Documents are scattered
Contract, acts, correspondence, claims and payments live across folders and inboxes. Connecting them to a legal position is dozens of hours of manual work.
01 · Problem
A strong case is lost in preparation, not in the hearing room
In commercial disputes the mistake usually happens before court: a weak point in the evidence goes unnoticed, the right precedent isn't found, a procedural risk is missed, or a document is filed without enough factual support.
Arguments surface too late
Some arguments only appear on appeal — because facts were missed in the first round, or the link between a fact and a legal rule was never seen.
Evidence gaps
Claimed facts aren't backed by documents. The gap stays invisible until the opponent attacks the weak point in the hearing.
Associates spend hours searching
Researching precedent and reviewing the file takes a week. The senior lawyer re-checks everything by hand anyway.
Quality depends on the person
Within one team, the level of a claim varies from lawyer to lawyer. Standardising the process without losing depth is nearly impossible.
Weak arguments reach the filing
Under deadline pressure, arguments without solid factual or legal support make it into the claim. The cost of the mistake is the client's money.
Litigence finds the weak points before documents are filed — so your position is strong in court, not just on paper.
02 · Product
Six layers that work as one litigation team
Litigence doesn't write instead of the lawyer. It breaks the case into verifiable layers — facts, evidence, law, precedent, risks and strategy — and links them together.
Case file analysis
The system structures documents and extracts key facts, dates, amounts, obligations, breaches, correspondence, acts, claims and procedural events.
14 Mar 2026Handover
Act #17Signed with remarks
$1.1MDebt for works
47 daysDelay
Email 18 AprDebt acknowledged
Payment #381Advance
Evidence map and gaps
Litigence shows which facts are claimed but not backed by documents, and where the position diverges from the evidence base.
Contract cl. 3.1 (deadlines)
LinkedNotice of acceptance
GapCompletion acts #17 / #9
ConflictWorks logbook
LinkedRelevant case law
It matches precedent not by keywords but by the logic of the dispute: subject matter, facts, legal qualification, type of claim and the evidentiary situation.
A40-187654/2024 · Moscow Arb.
Delayed acceptance of works where the act carries remarks
Match91%
A40-205111/2023 · 9th AAC
Dispute over completion acts vs works actually performed
Match83%
Weak points and position risks
The system surfaces where the opponent can attack, which arguments are under-supported, and which risks to close before filing.
Limitation period on part of the claim
WatchAuthority of the person who signed the acts
HighProof of acceptance of the result
Medium
03 · How it works
From the case file to strategy and documents
Three steps. The lawyer makes the decisions — Litigence speeds up analysis and shows the whole picture.
Step 01
Case context
Upload the materials — Litigence assembles the dispute context: parties, subject matter, amounts, stage and the court.
Dispute context
A40-2026-487
Moscow Arbitrazh Court · Construction · debt recovery under a contract.
First instance
Step 02
Evidence & risk analysis
The system shows which arguments are supported, where the evidence gaps are, and which procedural risks to close before filing.
Risks & evidence
37%Moderate
- KS-2 acts confirmed
- Delivery not proven
- Notice sent late
Step 03
Strategy & documents
Position readiness, tactics for the hearing and draft procedural documents — every conclusion linked to a verifiable source.
Position readiness
Overall score
64%
Statement of claimready
Debt & penalty calculationready
Motion to compel evidencedraft
04 · Traceability
Every argument traceable to the line of a document
Litigence is not a black box. Any argument is linked to a specific fragment of a contract, act, email or judicial act. Open the source — see the highlight.
-
A verifiable source for every conclusion
Highlight of the fragment in the original document
The lawyer stays in control at every step
Argument · system draft
Linked sources
The contractor missed the deadline to remedy defects found at acceptance. The customer retains the right to claim damages.
