Litigation legal-AI skills in General

253 legal AI skills for litigation in General.

Arbitration Clause Reviewer

MITGeneralLitigation

Reviews an arbitration agreement for validity, scope, seat, venue, governing law, institutional rules, tribunal constitution, appointment mechanics, escalation steps, interim-relief routes, and drafting pathologies. Use when a user asks whether an arbitration clause works, is enforceable, is pathological, or should be revised, including requests such as "review this dispute-resolution clause", "which court supervises this arbitration", "does this clause specify a seat", or "fix the arbitrator appointment language". Use for clause-level analysis, not for commencing a dispute or assessing an award.

Arbitration Interim Relief Drafter

MITGeneralLitigation

Determines the correct interim-protection route for a dispute connected to arbitration — emergency arbitrator under institutional rules, tribunal-ordered measures once constituted, or court interim relief (including India's Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) — then drafts the application for that route. Use when a user needs urgent protection, preservation of assets or evidence, security, an injunction, or receivership connected with arbitration, including phrasings like "we need emergency relief before the tribunal is formed", "draft a section 9 application", "should we go to the emergency arbitrator or to court", or "seek interim measures from the tribunal now that it's constituted". Covers India-specific court/tribunal analysis under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and institutional emergency-arbitrator rules for other seats. Distinct from arbitration-pleading-drafter, which pleads the merits rather than seeks temporary protection.

Arbitration Notice Drafter

MITGeneralLitigation

Drafts a notice invoking arbitration or request for arbitration, framing the disputes, contractual basis, relief, tribunal-appointment step, and service record without prematurely narrowing the claimant's case. Use when a user wants to commence arbitration, invoke an arbitration clause, submit an institutional request, nominate an arbitrator, or respond to a defective commencement notice. Distinct from arbitration-pleading-drafter, which pleads the merits after commencement, and arbitration-clause-reviewer, which diagnoses the clause rather than activates it.

Arbitration Pleading Drafter

MITGeneralLitigation

Drafts the merits pleadings in arbitration — statement of claim, statement of defence, counterclaim, and reply to counterclaim — with jurisdiction and admissibility objections, material facts, contractual and legal breaches, causation, quantum, and relief all tied to the evidentiary record. Use when a claimant needs its merits pleading, a respondent must answer a statement of claim and plead a counterclaim, or a claimant must reply to a counterclaim — including "draft our statement of claim", "draft our defence and counterclaim", "respond to this counterclaim", or "preserve our jurisdictional objection in the defence". Distinct from arbitration-notice-drafter (commences the case), interim-relief skills (temporary protection, not the merits), and award-challenge-analyst (challenges an award after it is issued, not a pleading before one).

Arbitrator Appointment Advisor

MITGeneralLitigation

Maps the contractual, institutional, and statutory process for constituting an arbitral tribunal and assesses arbitrator qualifications, eligibility, independence, impartiality, disclosures, challenges, vacancies, and replacement. Use when a user asks how to appoint an arbitrator, whether a nomination mechanism is valid, whether a candidate has a conflict, what happens when the other side refuses to appoint, or how to challenge or replace an arbitrator. Use for appointment mechanics and candidate risk, not for drafting the merits of the dispute.

Attorney Work-Product AI Handling

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a law firm or legal team needs to handle AI-generated work product consistently with attorney work-product doctrine and professional confidentiality obligations across multiple jurisdictions. Covers the five core principles — enterprise-only AI, engagement letter disclosure, matter file documentation, data residency for MENA matters, and avoiding consumer-grade AI for privileged work. Applies to any jurisdiction where attorney work-product doctrine or professional secrecy rules protect litigation preparation materials.

Attorney Work-Product and AI — Handling Guide

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a lawyer user is preparing litigation materials, strategy memos, or other attorney work-product using AI assistance, and there is a risk that disclosure to the AI provider could waive work-product protection. Covers the conditions under which work-product doctrine protection survives AI-tool use, best practices for minimizing waiver risk, data-processing agreement requirements, and cross-border considerations for MENA and EU clients. Pairs with the Heppner privilege disclaimer.

