PrecedentIQ provides drafting and research support to instructing advocates and law firms. It takes no vakalatnama, holds no client relationship, and appears in no proceeding. Nothing on this site is legal advice or an invitation for work in the sense prohibited by the Bar Council of India Rules.
By continuing, you confirm you are seeking this information of your own accord.
PrecedentIQ uses technology to support research and drafting. Its use is disclosed here, and directly to clients and courts where relevant.
Every draft produced with the support of technology is reviewed by a member of the bench before it reaches the instructing advocate, and by the instructing advocate again before it is filed or used. No output leaves PrecedentIQ without that review, and no output is treated as finished simply because it reads as complete and confident.
Reliability failures in legal drafting are not limited to a system inventing a fact or a citation that does not exist. A draft can look complete while quietly leaving out something that did not fit the pattern of the instructions, answer the narrow question asked while missing a related provision just outside it, treat two similar clauses inconsistently across a portfolio without flagging the difference, or drift from the brief's original scope as a multi-step task moves along. Human review at PrecedentIQ is built to catch this fuller range of failure, not only the more visible kind.
The reviewer checks a draft against the instructions and the papers themselves, not only against how polished the draft reads, since a fluent and confident draft can still be materially incomplete or inconsistent with an earlier position taken in the same matter.
Citations and statutory references are checked against the primary source as a standing step in the process described in How We Work, not as an optional pass that can be skipped under time pressure. A citation or a section number is confirmed against the actual text of the judgment, statute or rule before it is relied upon, rather than accepted because it looks correctly formatted.
This step exists because a fabricated citation is only one way a draft can go wrong, and it is usually the easiest to catch. Verification at PrecedentIQ also checks for gaps against the brief and the papers, for provisions adjacent to the specific question asked, and for consistency with positions taken on similar clauses or facts earlier in the same matter or for the same client, so that an omission or an inconsistency is caught before delivery rather than after.
Technology use is disclosed on this page, and directly to clients and courts wherever the forum or the brief calls for it. PrecedentIQ does not treat disclosure as a formality to be satisfied once; where a forum's rules or a client's instructions call for a specific form of disclosure, that form is followed for the matter concerned.
An instructing advocate who needs a particular disclosure statement, for a court, a regulator or a client, can ask for one through the Contact page, and PrecedentIQ will provide what the brief requires.
Matter documents are used only to perform the brief they were sent for, and are not used to train systems for use outside PrecedentIQ. Nothing shared through a brief becomes part of a model that serves any other chamber, firm or matter.
Access to a matter's documents is limited to the advocates and researchers actually working on it, on the same need-to-know basis described in the Privacy Policy, and work carried out for one chamber is never referenced, in substance or in passing, when advising another.