A pattern that occurs in every firm
The same landlord, the same insurer, the same counterparty — opposing parties recur, especially in practice areas with lots of high-volume cases. Until now, only the person who handled the previous matter knew that, assuming they still remembered.
Automatic detection, confirmed knowledge
The moment you enter an opposing party in a case file, your firm's database automatically checks whether the same opposing party already appears in another case. If so, you see a notice chip — "Also an opponent in N other cases" — with a direct jump to the matters concerned. Notes about an opposing party — say, on negotiating behaviour or recurring lines of argument — go through the same confirmation workflow as client memory: suggestion, review, confirmation.
Caution is built in, not just recommended
An observation from an earlier case is an observation — not evidence for the current case. That distinction is built directly into how our AI handles opposing-party notes: they're used as context, but never adopted as an established fact in a current submission. Internal notes about an opposing party are also explicitly flagged as not for disclosure — so no AI draft accidentally includes them in a letter sent to that very opposing side.
Deleting means deleting
When you delete an opposing-party dossier, it is genuinely deleted — including its history, not just hidden from view. That mattered to us especially for a feature that touches a third party's personal data.
Boundaries we draw deliberately
We are not building a firm-wide "opponent file" with automatically generated ratings out of this. It stays at individual, human-reviewed observations — with a clear source and always correctable.
→ For lawyers: /fuer-anwaelte · Start verification: /lawyer/onboarding
