Prompts
Juristische KI-Prompts: Review / Redline
30 prompts you can paste straight into HAQQ or any other assistant. Every one is written out in full. Open it, copy it, change the bracketed parts.
Red-Flag Review and Score From One Side's PositionReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
Analyse the attached document. I act for [party], and the governing law is [jurisdiction]. Return, in this order: 1. A table of red flags. Columns: clause reference, the risk in one line, severity (high / medium / low), and the specific words that create it. Sort by severity. 2. What is missing that should be there. Judge the document against what a competent lawyer would expect for this type of agreement in this jurisdiction, not against a generic checklist. 3. Strengths: the clauses that already work in my client's favour, so I do not trade them away. 4. A score out of 10 from my client's perspective, with the reason for the score in two lines. Then say what the score would be from the counterparty's perspective, because a document that scores 9 for both sides is usually a document nobody has read properly. 5. The three fixes that move the score most, each written as replacement wording I can paste in. Mandatory rules: quote the actual clause text you are relying on. Never paraphrase a clause and then critique your own paraphrase. If a risk depends on a fact outside the document, say which fact. If the document is incomplete or a page is unreadable, say so before analysing. Where you rely on a rule of law or a figure the document itself does not supply, flag it for confirmation rather than stating it as settled.
Tabular Risk Assessment of an Attached DocumentReportAdvancedLegal Ops / Billing
I act for [party]. Conduct a tabular risk assessment of the attached document. Output the table first and the commentary after it, so I can paste the table straight into a client note. Columns: clause, obligation or right created, who it binds, risk if it operates against us, likelihood (high / medium / low), impact (high / medium / low), residual risk after any existing mitigation in the document, and recommended action. After the table: 1. The three rows I should take to the client first, and why those three. 2. Anything in the document that creates a deadline or a notice obligation, extracted into a dated list. 3. Anything that survives termination, listed separately. Mandatory rules: one row per clause that carries risk. Do not merge unrelated clauses into a single row to make the table shorter. Leave a cell blank rather than guessing. If a clause is ambiguous, put both readings in the row and mark it as ambiguous, because ambiguity is itself the risk. Do not rate a likelihood or impact you cannot justify from the clause text itself; where the document gives you too little to rate it, say so instead of guessing.
Strengths and Weaknesses of an Opponent's PleadingMemoExpertDisputes / Litigation
I act for the responding party. Attached is a pleading filed by the opposing party in [jurisdiction]. Analyse it and set out its strengths and weaknesses, addressing the law in a way that fits the facts. Deliverables: 1. Break the opponent's allegations into a numbered list: each allegation, the legal basis it rests on, and the evidence relied on within the pleading itself. 2. For each allegation: is the evidence cited enough to make it out, and where is the gap between what is alleged and what is produced. 3. The procedural objections the pleading opens up for us, with the deadline for raising each. 4. The substantive defences, ranked by strength rather than in the pleading's own order. 5. The single most dangerous allegation against us, and what documents or witness evidence we need to meet it. 6. The risk of staying silent on a given point instead of answering it. Mandatory rules: quote the pleading verbatim for every observation. Distinguish clearly between what the pleading actually says and what you are inferring. Where you rely on a legal rule or a deadline to assess an allegation, name the provision; if you cannot, flag it for verification rather than asserting it. Do not assume facts in our favour; where a fact is missing, ask me for it.
Amend a Template to Favour One PartyAgreementAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
I act for [the disclosing party / the buyer / the landlord / the party I name]. Make the necessary amendments so the attached template works in their favour. Governing law is [jurisdiction]. Return: 1. A redline in table form: clause, current wording, proposed wording, and the reason in one line. Do not rewrite the whole document. Change only what needs to change, and say so where a clause is already fine. 2. New clauses to insert, with the position in the document where each belongs. 3. Clauses to delete, with what my client gives up by deleting them, because a one-sided document that the counterparty refuses to sign is not a win. 4. A short negotiation note: which of these amendments the other side will accept without argument, which they will resist, and a fallback for each of the contested ones. 5. Anything I am asking for that would be unenforceable in this jurisdiction however it is drafted. Tell me now rather than after signature. Mandatory rules: quote the current wording exactly as it appears. Keep the document's existing defined terms and numbering rather than introducing your own. Where you say a clause would be unenforceable, name the rule that makes it so; if you are not certain, flag it for confirmation rather than asserting it.
