Scans come back empty
The pages are images. There is no text layer to extract, so the document is recorded as read and contains nothing. Nobody is told which pages went missing.
Case Analysis & Argument
Both sides argued. Before you get to court.
Lodge the bundle as it exists — scanned case summary, witness statements, exhibits, orders. Litora UK reads every page, tells you where your file is strong and where it will be attacked, then puts your lawyer and theirs in front of a bench and lets them argue it out. You read the exchange, and you read the bench’s reasoning at the end.
No packages Matters and uploads are free and unlimited. Top up your wallet from £10 and pay only for the AI analysis you run.
Pay per use, by tokens Scanned bundles read page by page No subscription Wallet balance does not expire
Record of Argument
Matter LX‑2291 · Illustrative
The question before the court Whether the identification evidence is sustainable in the absence of a test identification parade.
Our Lawyer For us
The sole sighting was at night, at distance. No identification procedure under PACE Code D was held at any stage. Identification made for the first time from the dock is worth very little.
Opposing Lawyer Against us
The witness knew the accused by sight beforehand. Where the witness is previously acquainted, a parade adds nothing and its absence is immaterial.
The Bench Questions
Where on this record is prior acquaintance established? The statement says “recognised him” and goes no further. Who proves it, and when?
The Bench Judgment
Prior acquaintance is asserted and not proved. On this record the identification does not carry the weight placed on it.
61% on the present record
Moderate confidence · a rehearsal, not a ruling
Used across
Criminal Defence
Bail & Judicial Review
Appeals & Revision
Civil & Commercial
Service & Labour
Matrimonial
Regulatory
§ 01 · The Problem
Most of a case bundle is a scan of a photocopy
A witness statement printed, annotated by hand and scanned crooked. Served evidence that is forty pages of images with no text in the file at all. Any tool that cannot read that bundle cannot help you with the matter, whatever else it does well.
Half the bundle, silently
A long scan is sent to a model in one piece. The reply runs out of room around page ten and stops. The first ten pages read perfectly, so the document looks complete.
Page by page, and it says so
Pages are transcribed in small batches, several at a time. You watch the count climb — page 12 of 48. If a batch fails, that gap is printed in the transcript where the pages should have been.
§ 02 · Reading
How the bundle is actually read
Nothing needs retyping, renaming or reordering. Upload the file in whatever state you hold it, and put each document in the pile it belongs to — that part matters, and § 03 explains why.
Checks before it spends anything
A local pass works out what the file is, how many pages it has, and whether its text layer is usable. No model is called, so this is instant and costs nothing.
Splits scans into small batches
A scanned bundle is cut into batches of a few pages each. Each batch is transcribed on its own, several running at once, so a long file moves steadily instead of all at the end.
Keeps every number exactly
URNs, claim numbers, statutory references, dates, times and amounts are transcribed as written, in the original script and language. Nothing is translated or tidied.
Marks what it could not read
Illegible handwriting is marked [illegible] rather than guessed at. A batch that fails leaves a visible gap in the transcript, not a silent join from page 8 to page 13.
Retries in smaller bites
If a batch of very dense pages was cut short, one button re-reads that document in smaller batches. Retrying at the same size would truncate in the same place.
Indexes what each paper is
Once read, each document is catalogued: what it is, who it names, what dates it fixes, and which provisions it cites. That index is what the analysis reasons over.
§ 03 · The Bundles
Whose paper it is changes what it is worth
A case summary records what the prosecution says, and a statement of case what the other side alleges. That is not the same as what is proved. Any system that treats the other side’s bundle and your client’s witness statement as the same kind of material will read assertions against your client as established facts.
The charge or the claim
The charge sheet or summons and the MG5 case summary — or in a civil matter, the claim form and particulars of claim.
The other side’s evidence
Served MG11 witness statements, exhibits, interview records, forensic and expert reports, unused material schedules — or the opponent’s statements of case and disclosure.
The decision under challenge
For an appeal or review, the judgment, order or decision being challenged. Without it there is nothing to argue error against, and the system says so plainly.
Your own material
Defence or client documents, your witness statements, expert reports and correspondence — kept separate from the other side’s throughout.
The workspace also asks which court you are in and at what stage. An appeal is argued against the findings of the court below — error, not evidence afresh. A trial is the opposite. The same file supports very different arguments depending on the answer.
§ 04 · The Assessment
Where you are strong, and where you will be attacked
One reader takes in the whole file at once and reports on it. Not a summary — a working note of the kind a good junior would put in front of you before a conference.
Strengths and weaknesses, each tied to a document
Every point names the paper it came from and how heavily it weighs. A weakness carries the way the other side will use it, and what would blunt it.
What is not on the file
Documents pleaded but not produced, dates asserted but not evidenced. A gap in the record is stated as a gap, never filled in by inference.
Provisions engaged, and provisions merely asserted
Each section is marked clearly engaged, arguably engaged, or asserted without any factual basis on the record.
Procedural points
Limitation, sanction, jurisdiction, custody, investigation defects — each returned as satisfied, defective, or impossible to determine on this record.
