Not just answers to your questions. We discover the legal issues you didn't know existed — then investigate, debate, and resolve them.
Traditional legal tools wait for you to ask the right question. But founders aren't lawyers — and the most expensive risks are the ones you never thought to check.
You ask: "Is this contract fair?" You should ask: "Will my IP walk out the door if my contractor leaves?"
You ask: "Can we acquire this company?" You should ask: "Why does 63% of revenue depend on one reseller?"
You ask: "Are we GDPR compliant?" You should ask: "Why is there an AGPL component in our dependency tree?"
# What founders typically ask
"Review this contract by tomorrow"
"Check if the clauses are fair"
"Is this NDA standard?"
# What they should have asked
"Why is the IP registered to a former founder?"
"Can the largest client terminate on change-of-control?"
"Are 9 of 12 devs contractors without IP assignment?"
"Why does the director also run a supplier getting 22% of spend?"
The system discovers the questions before answering them. Recursive investigation that gets deeper as new facts surface.
Maps your situation and identifies gaps in your knowledge, not just your documents.
Every new fact spawns new questions. Investigation branches recursively.
Multiple legal specialists argue, contradict, and negotiate to reach the truth.
From a quick question to continuous legal surveillance — one platform, infinite contexts.
Bring any legal question. The system routes to the right specialists automatically.
Contract + counterparty context. Parallel analysis of terms, entity verification, and risk cross-reference.
Name or URL in — structured due diligence map out. 37 questions generated, ranked by severity.
Options mapped, compared, debated. Risk, cost, time, and strategic impact — all in one recommendation.
Post-investment or post-deal surveillance. Registry changes, director moves, lawsuits, sanctions, domains, trademarks — alerts in real time.
Not fixed agents for every case. Dynamic team assembly. Agents that argue, contradict, and resolve.
Analyzes the request and builds the investigation tree
# Example: Acquisition of TargetCo Sp. z o.o.
MATTER_TYPE:
M&A — Cross-border SaaS acquisitionISSUE_TREE:
├── Corporate → ownership, authority, encumbrances
├── Financial/Tax → tax debt, loans, contingent liabilities
├── Litigation → active cases, enforcement, proceedings
├── IP → ownership chain, OSS exposure, assignment gaps
├── Commercial → customer concentration, change-of-control
└── Employment → key person risk, contractor classification
Orchestrator assigns specialists based on the matter type
Registry, directors, shareholders, UBO, encumbrances, status history
Cases, enforcement, bankruptcy, employee disputes, regulatory actions
SPA analysis, clause cross-reference, warranty verification vs. external evidence
Trademarks, patents, domains, GitHub ownership, OSS dependencies
GDPR scope, data categories, subprocessor chain, DPA gaps, biometric data
Classification, key person risk, IP assignment gaps, retention exposure
Agents don't just summarize — they debate and cross-verify
# Example: SPA Warranty vs. Litigation Findings
WARRANTY_CONFLICT
severity: CRITICAL
required_action: "Seller explanation + disclosure schedule update"
Dynamic interview that surfaces missing decision variables
# Example: 50/50 Founder Partnership
Founder: "I want to start a business with a friend 50/50"
→ System doesn't answer. It asks:
→ After: "I wrote all code, partner brings clients"
NEW BRANCHES: IP Contribution Risk, Revenue Attribution, Vesting Design, Non-Solicitation
Legal Society is currently in development. Be among the first founders to deploy an autonomous legal team.