How Lawfair works
When you submit a case, Lawfair runs a multi-step adversarial analysis pipeline. Each step builds on the last, mirroring how a litigated case progresses through the Scottish courts.
- 1
Mapping the factual landscape
The system reads your case narrative and extracts disputed facts, witness evidence, productions (documents), and heads of loss into a structured factual foundation.
- 2
Identifying legal issues
A recursive decomposition agent breaks the dispute into discrete legal issues — up to four levels deep — so that each question of law is analysed independently.
- 3
Identifying relevant legislation
The statutes and statutory instruments that bear on each issue are identified and given to both sides. Statute text is not yet linked; provisions are as identified in the analysis.
- 4
Retrieving case law
The system searches a vector-embedded corpus of Scottish court judgments to find the most relevant authorities for each legal issue.
- 5
Adversarial submissions
Two independent AI counsel agents argue the case: one for the pursuer and one for the defender. Each crafts submissions on every legal issue, citing the retrieved authorities. The pursuer may then reply to the defence.
- 6
Judicial assessment
A simulated judicial agent evaluates the competing submissions for each issue, weighing the strength of authorities and arguments to form a likely judicial view.
- 7
Verifying authorities
Cited cases are checked against the corpus to confirm they exist. A citation outside it — a law report, or a UK or English decision — is marked unverified, not wrong. We do not yet verify that a cited authority says what the analysis says it says — check any authority you intend to rely on.
- 8
Quantum analysis
Where damages are in issue, the system assesses each head of loss — estimating likely awards with ranges based on comparable cases and statutory caps. It applies formal quantification frameworks recognised by the Scottish courts, including the Ogden Tables for future loss, Judicial College Guidelines for solatium, and the statutory interest regime. See the quantum methodology section below for full details.
- 9
Expenses analysis
The system assesses likely judicial expenses liability, considering the expected outcome, any tenders, and the conduct of the litigation. It applies the formal taxation scales under the Act of Sederunt (Taxation of Judicial Expenses Rules) 2019, and accounts for QOCS protection in personal injury cases. See the expenses methodology section below for details.
- 10
Outcome synthesis
All analyses are combined into a single outcome prediction — with a probability assessment, recommended strategy, and a settlement range where appropriate.
Quantum methodology
The quantum analysis step applies formal valuation frameworks recognised by the Scottish courts. The specific framework depends on the type of case.
Personal injury / delict
- Solatium — Recent Scottish comparable awards as the primary anchor, cross-checked against Judicial College Guidelines (JCG) brackets. Adjusted for severity, prognosis, and age. Current JCG editions already incorporate the Simmons v Castle uplift, so no further uplift is applied.
- Future loss of earnings — Ogden Tables multiplier/multiplicand method, using the Scottish discount rate of -0.25% (Damages (Investment Returns and Periodical Payments) (Scotland) Act 2019). Reduction factors for contingencies applied per Tables A–D.
- Past wage loss — Calculated net of tax and NI (Gourley principle), accounting for sick pay and benefits recouped under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997.
- Services claims — Administration of Justice Act 1982: s.8 (services rendered to the injured person by relatives) and s.9 (services the injured person can no longer provide to relatives), valued at reasonable commercial rates.
- Contributory negligence — Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 percentage reduction, applied across all heads of damage.
Contract / commercial
- Remoteness — Hadley v Baxendale two-limb test, informed by The Achilleas assumption of responsibility approach.
- Measure of damages — Expectation loss (primary), reliance loss (alternative), or Wrotham Park negotiating damages where appropriate.
- Late payment interest — Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998: 8% above Bank of England base rate, unless the contract specifies a higher rate.
Interest on damages
Under the Interest on Damages (Scotland) Acts 1958 and 1971: past solatium typically attracts 4% from date of accident; past wage loss at 4% (or interest at half rate over the accrual period, the Smith v Middleton convention); future losses carry no interest (already discounted via the Ogden multiplier). Commercial cases follow the Judicial Rate (currently 8%) or the contractual rate if higher. Quantum ranges shown in results are principal sums; interest is analysed separately.
