The law is a network. We stored it that way.
Statutes and decisions are not a stack of text here but a citation network: every decision knows which statutes and rulings it cites and who cites it. Every source the AI names runs against that network before it is shown.
A knowledge network is worth exactly as much as your ability to read every edge
Here there are two: the law as a citation network of statutes and decisions — and every matter as a fact network in which each point carries its verbatim supporting quote. Both are in operation, not announced.
- The law network: statutes and decisions, joined by real citations.
- The matter network: people, dates, amounts and their relations, each with a source.
- Between them a check that also says when it cannot say anything.
- cited by thousands of decisions
- among them the Federal and regional labour courts
- itself refers to § 314 BGB and § 622 BGB
Who cites whom — shown, not inferred
From a statute to the decisions that carry it, and on to their sources. No AI run and no quota: this is looking something up, not generating it.
- As a list on every statute and decision page — and as a network view on request.
- The network view states how many of how many are shown and on what basis they were selected.
- The holdings grow with use, not on stock.
- cites: § 314 BGB · § 622 BGB
- cited by: showing 12 of 3,892 — the most recent
- chain of appeals: regional labour court → Federal Labour Court
Three answers instead of two
If a cited statute is in the holdings, it is marked as evidenced. If it is not, that is stated — next to the sentence that is usually missing. If it could not be checked at all, that is stated too, instead of letting silence pass for confirmation.
- A source that cannot be resolved is made visible, not quietly removed.
- “Not in our database” is a statement about us, not about the law.
- § 626(1) BGBconfirmed against the official wording
- a decision's case numbernot in our database — which does not mean it does not exist
- a provision that does not existvisibly devalued in the text instead of silently deleted
What is not here
A claim about evidence is worth only as much as what is honestly named beside it.
- —No commentary literature. Our library holds official statutory texts and published decisions — no licensed commentaries and no publisher guidance. If you need a commentary passage, you still look it up where it is licensed.
- —Two kinds of edge, not ten. The network knows “cites” and “chain of appeals” — no machine-maintained “overruled by” or “follows”.
- —Sorted by how often a decision is cited, not by whether it still stands. Our database does not check whether a decision is still good law.
- —The link between a fact in your matter and the relevant provision is curated and measured — it is a research basis, not a statement that a decision fits your case.
Your matter is one too
14 kinds of fact, 30 controlled relationship types, each fact and each edge with a verbatim supporting quote that jumps to exactly that spot in the document. Amounts and dates are stored as computable values, identical people are merged, contradictions flagged.
See the matterAgents in this workflow
Checks every cited source against our own body of statutes.
Uses the network directly: statutory wording and case law on a provision, at no extra cost.
For an opinion, gathers our own statutes first, then the matter, then the web.
Pulls the verified sources into the draft.
Control & safety
- Three outcomes instead of two: evidenced, not found, not verifiable.
- “Not in our database” never means “does not exist”.
- The holdings are stated publicly on the library home page, not in the small print.
- Official wording from the source, never from a model's memory.
Let your case files think along.
The AI lawyer portal — EU-hosted, profession-compliant, client-separated. You keep control, the AI does the groundwork.