Full Contract Risk ReviewReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
I act for [COMPANY NAME]. Review the following contract: [PASTE CONTRACT TEXT OR ATTACH FILE]. Identify legal risks, unclear clauses, missing protections, and terms that may expose [COMPANY NAME] to financial or legal liability. Provide a structured report with these sections: - High risk clauses - Unclear or ambiguous language - Missing protections for [COMPANY NAME] - Clauses that strongly favor the other party - Suggested revisions in plain English Mandatory rule: quote the exact clause wording behind every risk you flag. Where a risk turns on a rule of law the contract does not state, say so rather than assuming how it would resolve. End with a short summary of the top risks.
Two Copies, One Document: Discrepancy AnalysisReportExpertDisputes / Litigation
I act for the party holding copy (A). Attached are two copies of what should be the same document: copy (A) held by my client, and copy (B) produced by the other side. Deliverables: 1. A precise discrepancy table: every difference in text, figure, date, stamp, signature or page order, quoting what each copy says. 2. Classify each difference: transcription error, different edition, later alteration, or a substantive difference that changes the legal meaning. 3. The legal effect of each substantive difference on my client's position. 4. What can be established from the two documents alone, and what can only be resolved by expert examination or by comparison against the original or the official register. 5. The procedural steps available: application to produce the original, an allegation of forgery, appointment of an expert, with the conditions and risks of each. Strict rule: do not conclude that a document is forged. Forgery is a judicial finding made by an expert on the original, not a textual comparison of scans. State what the differences do and do not show, quote the exact wording of each copy rather than paraphrasing it, and confine yourself to description and possibilities. If image quality does not support a reliable observation, say so.
Legal Invoice Review ChecklistChecklistStandardLegal Ops / Billing
Create an invoice review checklist for [Company]'s legal department to use when reviewing outside counsel invoices. Cover rate compliance against the agreed fee arrangement, task code accuracy, block billing, excessive or duplicate charges, compliance with [Company]'s outside counsel guidelines, and the approval workflow before payment. Produce the checklist as a table with a column for the reviewer to mark pass, query, or reject, plus a space for notes. Flag any item that requires comparing the invoice against a specific engagement letter or rate agreement rather than assuming compliance.
Open Source Compliance ReviewReportAdvancedIP / Licensing
You are conducting an open source license compliance review of [Company's] software product. Facts: the product's build process and how dependencies are pulled in, and whether [Company's] business distributes the software, offers it as a hosted service, or both. Deliverables: 1. An inventory of the open source components identified, with the licence attached to each. 2. A classification of each licence as permissive or copyleft, noting any with unusual conditions such as network copyleft. 3. A compatibility assessment: which licences conflict with [Company's] intended distribution model or with each other. 4. Flagged compliance risks, each tied to the specific component and licence clause creating it. 5. Recommended remediation steps for each flagged risk, such as replacing a component, isolating it, or obtaining a separate licence. 6. A note on attribution and notice obligations the identified licences require, and whether [Company's] business currently meets them. Mandatory rules: do not state that a licence permits or prohibits a specific use without quoting the clause of that licence you are relying on. Flag any component whose licence could not be identified rather than assuming it is permissive. This is an analysis aid for a qualified lawyer to review, not a substitute for legal advice.
Vendor Agreement Red Flag ScanReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
Act as counsel for [COMPANY NAME]. Analyze this vendor agreement: [PASTE AGREEMENT]. Focus on payment terms, liability limits, termination conditions, intellectual property ownership, and service obligations. Explain, ranked from highest to lowest financial exposure: - Clauses that may create financial exposure - Terms that restrict flexibility or exit options - Any unusual or one-sided conditions Then rewrite the risky clauses with safer alternatives suitable for [COMPANY NAME], adding one line on why each alternative is safer. Quote the actual clause text before you rewrite it, and flag any exposure that depends on a fact outside the document rather than assuming the worst case. Cite the provision or standard behind any legal exposure you assert, and mark anything you cannot attribute to a named source for counsel to confirm.