Questions it needs you to answer
The gaps the papers cannot close. Your answers count as instructions, and they move the assessment when you re-run it.
Assessment · on the present record
Illustrative
| Item | Finding | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Identification | No test identification parade held at any stage. | Strong for us |
| Recovery | Seizure memo produced nine days after the alleged recovery. | Exposed |
| Malkhana register | Not produced; continuity of custody cannot be traced. | Not on record |
| Sanction | Nothing on the file establishes whether sanction was obtained. | Undetermined |
| Authority cited | Supporting case name produced by the model, not checked against a reporter. | Unverified |
Illustration only. Every status above is a statement about the documents supplied —
never a finding of fact, and never a prediction of outcome.
§ 05 · The Argument
Two lawyers and a bench
Not a committee. A hearing has two sides and someone deciding, so that is what runs. Twelve turns, strictly in order, each one reading everything said before it.
Our Counsel
Bar
Reasoning-class
Reasoning-class
Argues our case at its strongest, on the record as it stands.
Opens on the theory of the case, answers what the other side puts, meets the bench's questions directly, and closes on the point most likely to carry. Argues from the papers, and says so plainly where the papers are silent rather than filling the gap.
Opposing Counsel
Bar
Adversarial-class
Adversarial-class
Argues the other side's case as they would actually argue it.
Deliberately hostile and genuinely competent. Takes the weakest link in our position and works it. Its value is entirely in being difficult before someone else is difficult in a room where it counts.
The Bench
Bench
Reasoning-class
Reasoning-class
Puts the questions a careful judge would put, then gives a reasoned view.
Neutral. Presses whichever side is being loose, marks what the record does not support, and at the end sets out how the argument stands and what would change it. Its view is a rehearsal view, never a ruling.
Why not sixteen agents any more
An earlier version ran sixteen specialists over the same file. They largely agreed, because they were one model reading one record from overlapping angles — and sixteen agreeing outputs look like corroboration while being nothing of the sort. The specialist work did not disappear; it moved into the assessment, which does it once, properly, before anyone argues.
The opposing lawyer is genuinely hostile
It is instructed to argue the other side’s case as they would actually argue it — competently, at its strongest — and to work the weakest link in your position. Its entire value is in being difficult here, rather than in a room where it counts.
The bench gives reasons, not a verdict
At the end it sets out which submissions carried, which failed, what this record simply does not allow anyone to decide, and what would change the answer. It has no authority of any kind and does not write as though a court has decided anything.
§ 06 · The Estimate
A percentage, and everything needed to argue with it
You asked how strong the case is, so you get a number. But a bare number on a screen reads as a measurement, and it is nothing of the sort — so it never travels alone.
The number
A whole-number estimate of the realistic prospect of success on the papers presently on file. Never 0, never 100 — nothing in litigation is certain.
How much weight it carries
Worked out from how much of the file was readable, whether the documents this kind of matter turns on are present, and how many critical questions are still unanswered.
Why that number
Why it is not ten points either side. Stated in words you can disagree with, which is the only form of estimate worth having.
What would move it
The specific document, admission, witness or authority that would raise or lower it, and roughly by how much. This is the part you can actually do something about.
When confidence is low, the figure is deliberately pulled toward the middle and the screen says so. A thin file cannot support a confident-looking number, and dressing a guess up to look like a judgement would be the most harmful thing this product could do.
§ 07 · Procedure
Four stages, in order
The order is enforced, not suggested. Nothing is assessed before the papers have been read, and nothing is argued before the assessment has been made.
Open the matter
Name it, say which court and which stage, and record the police URN and offences if you have them. Which court you are in changes how everything downstream reasons.
Lodge the papers into their bundles
The charge or claim, the other side’s evidence, the decision under challenge, your own material. Drop them in as they are — scans, photographs, mixed formats, inconsistent numbering.
Read the assessment, answer its questions
Strengths, weaknesses, gaps, provisions, procedure, authority and the estimate. Answer the questions the papers could not, then run it again and watch the estimate move.
Hear it argued, then take it to conference
Both lawyers argue, the bench questions them and gives its reasons. Export the whole thing to PDF — the professional judgement, and the signature, remain yours.
§ 08 · Custody
Your file remains your file
Client material is held on the footing a practitioner would expect: restricted, logged, and removable on instruction.
Encrypted in transit and at rest
Documents are transmitted over TLS and stored encrypted. Access is restricted to the matter they were lodged against.
Processed, not published
Your documents are sent to our AI provider to be read, and to nobody else. We do not sell them, publish them, or share them with any other party.
Access by role, within the firm
Partners, associates and clerks see only the matters they are assigned to. Permissions are set by the account holder.
Every action is logged
Uploads, reads, assessments, arguments, exports and deletions are recorded with user and timestamp, so the chain of handling is reconstructible.
Deletion on instruction
A matter and its documents can be deleted from the workspace at any time, subject only to retention we are required by law to observe.
Two-factor sign-in
Time-based one-time codes are available on every account and can be made mandatory across a firm.
