under reverse charge. The open points come back as a short note for the partner.

The problem

Before a matter number is opened, someone fills the firm's onboarding form for the new client: legal name, CIN, PAN, GSTIN, registered office, directors, the shareholders behind the company and the authorised signatory. The client sends a bundle of certificates, printouts and photocopies, and the form is typed from them by hand.

A transposed digit in the CIN or a PAN that does not match the GSTIN ends up on every invoice and engagement letter, and a foreign shareholder nobody noticed is the one the conflict check needed.

How Justis handles it

Upload the blank form and the client's KYC bundle. Justis fills the form as a Word document, each entry with the document and page it came from, and leaves a field blank with a reason when the bundle does not answer it.

It cross-checks the papers against each other as it fills: the CIN on the certificate against the resolution, the PAN inside the GSTIN against the PAN card, the registered office on the MCA master data against the address the client wants invoiced, and the shareholders and directors against the conflicts register.

The problem

Large clients send their panel terms for signature: unlimited liability, a fee holdback until the matter is won, payment in four months, and a bar on acting for anyone in their industry. The relationship partner wants to sign quickly, and nobody reads the terms against the firm's own policy until a fee dispute.

Some of these terms are commercial, but some the firm cannot agree to at all: an advocate's fee cannot depend on the result, and access to the firm's files would expose other clients' privileged material.

How Justis handles it

Justis reads the client's terms against the firm's engagement policy and the law, marks every departure in the Word file as a tracked change with a comment giving the reason, and offers the firm's acceptable position as the replacement text.

It separates the points the partner can trade from the ones the firm cannot accept, and drafts a short covering note to the client's General Counsel explaining the changes.

The problem

An associate leaves on Friday and sends a handover email from memory. The rejoinder date in it is a week later than the tribunal's order, an undertaking given to the tribunal is described as done when it is half done, and the client's email asking for advice on a settlement offer is not mentioned at all.

The partner and the new associate have no way to know which lines of the handover are right without reading the whole file again.

How Justis handles it

Justis reads the matter file itself, not the handover note: orders, procedural directions, correspondence, file notes and fee records. It builds the handover from the record, with every date, undertaking and open request tied to the document it comes from.

It then checks the departing associate's note against that record line by line, lists what is wrong or missing, and drafts the first email to the client from the new associate.

The problem

A portfolio client's guidelines cap the hourly rates, refuse block-billed and vague entries, pay for one lawyer at an internal conference, reimburse no overheads, pay travel at half rate and expect GST under reverse charge. Each month's pre-bills are checked against them by a partner reading a pile of drafts the evening before they go out.

Whatever the partner misses, the client's legal operations team finds, and the whole invoice is held while one line is disputed.

How Justis handles it

Tabular review puts each pre-bill in a row and asks the same questions of every one: does the total add up, which entries exceed the rate cap, which are block-billed or vague, which items the guidelines do not pay for, how GST is treated, and which entries fall outside the billing period. Every cell cites the line it came from.

The partner reads down the columns instead of through every draft, and the Associate can turn the grid into corrected pre-bills or a short note to accounts.