Draft pleadings in a coverage or indemnity dispute
Key facts
- Human involvement
- RedLawyer-led
- How AI is used
- The lawyer drafts the statement of claim, defence, reply, cross-claim or particulars, and the tool writes no part of it — no draft, no first draft, no suggested paragraphs. Working from the policy wording, the coverage table and the claim file, the tool indexes the grounds the lawyer has chosen — for example an exclusion, breach of condition, non-disclosure or late notification — with the policy clause and the claim-file reference beside each material fact, and lists any allegation with no source on the file or in the lawyer's instructions rather than filling the gap. It does not propose or formulate an allegation of fraud or dishonest non-disclosure; where the file holds material that might bear on one, it points to the document and leaves the allegation to the lawyer. On the lawyer's own draft it compares the draft against the coverage table and against the pleading served by the other side, and lists the allegations the draft does not answer and the grounds in the table the draft does not plead, without supplying the words.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer drafts the pleading and settles every allegation, admission and non-admission personally: an allegation not traversed is deemed admitted on filing, an admission needs leave to withdraw, and a ground of denial not pleaded — an exclusion, breach of condition, non-disclosure, late notification — may not be available later. Verify every policy clause, limit and date against the policy and the claim file, and calculate the limitation period personally. Where the rules require the pleading to be verified by affidavit, the verification is the deponent's own sworn statement — the allegations it verifies must be in the lawyer's and the client's own words and nothing generative goes into the verification itself. Before filing, comply with the chosen forum's rules on disclosing AI use and certifying the document, and sign the pleading and the reasonable-prospects certification personally; in a forum that instead requires a proper basis certification for each material allegation, denial and non-admission, that certification is the lawyer's own to sign.
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Supporting preparation only. Potential support includes extracting and organising information and identifying points for review. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope. The tool writes nothing into the document. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human. |
| Lawyer | Perform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use. |
Checklist
- Confirm each factual assertion with the witness and original record. Preserve the witness’s own knowledge and words, and check the court’s rules for this document.
- Trace every relied-on figure to its source, confirm dates and assumptions, and independently recalculate totals or derived amounts.
- Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
- Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
- Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
- Confirm that the wording reflects the client’s instructions and contains no unintended admission, concession or commitment. Check the recipient and tone.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.