Research links & the matter graph
LiveLink judgments, statutes and typed citations to the matter's issues and claims, find supporting or contrary authority, and see the matter as a graph.
Plan availability. Typed citations work on every plan. Finding authority, the current-law note and judgment or statute links use the AI Research feature, which is on all four published plans.
- ✓Links to issues, claims, defences, clauses, drafts and workflow steps
- ✓Stances: supports, contrary, context
- ✓Verification through the citation resolver; judgments cap at ambiguous
- ✓Find supporting or contrary candidates from the research corpus
What it is.
A research link ties an authority — a judgment, a statute section, a research thread or a citation you typed — to an issue, claim, clause, draft or workflow step, with a stance: supports, contrary or context. Every link starts unverified; only the verify action runs the citation resolver and stores its verdict, and a judgment link caps at ambiguous because the corpus holds case metadata. Find runs research retrieval on the target's own words and returns candidates, never links.
The matter graph is computed from the matter's rows — client, parties, documents, facts, issues, claims, orders, directions, obligations, tasks — and a model never writes an edge. Every edge names the row it came from.
Three steps.
End to end.
Attach an authority to an issue or claim with a stance.
Run the resolver and store its verdict on the link.
Open the matter graph, or ask for the path between two nodes.
What you get.
- ✓Links to issues, claims, defences, clauses, drafts and workflow steps
- ✓Stances: supports, contrary, context
- ✓Verification through the citation resolver; judgments cap at ambiguous
- ✓Find supporting or contrary candidates from the research corpus
- ✓A current-law note that states the corpus's ingestion date and says it is not a statement that the law is current
- ✓Matter graph built from rows, never from model output
Quick answers.
No. It returns unverified candidates; a person makes the link.
No. A colleague's thread shows as private.
More in Litigation & Case Intelligence.
Read the matter's documents once into verified facts, then get issues, claims, contradictions, evidence gaps and a chronology — every row yours to edit.
Read a court order into its directions and next hearing; deadlines are computed only from dates the order states, otherwise marked "requires review".
A matter's stages from opening the file to the bundle, finished by the work itself — and a filing bundle PDF stamped with annexure numbers.
Draft from the matter's verified facts, with every factual sentence linked to its source, a deterministic check, and a lawyer → client → approved review chain.