Expenses methodology
The expenses analysis applies the formal taxation rules and fee scales governing Scottish civil litigation. Items marked mandatory are statutory requirements; items marked guidance are standard practice the court will normally follow.
Taxation scales
Expenses in proceedings raised on or after 29 April 2019 are taxed under the Act of Sederunt (Taxation of Judicial Expenses Rules) 2019. The party awarded expenses chooses detailed charges or the inclusive charges for the court, not a mix of the two: Schedule 2 in the Court of Session, Schedule 4 in sheriff court ordinary causes (including the personal injury court) and Schedule 3 in the Sheriff Appeal Court. Simple procedure uses Schedule 5 only, with no choice; its charges are cut by 10% and, unless the court directs otherwise, by a further 50% for claims under £1,000 or 25% for claims of £1,000 to £2,500. No other scale is banded by the value of the claim.
QOCS — Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting
For personal injury actions raised on or after 30 June 2021 (Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018, s.8; RCS Chapter 41B / OCR Chapter 31A), a pursuer who loses is not normally liable for the defender's expenses. The protection is lost for fraudulent representation, manifestly unreasonable behaviour or abuse of process, and the court may award the defender expenses where the pursuer fails to beat a tender, delays unreasonably in accepting one, or abandons the action. Liability after a tender is capped at 75% of the damages awarded.
Tenders
A defender may lodge a tender: a formal offer, made in the court process, to pay a stated sum plus expenses to date. Tenders rest on court practice, not a numbered rule. If the pursuer refuses it and is then awarded no more than the sum tendered, the pursuer normally recovers expenses only up to the date the tender should have been accepted, and pays the defender's expenses after it. In personal injury actions raised on or after 30 June 2021 (QOCS), that liability is capped at 75% of the damages awarded (RCS 41B.3; OCR 31A.3). The system calculates a rational tender amount based on the quantum analysis and assesses the expenses consequences of beating or not beating it.
Sanction for counsel
In the sheriff court and the Sheriff Appeal Court, counsel's fees are recoverable from the opponent only where the court has sanctioned the employment of counsel (Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, s.108), and at senior counsel's rate only where the sanction covers senior counsel. The Court of Session has no sanction: counsel's fees are allowed on taxation where employing counsel was reasonable.
Product maturity
Lawfair is currently in Alpha Preview. We are in a fast iteration cycle — exploring ideas, business models, and possible product-market fits. The system is continuously rebuilt as we learn. Features may appear, change significantly, or be removed between sessions.
Current stage
Advanced prototype. The system is continuously rebuilt — expect breaking changes and experimental features. No uptime guarantees; uploaded documents are kept 90 days from last use. Analysis outputs are benchmarked against published Scottish judgments (see Benchmarks) on a small, evolving set — the figures describe the current build and are not a validation. Security covers authentication with mandatory MFA, encryption in transit and at rest, and a per-account audit log; it has not been independently tested. Support is best-effort via email only.
Next
Core features stabilised. Reliability improving but breaking changes still possible. Database schema may still change — data migration on best-effort basis. Security hardening: dedicated cloud account, web application firewall, infrastructure audit trail, pseudonymisation of names before analysis. Benchmark set large enough to quote per area of law. Support via email with reasonable response times.
Planned
Feature-complete for initial release scope. Independent penetration testing completed. UK GDPR compliance verified — appropriate for processing case narratives containing personal and special-category data. Data retained and backed up with documented recovery procedures. Breaking changes rare and communicated in advance. Stable API for integrations.
Future
Production-ready. SLA commitments for uptime and response times. Full support channels. UK GDPR and ICO registration in place. Compliance with Law Society of Scotland guidance on technology use. Professional indemnity position documented. Versioned API with backward-compatibility guarantees.
Important
Lawfair is a decision-support tool for qualified legal professionals. It does not constitute legal advice. All outputs should be reviewed by a qualified solicitor or advocate before being relied upon.