Authority Validator

MITGeneralLitigation

Tests whether each authority cited in a document actually supports the proposition it is cited for, remains good law, and is binding or merely persuasive in the forum the document is directed at — a substantive validity check, beyond confirming a citation exists and is quoted accurately. Use for "does this case actually support what we're citing it for", "is this authority still good law", "check whether these citations are binding on this court or just persuasive", or "stress-test the authorities in this opinion before we rely on them". Distinct from citation-integrity-checker (existence/accuracy only) and precedent-mapper (maps a body of authorities' relationships, not a specific document's citations for a specific use). Fires on any document whose citations need substantive validation before reliance.

Avoidance Transaction Analyst

MITGeneralLitigation

Analyses Indian insolvency transactions for preference, undervalue, extortionate credit and fraudulent or wrongful trading exposure. Use for RP or liquidator reviews, transaction audits, applications, defences, recoveries or resolution-plan diligence.

Award Challenge Analyst

MITGeneralLitigation

Assesses routes and grounds to set aside, annul, appeal, stay, or resist recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award, mapping each ground to the governing law, procedural record, evidence, waiver, prejudice, remedy, and deadline. Use when a user asks whether an award can be challenged, how to oppose enforcement, whether tribunal excess or due-process defects matter, or what must be filed urgently after receiving an award. Distinct from arbitral-award-analyst, which neutrally explains what the award decided.

Bail Advisor and Drafter (India)

MITGeneralLitigation

Determines the correct bail posture in India — anticipatory (pre-arrest), or regular, interim, statutory/default, medical, or appellate (post-arrest) — advises on strategy and evidence, and drafts the application when requested. Use when a person fears arrest, has received a notice, summons, or is named in an FIR (anticipatory posture); or is already arrested or in custody and needs an application, custody calculation, or hearing note (post-arrest posture) — including "will anticipatory bail work here", "draft our bail application", "we've been arrested, what are our options", "check if default bail is available", or "draft the appellate bail application". India-specific; retrieves current statutory text and controlling authority rather than relying on memory. Distinct from quashing-petition-drafter (attacks the proceeding itself, not custody) and vclo-by-rohas:defence-strategy-planner (whole-case strategy, not the bail question specifically).

Beneficial Ownership Data — Expert Reference

MITGeneralLitigation

Expert reference for beneficial ownership data, policy, and BODS. Trigger on: BODS JSON/schema/tools (bodsdata, CoVE-BODS, RDF/SPARQL, open issues), BO registries, FATF R24/R25, FATF mutual evaluations (MERs, FSRBs: APG/CFATF/MONEYVAL/ESAAMLG/MENAFATF/GIABA/EAG/GAFILAT), EU AML/AMLD6/AMLR/BORIS, country BO data (UK, Norway, France, Indonesia, Denmark, Canada/Ontario, Sri Lanka, BVI, Philippines, Ghana, Sweden), GLEIF, corporate data (OpenCorporates, Kyckr, Kausate, Sayari, ICIJ), FtM/OpenSanctions, Neo4j, BODS case studies (Latvia, Armenia, Nigeria), BO in procurement (OCDS, ChileCompra, Slovakia, PhilGEPS), BO in energy/extractives (EITI, GEM), BO in fisheries (GFW, FiTI), BO forms (Ghana, Namibia, PSC01), ICIJ/Panama Papers, BO reports (World Bank, TI, TI-UK), GODIN, UBO APIs (Kyckr, Kausate, KvK, Signicat, Companies House), BO verification (FATF, OECD toolkit, TJN), BOVS, or 2026 developments (BVI, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Ontario, Philippines, St Helena). If the question is about who owns what, use this skill.

Brief Cite Checker

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a litigator needs to verify every citation in a court brief before filing. Checks that cases exist, pin-cites are accurate, holdings are correctly stated, and subsequent treatment (overruling, distinguishing, limitation) has not undermined the cited proposition. Applies Bluebook and OSCOLA citation formats. Covers common-law courts (DIFC, ADGM, UK, US) and mixed civil-law jurisdictions (UAE, KSA, LB, EG) where citation practice differs materially.

Brief section drafter

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

Draft a brief section in house style, consistent with the case theory — every fact cited, every case checked, every argument tied to the theory. Use when the user says "draft the [section]", "write the statement of facts", "argument section on [issue]", or needs a first draft of a brief section.