NDA Strength CheckReportStandardCorporate / Commercial
Act as counsel for [COMPANY NAME]. Evaluate this Non Disclosure Agreement: [PASTE NDA]. Check whether the agreement properly protects confidential information for [COMPANY NAME]. Review the following areas: - Definition of confidential information - Duration of confidentiality obligations - Permitted disclosures - Remedies for breach Identify weaknesses and rewrite the NDA clauses so the protection is stronger and clearer. Quote the actual clause language you are critiquing rather than paraphrasing it, and flag any weakness that depends on a fact outside the document for confirmation.
Employment Contract Compliance ReviewReportAdvancedEmployment
Review the employment contract at [PASTE CONTRACT] for legal and operational risk under [jurisdiction] employment law, acting for the [employer/employee]. Facts: the industry and role the contract covers (describe), and whether this is a new hire, a renewal, or an amendment (state which). Deliverables: 1. Non compete and non solicitation clauses: enforceability under [jurisdiction] law, scope, duration and geographic reach. 2. Intellectual property ownership: whether work product, inventions and moral rights are properly assigned. 3. Termination terms: notice periods, cause definitions, and severance obligations, checked against statutory minimums. 4. Compensation structure: base pay, variable pay, benefits and any clawback or repayment obligations. 5. Other risk clauses: confidentiality, restrictive covenants, and arbitration or forum selection provisions. 6. A table of flagged issues, each with the clause reference, the risk in one line, and proposed replacement wording. Mandatory rules: state a clause's enforceability only where it tracks a specific statutory provision or reported decision that you cite. Where enforceability depends on facts outside the contract, flag it rather than asserting a conclusion. This is a drafting and analysis aid, not legal advice, and a qualified local employment lawyer should confirm any clause before it is relied on.
Agreement / Legal Draft ReviewReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
Review the agreement at [paste agreement text] for [party]'s position under [jurisdiction] law. Facts: the type of agreement (describe, for example supply, services or licensing), and the stage of negotiation (first draft, counterparty markup, or final review). Deliverables: 1. A table of legal risks: clause reference, the risk in one line, and severity (high / medium / low). 2. Tax implications: any provisions that create a tax event, withholding obligation or reporting requirement. 3. Compliance issues: clauses that conflict with applicable regulation, sector rules or the client's existing obligations. 4. Missing protections: what a competent lawyer would expect in this type of agreement that is absent here. 5. Proposed redlines for the three issues that carry the most risk, written as replacement wording. Mandatory rules: quote the actual clause text you are relying on before analysing it, do not paraphrase a clause and then critique the paraphrase. Do not state a tax or compliance consequence unless it is tied to a specific provision of law you cite, otherwise flag it for confirmation.
Arbitration Clause ComparisonReportAdvancedArbitration
Compare arbitration clauses under the [ICC, LCIA, SIAC, DIFC-LCIA, DIAC] rules for a [type of dispute] seated in [region]. Facts: the contract value or stakes involved (describe), the parties' nationalities (describe), and any existing preference for a seat or institution (state, or none). Deliverables: 1. A comparison table across the named institutions: default seat, language of proceedings, number of arbitrators, and appointment method. 2. Emergency arbitrator provisions: availability, timeline and enforceability of emergency relief. 3. Expedited procedure thresholds and how each institution's expedited track differs. 4. Estimated costs: filing fees, administrative fees and arbitrator fees, and how each scales with dispute value. 5. Enforceability considerations for an award in [region], including relevant New York Convention reservations. 6. A recommendation of the institution and seat best suited to the stated dispute type, with the reasoning. Mandatory rules: state a fee, timeline or rule only where it is quoted from the current version of the named institution's rules, where the rules have changed or you are unsure of the current text, flag it rather than stating a figure.
