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
Retrieving legislation
Relevant statutes and statutory instruments are fetched from legislation.gov.uk, giving each side the current law to work with.
- 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
All cited cases and legislation are cross-checked against the corpus to confirm they exist and are accurately represented — flagging any hallucinated or misquoted authorities.
- 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— Judicial College Guidelines (JCG) brackets, cross-checked against recent Scottish awards. Adjusted for severity, prognosis, and the Simmons v Castle 10% uplift.
- 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 half-period rate per Wisely v John Fulton); 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.
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 are assessed under the Act of Sederunt (Taxation of Judicial Expenses Rules) 2019. Court of Session cases follow the Table of Fees (Chapters I–III), with the applicable scale determined by the value and complexity of the case. Sheriff Court cases follow separate scales under the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors in the Sheriff Court) 1993.
QOCS — Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting
For personal injury actions raised on or after 30 June 2021 (Chapter 36 RCS / Chapter 31A OCR), the pursuer is not liablefor the defender's expenses if the pursuer loses, unless the court finds fraud, unreasonable conduct, or that the case was manifestly without merit. This fundamentally changes the risk calculus — the pursuer's downside is capped at their own costs, while the defender cannot recover expenses even if successful.
Tenders
Under Rule 36A, a defender may lodge a formal tender. If the pursuer fails to beat the tender at proof, the pursuer typically bears the defender's expenses from the date of tender (Williamson v McPherson). 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
Without sanction (Court of Session Act 1988, s.4A), counsel's fees are not recoverable from the opponent. Sanction for junior counsel is routine in the Court of Session; sanction for senior counsel requires sufficient importance or complexity.
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, data resets, and experimental features. No uptime or data-retention guarantees. Analysis outputs have not been validated against known case outcomes. Security covers authentication and encryption in transit but 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 including role-based access control, audit logging, and encryption at rest. Analysis outputs benchmarked against historical outcomes. 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.