Skip to content
Request a demonstration

Legal Intelligence

Global Legal Research

Research statutes, regulations, official decisions and legal developments by jurisdiction.

Demonstration: Meridian Freight Group, legal department (fictional) · Freight and logistics. Fictional data and a scripted answer.

The situation

Organisation
Meridian Freight Group, legal department (fictional)
Who is asking
Associate general counsel
Industry
Freight and logistics
What happened
Operations want to use self-employed drivers in a new region and ask legal what that exposes the company to.

The question asked

What do we need to know before using self-employed drivers in the northern region, and what can we actually support?

What it reads, and who can see the result

  • Synthetic statute and guidance extracts documentLicensed legal sources the legal team has access to.
  • Internal precedent notes documentEarlier advice given to the business.
Reads
The legal sources and internal notes the legal team has selected for this question.
Does not read
Privileged files of other matters, or any employee's personal record.
Permission
The associate general counsel chooses the sources; research is read-only.
Who sees it
The legal team; the answer is a research note, not advice to the business.

Try it

Choose which statements go into the brief. A statement with no source is refused; each one you include carries its sources with it.

  • RecordedS1
  • RecordedS2
  • CalculatedS2S3
  • EstimateNo source
  • RecordedS3
  • EstimateS1

Research note: self-employed drivers, northern region

Choose the statements to include. Each one carries its sources into the brief.

0 of 6 statements included · 1 held back for lack of a source.

The answer

Simulated answer. Written for this fictional case, not produced by a live model. Only the figures in it are computed, from what you decided above.

0 of 6 propositions are in the note; 1 was left out for lack of authority.

The note states the test and the indicators from the sources and applies them to our contracts [S1][S2]. Last year's internal advice already pointed the same way [S3].

The proposition that a regulator has fined a competitor is plausible but nothing in the sources supports it, so it stays out. Retroactive reclassification is stated in the code as a possibility, so it is in the note, labelled as an estimate of exposure rather than a finding.

Relies on: S1 · Synthetic Worker Status Code, part 2S2 · Synthetic regulator guidance on contractor driversS3 · Internal advice note, last year

Review and approval

The associate general counsel decides. Approving files the note on the matter as the department's research. It does not give advice to the business and does not change any contract.

Not ready to approve. Choose at least one supported statement for the brief first.

In the product this is a different person with the right permission. Here you play that role to see the rule.

What it produces

reportDraft, not approved

Research note

  • 0 propositions, each with its authority; 0 labelled estimate.
  • Authorities relied on: 0.
evidenceDraft, not approved

Authority trail

  • Every proposition lists the extract it rests on; one without authority was excluded.

Limits of this example

  • Synthetic sources: no real statute or regulator is cited.
  • Research supports a lawyer's judgement; it is not advice.
  • This is a scripted demonstration on fictional data. No model was called and no real organisation, person or result is shown.