How to find the weaknesses in your own case before opposing counsel does

You know your file too well. That is the problem.

By the fourth read of the intake, the exhibits and the correspondence, you are not reading any more. You are recognising. The date you glanced past on the second read is the date you will glance past on the tenth, and the other side will find it on their first.

A twenty-lawyer firm handles this by handing the file to someone who has never seen it. Solo and small-firm practice has nobody to hand it to.

Juris is that person.

What a cold read of your case should tell you

Point Juris at the documents and it returns the assessment you would want from a colleague who has no investment in your argument.

Strengths. What is genuinely working: favourable facts, strong evidence, procedural advantages.

Red flags. The risks that could sink it. Adverse facts, credibility problems, missed deadlines, weak or absent evidence, unfavourable law. Written candidly, because a flattering analysis is a liability.

What is missing, and who to get it from

Most case reviews tell you what is weak. The harder question is what is absent.

Investigative gaps. Documents that should exist and do not. Claims nobody has confirmed. Witnesses not yet covered. Records to obtain, and exactly who to obtain them from.

Discrepancies across your own record. Dates, amounts and names that do not line up. The client's account against the documentary record. Two versions of the same exhibit that differ. Each one named, with the documents involved and one line on why it matters, so you find it before they do.

The attack opposing counsel would make

This is the section lawyers stop on.

Juris steps fully into the other chair and is deliberately ruthless: the exact cracks they would exploit, how they would frame each argument, and where it helps, one line on how to pre-empt it.

Alongside it, opportunities: arguments worth developing, evidence that would materially move the matter, settlement and procedural angles you have not taken.

Then a probability of success with the reasoning behind it, and action items, so the read ends in work rather than in a feeling.

Four roles on every file

The assessment is the starting point. Sage takes four roles on top of it and you choose the one you need.

Opposing Counsel is adversarial by design. It attacks your case so you see every blow coming before the real opponent lands it.

Moot puts you through the questions the bench will ask.

Investigate works the gaps: who to subpoena, which records to pull, which experts to consult.

Analyse gives the rigorous structured version, honest about the weaknesses.

Four colleagues, on every file, at any hour.

Built so you can trust it with a live matter

Every citation is checked before it reaches you. Each authority in a draft is marked Verified, Verify or Unverified, so you know which ones checked out and which need your eyes before you file. Nothing unconfirmed is presented as fact.

Documents you mark privileged never reach Sage. They are excluded at the data layer, so no question and no draft can pull them in.

Your cases never train anything. Not ours, not anybody's.

Test the part that matters, free

Do not take that on our word, least of all from a company selling you AI.

Check a citation free. No signup, nothing stored. It is the same check that runs inside Juris, so you can judge the thing that matters most before paying for any of it.

Check a citation, free

See what else Juris does