Contract Risk MatrixReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
Act for the reviewing party, under [jurisdiction] law. Analyze the attached contract and create a risk matrix categorizing each clause by risk level (low/medium/high/critical). For each risk, provide: 1. The clause reference. 2. The risk in one line. 3. Potential impact. 4. Likelihood. 5. A recommended mitigation action, written as wording I can propose. Mandatory rules: quote the actual clause text behind each risk, never paraphrase a clause and then assess your own paraphrase. If a risk depends on a fact outside the document, say which fact, and do not assume a statutory protection applies unless the clause or a named source confirms it.
Review My LeaseMemoStandardHousing & Tenancy
Act for the tenant. Review the attached residential lease and explain in plain language: rent and any increase mechanism, the deposit, the term, renewal, repair obligations, who pays utilities, pets, subletting and termination. Flag any clause that is unusual or unfavorable to the tenant. Mandatory rules: quote the actual lease wording behind each explanation and flag. Do not state a legal right or limit under [jurisdiction] law unless the lease itself says so or you can name the source.
Severance ReviewMemoAdvancedEmployee Rights
Act for the employee. Review the attached severance agreement and explain in plain language: 1. The payout amount and timing. 2. Benefits continuation. 3. The release of claims, and what it gives up. 4. Non-compete and non-solicit restrictions. 5. References. 6. Any clawback provision. Flag terms I should negotiate. Mandatory rules: quote the actual clause text behind each explanation and flag. Do not state that a restriction or release is enforceable under [jurisdiction] law without flagging it for confirmation, since enforceability of non-competes and waivers varies by jurisdiction. This is a review aid, not legal advice.
Non-Compete ReviewMemoAdvancedEmployee Rights
Review the non-compete clause I am attaching. I am the employee bound by it, and the governing law is [jurisdiction]. Deliverables: 1. Quote the actual clause language for scope, geography, and duration before analysing each, so the analysis is tied to the real wording. 2. Whether the clause is likely enforceable in [jurisdiction], citing the specific statute or the legal test courts apply there. 3. Whether the consideration given for the clause, such as a new job offer, a raise, or continued employment, is adequate under that test. 4. The carve-outs and narrower alternatives I could realistically negotiate, ranked by how much they reduce my risk against how likely my employer is to accept them. 5. What happens if I breach the clause as written, including the remedies available to my employer. Mandatory rules: quote the clause text you are relying on for every point, do not paraphrase it and then assess the paraphrase. If enforceability under [jurisdiction] cannot be confirmed from a named statute or case, flag it and tell me to confirm with a local employment lawyer before I act on this analysis. This is a drafting aid, not legal advice.
Purchase Agreement ReviewMemoAdvancedReal Estate (Personal)
Review this home purchase agreement for [address] at a price of [amount]. I am the buyer. Deliverables, in this order: 1. A summary of the contingencies present (financing, inspection, appraisal, sale of another home) and the deadline attached to each, with what happens if a deadline is missed. 2. The financing terms: loan type contemplated, the financing contingency's exact wording, and what it does and does not protect me against. 3. The inspection process: the window to inspect, my right to request repairs or a price reduction, and the seller's obligation to respond. 4. The closing date and what happens if either side cannot close on time. 5. Title: what title condition the seller must deliver, and who bears the cost of curing a defect found before closing. 6. Repairs: which repairs, if any, the agreement already commits the seller to make, described in the seller's own words in the document. 7. An overall assessment of what protects me as buyer and where the agreement is silent or one-sided. Mandatory rules: quote the actual clause text you are relying on for each point above; never paraphrase a clause and then assess your own paraphrase. If a term depends on a jurisdiction-specific default rule not stated in the document, flag it for confirmation rather than assuming a default that may not apply.