Brief Section Drafter

MITGeneralLitigation

Draft a brief section in house style, consistent with the case theory — every fact cited, every case checked, every argument tied to the theory.

Build Document Index

MITGeneralLitigation

Build a numbered, source-linked document index as a .docx file from supplied legal matter documents — one row per document or coherent file group with a stable source ID, recorded date, type, author, recipients, description taken from the document itself, page count, readability and duplicate or version links — suitable as a court-book or bundle index and as the source register for a chronology or privilege log. Use for litigation, investigations, regulatory responses, disclosure and brief preparation. Do not use to decide relevance, privilege, admissibility or weight, or to claim the set is complete beyond the supplied documents.

Build Evidence Chronology

MITGeneralLitigation

Build a source-linked evidence chronology as a .docx file from supplied legal matter documents using a native structured document-review table when available, preserving exact date wording, conflicting accounts, allegations, inferences and evidence gaps for human review. Use for litigation, investigations, regulatory responses, disputes or other matters requiring an auditable sequence of events. Do not use to decide credibility, evidentiary weight, admissibility, legal effect or merits, or to claim completeness beyond the supplied documents.

Building chronologies

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

Use when users say "build a chronology", "make a timeline", "what happened when", "chronology from disclosure", "source the key events", or need legal documents, correspondence, pleadings, witness evidence, or disclosure materials turned into a sourced event chronology.

Build Privilege Log

MITGeneralLitigation

Prepare a draft privilege log as a .docx file from supplied legal matter documents — one row per document or family with the source ID, date, author and recipient roles, the basis the practitioner has instructed or the document's own face suggests (legal advice, litigation, without prejudice, confidential), the facts that support or undercut the claim, third-party circulation and possible waiver flags — with every claim left as a practitioner decision. Use for disclosure and discovery, subpoena and notice-to-produce responses, regulatory productions and privilege reviews. Do not use to decide that privilege exists or is lost, to assert a claim to a court or regulator, or for non-Australian privilege rules unless the practitioner supplies them.

Case Assessment Memo

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a litigator or disputes lawyer needs to produce a structured case assessment memo for a client, covering facts, legal issues, strengths/weaknesses, estimated outcomes and damages, and strategic recommendations. Applicable across MENA civil-law courts (Lebanon, UAE onshore, KSA, Egypt), DIFC/ADGM common-law courts, ICC/DIAC/LCIA arbitration, and any other forum once the jurisdiction is specified.

Case Law Research Prompt

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a disputes lawyer, in-house counsel, or legal researcher needs a structured case law research output on a specific legal topic, covering leading authorities, their facts, legal principles, court decisions, and practical takeaways for practitioners. Designed for MENA, DIFC/ADGM, GCC, UK, EU, and any specified jurisdiction; acknowledges that case law plays a different role in civil-law versus common-law systems.

Case Law Search

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a lawyer or researcher needs to find relevant court decisions or arbitral awards on a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction. Covers primary MENA courts (Lebanese Cassation, KSA General/Commercial/Labor courts, UAE onshore, DIFC Courts, ADGM Courts) as well as UK, EU, France, and US sources. Triggers on queries about precedent, case outcome, how courts have interpreted a rule, or whether a position is "good law." Never fabricates citations; says so if no verified case is found.

사건기록 검색 스킬 (case-records)

MITGeneralLitigation

사무소 과거 사건기록과 작성서류를 로컬 FTS로 검색. 명시적으로 외부 임베딩을 허용한 환경에서는 하이브리드 검색도 가능. 주장서면·신청서면 위주로 "비슷한 사건이 있었나, 우리가 어떻게 주장했나, 어떤 신청을 했나"에 답한다. 사건 0건일 때는 검색 시도하지 말고 사용자에게 추가 안내.

Case Summarizer (Public Tool)

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a user pastes or links a court judgment URL and needs a structured plain-English summary — covering facts, legal issue, holding, reasoning, and practical implications. This is a free public-facing tool with multi-jurisdictional coverage including DIFC, ADGM, UK (BAILII), US federal (CourtListener), and ECJ; limited for KSA and UAE onshore where public full-text databases are restricted. Designed as a lead-generation entry point with a daily free usage limit.