Lawve AI

Matter budgeting and ongoing WIP/variance monitoring. Build phase-based fee estimates at matter setup, run bottom-up budgets by jurisdiction or workstream, calculate contingency, and structure AFA arrangements (fixed fee, capped fee, phased fixed fees). Ongoing monitoring: WIP tracking against budget, proportionality assessment (spend vs progress), variance commentary with root cause analysis, forecast-to-complete, realisation monitoring, write-off analysis. Trigger on: 'build a budget', 'fee estimate', 'what will this cost', 'WIP review', 'budget vs actual', 'how are we tracking against budget', 'we're over budget', 'realisation is poor', 'what's our ETC', 'budget for the German workstream', 'model the financial impact of this scope change', 'draft a fee adjustment', 'write-off analysis', 'how much contingency', 'AFA structure', 'fixed fee estimate', 'budget update', 'forecast to complete'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate templated responses for common legal inquiries and identify when situations require individualized attention. Use when responding to routine legal questions — data subject requests, vendor inquiries, NDA requests, discovery holds — or when managing response templates.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Collaboration platform configuration methodology for legal matter sites. Site architecture, workflow identification, dashboard design, data quality governance, and user adoption for SharePoint, Teams, and equivalent platforms. M365 is the reference implementation — outputs are platform-agnostic enough to brief IT or build simple automations without becoming a Power Automate manual. Use when setting up a matter site, identifying workflows to automate, designing reporting dashboards, managing platform data quality, or driving user adoption. Trigger on: 'set up the matter site', 'configure SharePoint', 'build a dashboard', 'what should we automate', 'brief IT on this workflow', 'nobody is using the platform', 'data quality is poor', 'set up Teams channel', 'matter site structure', 'alerts and notifications', 'user training', 'platform governance', 'status dashboard', 'what workflows can we automate', 'matter site template'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verification-first methodology for Section I (War Crimes) of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Citations are verified against the Court of BiH, the ICTY/IRMCT archives and OSCE. Distinguishes ICTY-referred (Rule 11 bis) cases from locally-initiated ones; covers Stanković, Janković and the Maktouf lex mitior ruling. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

This skill maps disclosure strategy from a case summary, pleading, chronology, or early case theory: the document categories that will matter, likely custodians, adverse material, evidential gaps, search themes, and the risks worth confronting early.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) compliance advisor — business threshold analysis, consumer rights fulfillment (access, delete, correct, opt-out of sale/sharing, limit SPI, ADMT opt-out), privacy notice drafting, service provider vs. contractor vs. third-party classification, sensitive personal information (SPI) handling, data minimization, opt-out mechanisms (including GPC), cybersecurity audits and risk assessments (live since Jan 1, 2026), ADMT obligations (effective 2026, deadline Jan 1, 2027), CPPA enforcement (Disney $2.75M, PlayOn $1.1M, Ford $375K), penalty exposure, GDPR comparison, and gap assessments for businesses operating in or targeting California residents.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes how multiple regulations interact for a specific product, service, or business model. Identifies where obligations overlap, reinforce, complement, duplicate, or conflict; builds a priority matrix; produces an integrated compliance timeline; and estimates the total compliance burden. Use when (1) scoping a new product or service against the full regulatory landscape before launch, (2) conducting M&A due diligence on a target's multi-regulation exposure, (3) building a strategic compliance roadmap where single-regulation analyses miss the interactions, (4) advising on complex situations where regulations touch the same conduct from different angles, or (5) estimating budget and resourcing for multi-regulation compliance. Primary coverage of EU digital regulation (GDPR, Data Act, AI Act, CRA, NIS2, DORA, DMA, DSA, ePrivacy) and national implementations; the framework extends to any jurisdiction where overlapping regulatory regimes apply to the same activity.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Argentine Supreme Court citation network analysis using JurisRank — a peer-reviewed PageRank algorithm with temporal decay for measuring jurisprudential authority. Ranks precedents by citation influence, traces doctrinal evolution, and detects constitutional drift. Published methodology: JCLLT (DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951). Activate with: which cases to cite, rank precedents, case authority, doctrinal evolution, Argentine Supreme Court, CSJN jurisprudence, citation network, leading case, legal research Argentina.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Complete prep for all three scored components of the California Bar Exam: the five written ESSAYS (13 subjects — Business Associations, Civil Procedure, Community Property, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Professional Responsibility, Real Property, Remedies, Torts, Trusts, Wills & Succession), the PERFORMANCE TEST, and the multiple-choice MBE (7 subjects). Trigger whenever someone is studying for the California bar (or the MBE) and says things like: "give me the rule for [issue]", "big issues in [subject]", "drill/quiz me on [topic]", "MBE questions on [subject]", "teach me [doctrine]", "build an attack outline", "grade my essay", "memorizable paragraph for [issue]", "performance test approach", or "make a study plan" — or names any tested essay/MBE subject in a study, memorization, drilling, or practice-question context. Also trigger when a student uploads a practice essay, PT, or question set to be graded or turned into rule blocks. When in doubt during bar prep, trigger.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

AI co-counsel for divorce and family-law attorneys — a jurisdiction-portable scaffold spanning the full matter lifecycle. Eight operating modes mirror how a matter actually moves: intake and onboarding, financial disclosure, children and support, property division and QDRO, discovery and document review, drafting, negotiation and mediation prep, and court prep — plus post-judgment modification and enforcement. The methodology is jurisdiction-agnostic: it forces real, verifiable research for every local form, formula, or rule rather than inventing one, handling common-law, community-property, civil-law, and MENA personal-status regimes as variables. Built around one non-negotiable: privilege. It drafts, analyzes, organizes, and pressure-tests. It is not the lawyer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Works out which documents you have to hand over to the other side in a civil case in England & Wales, and builds the formal list. The part it gets right that trips people up is which disclosure regime applies — Practice Direction 57AD (the Disclosure Pilot, now permanent in the Business and Property Courts, with its Models A–E) or standard disclosure under CPR Part 31 everywhere else. It picks the regime, chooses a Model per issue, structures the Disclosure Review Document, and drafts the disclosure certificate for the party to sign personally. Built for litigation juniors, in-house counsel, and small teams without a precedent bank. Use when the user says 'disclosure list', 'PD 57AD', 'Model C', 'extended disclosure', 'List of Documents', 'N265', or needs to work out what must be disclosed.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。