Marital Balance Sheet (Separate vs Marital)ReportAdvancedFamily Law
I act for the [petitioner/respondent]. Build a marital balance sheet from the asset and debt list below. Produce one table with columns: item, current value, debt against it, net equity, title/ownership, acquisition date, and a characterization (separate / marital / mixed) with a one-line tracing rationale. Total the marital column and the separate column. Then list the items where characterization is uncertain and what document would resolve each. Asset and debt list: [PASTE LIST]. Jurisdiction and legal family (equitable distribution / community property / civil-law regime): [JURISDICTION]. Note any characterization rule as [CONFIRM LOCALLY], and do not assume a default regime applies if [JURISDICTION] does not make it clear. Draft for attorney review only.
Bank-Statement Flow-of-Funds AnalysisReportExpertFamily Law
I act for the [petitioner/respondent]. Analyze the bank/credit statements below for a divorce financial review. Produce: (1) a categorized spending summary by month; (2) a recurring-income vs recurring-expense view; (3) a lifestyle snapshot (estimated monthly run-rate); and (4) a flag list of items to investigate: large or round-number transfers, payments to unknown payees, cash withdrawals above [THRESHOLD], and any drop in account balance not explained by listed expenses. Cite the statement date and line for every flagged item. Frame flags as questions to investigate, not conclusions of wrongdoing, and do not name a payee's identity or purpose you cannot read from the statement; mark it [UNKNOWN FROM RECORDS] instead of guessing. Statements: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE]. Draft for attorney review only; this is not a forensic accounting opinion.
Two-Affidavit Variance PassMemoExpertFamily Law
I act for the [petitioner/respondent]. Compare the two financial affidavits below (my client's and the opposing party's) and produce a reconciliation memo. List: (1) every asset or account that appears on one affidavit but not the other; (2) every value that differs by more than [PERCENT]%; (3) any stated income that does not square with the stated lifestyle or listed deposits; and (4) expense totals that do not add up. For each item, note which document or discovery request would resolve it. Present this as preparation for mediation/cross-examination, not as accusation, and do not characterize any discrepancy as fraud or concealment; note it as a variance to be resolved in discovery. Affidavits: [PASTE BOTH]. Draft for attorney review only. For every variance listed, cite the specific line item, exhibit, or page of the affidavit it comes from, rather than describing the discrepancy without pointing to where it appears in the source documents. Do not state a figure, asset value or date that does not appear in one of the two affidavits; mark anything absent from both as unverified and requiring confirmation rather than inferring it.
Five-Pass Contract Review for In-House CounselReportExpertCorporate / Commercial
Act as in-house counsel for [Company]. Review the attached contract in five passes, labeling each section of your output by pass number. Pass 1: summarize the deal, the parties, the term, and every date or deadline in the document. Pass 2: go clause by clause and list each party's obligations, quoting the clause text for each one rather than paraphrasing it. Pass 3: rate each risk you find as low/medium/high/critical, with the clause reference and a proposed redline. Pass 4: check the contract against [attached playbook, or 'our standard positions below'] and flag every deviation. Pass 5: close with a one-paragraph executive summary and a go/no-go recommendation. Contract: [PASTE]. Playbook or standard positions: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE]. Mandatory rules: quote the actual clause text you rely on, never paraphrase a clause and then critique your own paraphrase. Do not describe a position as market standard, or cite a statute or regulation, that you cannot attribute to a named source; flag it as needing confirmation instead.
Contract Comparison Diff for Redline ReviewReportAdvancedCorporate / M&A
Act as counsel for [our side]. Compare Version A and Version B of the attached contract and produce a diff limited to substantive changes: ignore formatting, renumbering, and typo fixes. For each substantive change, quote the before and after language rather than describing it, state which party it favors, whether it is a market-standard adjustment or an outlier, and whether it needs an escalation flag before we accept it. Close with a one-line summary of whether, on balance, Version B is more or less favorable to [our side] than Version A. Version A: [PASTE]. Version B: [PASTE]. Mandatory rules: quote the wording of each change from both versions rather than summarising it. Do not call an adjustment market standard, or state a legal consequence of it, unless you can attribute that to a named source; flag it for confirmation instead.