Works contract #K-117/2025
cl. 5.3 — procedure for remedying remarks
Email · 18 Apr 2026, 11:42
"…we will fix it within 10 business days" — strong evidence
Completion act #17, 14 Mar 2026
signed with remarks cl. 4.2 and 4.5
A40-187654/2024 · Moscow Arb.
approach to remedying defects at acceptance
05 · Use cases
Where Litigence is especially useful
The first focus is commercial arbitration disputes — document-heavy, where the link between facts and evidence is decisive.
/ Claim01
Preparing a claim
Gather facts, evidence, legal grounds, precedent and the structure of the future claim — with verifiable references.
Fact mapEvidence tableDraft claim
/ Defence02
Preparing a defence
Break down the claimant's arguments, find weak points, match them against the evidence and prepare counter-arguments.
Risk mapCounter-argumentsDraft defence
/ Appeal03
Appeal
Check which arguments weren't assessed, which evidence was ignored, and where the law or the facts were misapplied.
Judgment analysisAppeal groundsDraft appeal
/ Cassation04
Cassation
Litigence helps separate factual arguments from errors of law and build the position around material breaches of substantive law.
Law vs factsBreach mapDraft cassation
/ Memo05
Case outlook memo
A structured opinion for the client, partner or head of legal: position, risks and scenarios.
OutlookScenariosClient memo
/ Audit06
Document audit
Review a finished claim or defence: weak points, unsupported arguments, exposure to attack, missing sources.
Weak pointsMissing sourcesOpponent simulation
06 · Who it's for
Where Litigence gives the most value
Built for teams with many documents, little time and a high cost of error.
Litigation practices
Law-firm teams running several commercial disputes — faster preparation without losing partner control.
Litigation boutiques
Where depth beats scale — strong reasoning and precise work with evidence on every dispute.
In-house legal
In-house teams that regularly litigate with contractors, suppliers and counterparties.
Banks & insurers
High volumes of repeating disputes where standardisation, speed and quality control matter.
07 · Category
Not a database, not monitoring, not a chatbot. Provable case preparation
Others help you find and read case law. Litigence closes the next step — turning the file, the evidence and the precedent into a provable position backed by verifiable sources.
| General AI ChatGPT, Harvey |
Databases & monitoring Westlaw, Lexis, Caselook |
Litigence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main job | Generates text | Finds acts, tracks cases | Builds a provable position for the case |
| Evidence | Doesn't see gaps | Doesn't analyse your file | Finds evidence gaps and risks |
| Traceability | May invent a case or rule | Gives access to acts | Every conclusion linked to a source; disputed flagged |
| Next step | Leaves you with text | Leaves you with search | Tells you what to attach, strengthen and file |
| Output | A text draft | A list of precedent | Case strategy + a source-backed draft |
Others help lawyers find law. Litigence helps litigators build a provable case.
08 · Trust
Control, traceability and security
Litigence does not replace the lawyer's professional judgment. The final position and legal assessment always stay with the team.
Confidential environment
A private corporate pilot is possible. Terms for handling materials are agreed individually for each team.
Verifiable sources
Every Litigence conclusion is linked to a specific fragment of a contract, email, act or judgment. No anonymous assertions.
The lawyer stays in control
Litigence makes no legal decisions. Every step is confirmed by a human — it stays an assistant, not a replacement.
NDA and pilot mode
Every pilot is covered by an NDA. Case materials can be anonymised or handled in an isolated environment.
No outcome promises
We don't predict the court's decision or promise a win. Litigence improves the quality of preparation and reduces the risk of error.
Deletion on request
Case materials and all derived artefacts are deleted on the client's request under the pilot terms.
Join the closed early access
for litigation teams
We're opening a limited number of pilot seats. After your request — a short interview, a demo and a discussion of the pilot format for your typical disputes.
Doesn't replace the lawyer. Doesn't promise an outcome. Strengthens the preparation.
09 · Investors
We're building a category: Litigation Preparation Intelligence
Not "another legal AI" — a full-cycle litigation preparation system: from case-law and evidence analysis to strategy and documents on verifiable sources.
Discuss investment or partnership
Leave a request — we’ll get back with details, run a product demo and share materials on request.