§ 09 · Engagement
Pay for the work, not for a package
There is no subscription and no package to choose. Add money to your wallet — from £10 — and it is charged only for the AI work actually done, by the tokens each step uses. Opening matters and uploading documents is free and unlimited. The balance does not expire.
Matters, uploads, storage
Open as many matters as you like and upload whole bundles. Reading results, editing and exporting drafts, the diary and the calculators cost nothing.
Only the AI
Reading scans, analysing documents, the assessment, the hearing and drafting — each charged by what it used, after it finishes. A call that fails costs nothing.
Every call on the record
The wallet lists each piece of work by matter, with tokens in and out and the amount charged. Run out mid-matter and it simply pauses until you top up.
§ 10 · Questions
Questions we are asked before instruction
If yours is not answered here, put it to us directly and you will get a straight reply.
Can it really read a scanned bundle?
Yes, and that is the part we have worked hardest on. Scanned pages are transcribed in small batches, several at a time, so a forty-page bundle moves steadily rather than timing out. You see the page count climb as it goes. Handwriting that is genuinely illegible is marked as illegible rather than guessed at, and any batch that fails leaves a visible gap in the transcript so you know exactly which pages are missing.
How long does a large bundle take?
A typical forty-page scanned bundle reads in around a minute. It depends on how dense the pages are and how busy the model is. You do not have to sit and watch — a background worker continues the reading after you close the tab, and the progress is there when you come back.
Does this replace a lawyer?
No, and it is not designed to. It prepares material for a qualified professional to review, test and settle. Nothing it produces is advice, and no output should be filed, served or relied upon without that review.
How reliable is the percentage?
It is an estimate on the papers you supplied, and it is only ever as good as those papers. That is why it is never shown alone: it carries a confidence level worked out from how much of the file was actually readable and whether the documents that matter are present at all. When confidence is low the figure is deliberately pulled toward the middle and the screen says so. It should not be repeated to a client as a number in its own right.
Can I trust the case citations?
No, and every one of them is labelled unverified for that reason. Nothing in this system reads a law report. Case names produced by a language model can be plausible and non-existent, and a fabricated citation carried into a court is the worst outcome this product could cause. Verify each one against SCC Online, Manupatra or the court’s own site before it goes anywhere near a filing.
Why only two lawyers? Other tools advertise more agents.
We ran sixteen. They largely agreed with each other, because they were the same model reading the same file from overlapping angles — and agreement between instances of one model is not corroboration, however much it looks like it. A hearing has two sides and someone deciding. The specialist analysis still happens; it happens once, structurally, in the assessment, before anyone argues.
Is the argument binding in any way?
It is a rehearsal and nothing more. It has no bearing on any real proceeding, no connection to any court or tribunal, and carries no authority of any kind. The bench’s figure is an estimate for your own preparation, not a forecast.
What exactly am I charged for?
Only AI work: reading scanned pages, analysing documents, the assessment, the hearing and drafts — each by the tokens it used. Opening matters and uploading documents is free and unlimited, however many you have. Usage already run is not refunded; unused balance can be.
Does the wallet expire, or renew?
Neither. There is no subscription and nothing renews. The balance sits on the account until you use it, and you top up when you need more.
§ 11 · Limits
We would rather state the limits before you instruct us
These are not buried in the terms. They are the terms, stated where you can read them.
11.1
It does not give legal advice
Nothing produced by this platform constitutes legal advice, and use of it creates no lawyer–client relationship. A qualified professional must review every output before it is relied upon, served or filed.
11.2
It can be wrong
Language models make errors, including confident and well-worded ones. The workspace marks what it could not verify; it cannot mark what it does not know it got wrong.
11.3
Every citation is unverified
Nothing here checks a case name against a law report. All authority produced by the system is labelled unverified and must be confirmed against the primary source before use.
11.4
Transcription of scans is not perfect
Machine transcription of a photocopied or handwritten page can misread a digit or a name. Check any reference number, statutory provision, date or amount you intend to rely on against the original page.
11.5
It is not a court, and is not affiliated with one
The argument is a preparation tool with no bearing on any real proceeding. No court, government department, police force, regulator (including the SRA and the BSB), tribunal or professional body has endorsed, approved or certified this platform.
11.6
The estimate is not a prediction
The percentage is a reasoned estimate on the papers supplied, with its confidence and its missing inputs disclosed. It is not a forecast of what any court will do, and it must not be presented to a client as one.
11.7
AI usage is charged as it runs and is not returned
Each piece of AI work is charged to your wallet by the tokens it used, when it finishes, because the cost is incurred at that moment. Money already spent on work that was done is not refundable, whether or not you use the output.
Put your next contested matter through it
Lodge the bundle as it is. Find out where you are exposed before the other side does, and hear the argument against you while there is still time to answer it. Start with £10 in your wallet — nothing monthly, nothing to cancel.
Litora UK is operated by Rank First Technologies Private Limited, a private limited company incorporated in India. It is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. All outputs must be verified by a qualified lawyer before use.