Authority Verification: Does the Citation Support the Proposition?ReportExpertDisputes / Litigation
Act as a verification reviewer. For every authority cited in the passage below, check one thing only: whether the source actually supports the proposition it is cited for. Do not assess whether the argument is persuasive. If you cannot open or confirm a source, say so plainly and mark it Unverified. Never infer the content of a case, statute or regulation you have not read. Return: (1) Citation Table: one row per authority: Citation | Proposition it is cited for | Verdict (Supports / Partially supports / Does not support / Unverified); (2) Overstatements, where the proposition goes further than the source, quoting the source language beside the claim; (3) Wrong-Level Errors, dicta cited as holding, a dissent or minority view cited as the rule, a repealed or superseded provision, a first-instance decision presented as settled law; (4) Miscitations, wrong party, year, section, court or reporter, and pin cites that do not point to the passage relied on; (5) Currency Check: anything that may have been overturned, amended, distinguished or restricted since, flagged for manual confirmation together with the exact search a human should run; (6) Unsupported Assertions, legal propositions in the text carrying no citation at all; (7) Fix List, for each problem, the smallest change that repairs it (soften the claim, re-pin the cite, substitute authority, delete the sentence); (8) Sign-Off Verdict, safe to file, needs work, or do not file, in one line with the deciding reason. Passage: [PASTE].
Pre-Send Self-Audit Before the Draft Leaves the OfficeChecklistExpertLegal Ops / Billing
Act as the last reviewer before this document leaves the firm. Scope: the draft below, intended for [RECIPIENT], for the purpose of [PURPOSE], under the retainer described as [SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT], due [DATE]. Audit it as though you will personally answer for anything that goes wrong. Return: (1) Blocking Defects: anything that must be fixed before it goes out, each with the exact location in the draft and the corrected wording; (2) Client-Facing Errors, wrong names, dates, amounts or entity forms, unfilled placeholders and square brackets, comments or tracked changes left in, and any text carried over from another matter or client; (3) Internal Consistency, defined terms used before they are defined or never used at all, cross-references pointing at the wrong clause, broken numbering, and figures that differ between the body, the schedules and the cover email; (4) Scope and Instruction Fit, where the draft goes beyond what was asked or fails to answer what was asked, mapped against [SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT]; (5) Unstated Assumptions: assumptions the document relies on but does not disclose, with the sentence that would disclose each one; (6) Tone and Exposure, anything that overpromises, guarantees an outcome, gives advice outside the retainer, or reads as a conclusion where it should read as an option; (7) Confidentiality Check, third-party names, privileged or without-prejudice material, and document metadata to strip before sending; (8) Ship Decision, Send, Send after the numbered fixes above, or Do Not Send, in one line with the reason. Where you cannot confirm a fact, figure or defined term from the draft or from [SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT], flag it as [VERIFY] rather than assuming it is correct. Draft: [PASTE].
Fabrication Check on an AI-Assisted DraftChecklistAdvancedLegal Ops / Billing
Act as a verification reviewer for a document that was drafted with AI assistance. Scope: the draft below and the source materials I supply. Treat those sources as the only permissible basis for any factual, numerical or legal statement in the draft. Do not fill gaps from your own knowledge; an unsupported statement is a finding, not something for you to justify. Return: (1) Source Map: every factual and legal assertion in the draft, matched to the source and line that supports it; (2) Unsourced Assertions, statements with no support anywhere in the materials, quoted verbatim with their location in the draft; (3) Suspected Fabrications, citations, case names, quotes, figures, dates, party names or document references that appear nowhere in the sources, listed verbatim and flagged as high priority; (4) Quote Integrity, every quotation checked word for word against the source, with any drift shown side by side; (5) Number Integrity: every figure, date, deadline, percentage and calculation traced to its source, with a note where the arithmetic does not reconcile; (6) Silent Drift, passages where the draft states a source more strongly, more broadly or more favourably than the source states itself; (7) Verification Queue, what a human must check manually, ordered by damage if wrong, with the specific check for each item; (8) Verdict, the count of unsourced and suspected-fabricated items and whether the draft may be circulated as it stands. Sources: [PASTE]. Draft: [PASTE].
GCC Cross-Border Dispute Resolution Clause Audit: Seat, Venue and EnforceabilityReportEnterpriseArbitration
Act as arbitration counsel auditing the dispute-resolution provisions of [AGREEMENT] in a cross-border transaction between [PARTY A, jurisdiction] and [PARTY B, jurisdiction], performed in [COUNTRY], with the counterparty's assets likely located in [ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS]. Scope: the clauses pasted below only. Cite the rule, article or institutional provision behind each conclusion; where you cannot cite it, mark it To Be Confirmed rather than asserting it. Return: (1) Clause Anatomy: what the clause actually provides: governing law of the contract, legal seat, hearing venue, institution and rules, number and method of appointment of arbitrators, language of the proceedings, and any tiered pre-conditions such as negotiation or mediation; (2) Seat versus Venue Diagnosis, whether the drafting confuses the legal seat with the hearing venue, which curial law that leaves supervising the arbitration, which courts would hear a challenge, and the exact replacement wording; (3) Language of Proceedings, whether it is specified, what applies by default if it is not, and the practical consequence where evidence exists in both Arabic and English (translation cost, bilingual tribunal, the evidentiary record); (4) Pathology Check, asymmetric or optional clauses, floating or unspecified seat, a named institution paired with another body's rules, an institution that no longer exists under that name, unworkable time limits, and conflicts with the jurisdiction or governing-law clauses elsewhere in the agreement; (5) Enforcement Path: for each of [ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS], the recognition route and the formalities to confirm, including whether the local court requires an Arabic translation of the award and of the arbitration agreement; (6) Arbitrability and Authority, subject matter that may not be arbitrable locally, and local requirements on who has authority to bind a company to arbitration, flagged for confirmation; (7) Redraft, a clean replacement clause, with an Arabic counterpart if the agreement is bilingual; (8) Residual Risks and Local Counsel Questions. Clauses: [PASTE].
Takaful Policy Wording ReviewReportExpertIslamic Finance & Sharia
Act as insurance counsel reviewing the policy wording of a takaful product offered by [OPERATOR] in [COUNTRY], operating on a [wakala / mudaraba / hybrid] model, covering [RISKS COVERED] for [PARTICIPANT TYPE]. Paste or describe the wording. A takaful is a mutual risk-sharing fund run by an operator for a fee. The participants' fund and the operator's own account are separate pools, and most drafting failures come from wording that quietly merges them. Test for that throughout. Do not state a Sharia standard or a regulatory requirement you cannot attribute to a named source; mark it To Be Confirmed. Return: (1) Model Statement: how this wording actually describes the operator's role and remuneration, and whether that matches the model claimed on the cover page; (2) Fund Separation Audit, every clause that touches the participants' fund, checked for whether contributions, claims, reserves, investment returns and expenses stay on the correct side of the line; (3) Surplus Distribution, how any underwriting surplus is calculated, who is entitled to it, when it is paid, and whether the operator can take a share of it on this model; (4) Deficit and Qard, what happens if the fund cannot meet claims, whether the operator lends interest-free to the fund, and how that loan is repaid; (5) Coverage and Exclusions Review: ambiguous grants, exclusions that swallow the cover, conditions precedent and notification periods, each with a suggested rewrite; (6) Sharia Risk Register, features commonly objected to (guaranteed returns to participants, investment of the fund in non-compliant assets, penalty charges, operator fee tied to surplus rather than to service), each with the fix; (7) Consumer Clarity Pass, the three places a participant would most likely misunderstand what they bought, and plain wording for each; (8) Findings Table and Next Steps, issue, clause reference, severity, proposed wording, and who signs it off. This is a review aid for a qualified practitioner, not legal or Sharia advice.
Converting a Conventional Facility to a Sharia-Compliant StructureReportExpertIslamic Finance & Sharia
Act as Islamic finance counsel assessing whether an existing conventional facility can be restructured on Sharia-compliant terms. Paste or describe the facility: [TYPE, LENDER, BORROWER, PRINCIPAL, INTEREST BASIS, FEES, TENOR, SECURITY, GOVERNING LAW, COUNTRY OF PERFORMANCE]. The reason for the request is [INVESTOR MANDATE / CUSTOMER REQUEST / LISTING OR FUND REQUIREMENT / ACQUISITION BY AN ISLAMIC INSTITUTION]. Do not simply rename the interest. Say honestly which features can be restructured, which have to be removed, and where the economics genuinely change for one side. Do not state a Sharia standard or a local-law rule you cannot attribute to a named source; mark it To Be Confirmed and refer it to the Sharia Supervisory Board. Return: (1) Non-Compliance Findings: clause by clause, what makes this facility non-compliant, ranked by how central it is (interest on money, penalty interest, sale of debt, uncertainty in price or delivery, use of proceeds, guaranteed return); (2) Candidate Structures, the two or three compliant structures that could carry these economics, with the trade-off of each in plain terms; (3) Recommended Structure, the one you would take forward, the transaction steps it requires, and the new documents needed; (4) Economic Delta, where the restructured deal is genuinely worse or better for each side (timing of cash flows, prepayment, late payment, tax, security enforcement), stated numerically where the inputs allow and flagged as an assumption where they do not; (5) Documents to Amend or Replace: a table of every existing document, whether it is amended, replaced or discharged, and in what order so security is never left unperfected; (6) Use of Proceeds and Business Screen, whether the borrower's activities and the intended use would themselves pass a compliance screen, and what a mixed-activity borrower has to change; (7) Approvals and Timing, Sharia board, credit committee, regulator, security registries and any listing or fund requirement, sequenced with lead times; (8) Recommendation, proceed, restructure partially, or decline, with the reason and the questions for the Sharia Supervisory Board. This is an analysis aid for a qualified practitioner, not legal, tax or Sharia advice.
Arabic–English Legal Translation QA and Terminology TableReportExpertCorporate / Commercial
Act as a bilingual reviewing lawyer checking a legal translation before it is relied on. Paste the source and the translation, and state the direction [Arabic to English / English to Arabic], the document type [CONTRACT / JUDGMENT / STATUTE / PLEADING / CORPORATE DOCUMENT], and what it will be used for [SIGNATURE / FILING IN COURT / REGULATORY SUBMISSION / CLIENT ADVICE]. Review it as a lawyer, not as a linguist: the question is whether the translated text creates the same legal effect, not whether it reads well. Where a term has no true equivalent across the two systems, say so and give the options rather than picking a comfortable word. Return: (1) Verdict: fit to rely on, fit after the listed fixes, or not fit, in one line with the reason; (2) Meaning-Changing Errors, every place the translation alters an obligation, a right, a deadline, a condition, a party or an amount, quoted in both languages with the corrected rendering; (3) Legal-Effect Divergences, terms of art that do not map cleanly between a common-law source and an Arabic civil-law reader, or the reverse (consideration, trust, estoppel, best efforts, indemnify and hold harmless, without prejudice, وقف التنفيذ, حق الامتياز, التعويض الاتفاقي), each with the options and the one you recommend for this document; (4) Terminology Table, every defined and recurring term, its rendering in both languages, and a note where the translation used more than one rendering for the same term; (5) Numbers, Dates and Names: figures in words and digits, currencies, Hijri and Gregorian dates, party and entity names, transliteration consistency, and anything that must match an official register exactly; (6) Structure and Omissions, clauses, cross-references, schedules, headings or signature blocks that are missing, reordered or silently merged; (7) Formal Requirements, whether the intended use requires a sworn or licensed translator, a stamp, notarisation or legalisation, flagged as a question for the receiving authority; (8) Fix List, a numbered table of every change, ordered by severity, ready to hand to the translator. Do not state that a term is legally equivalent across the two systems unless you show the source and target text side by side; where you are uncertain, mark it [CONFIRM WITH BILINGUAL COUNSEL]. This is a review aid for a qualified practitioner and does not replace a certified translation where one is required.