Commercial litigation software for law firms
A client’s answer should inform the evidence request, the next draft and the decision on your desk. BRON connects those steps on one matter, from the first inquiry through discovery, settlement and trial preparation. You direct the work and review what comes back.
For US commercial-litigation teams. Begin with one assignment alongside your existing tools. Follow the fictional notice dispute below to see why the connection matters.
One finding changes several pieces of work
Alex Chen prepares notice memorandum v4 with the returned email and both depositions. Elena Rivera can review the passage and its sources together.
The same email can inform the notice memorandum, the questions for Smith’s deposition and the settlement discussion. It establishes what was sent, not when it was received or read. The next request still asks for that missing proof.
Garcia emailed Smith the defect report on May 2. The email does not show when Smith received or read it, so both accounts still stand.
Garcia → Smith · May 2, 2025, 9:14 AM
“I told Smith about the defect before May 4.”
“The first time I heard about that defect was after May 4.”
Review-meeting notes: not in the named sources
North Harbor / Notice memorandum · v4
The timing of notice remains disputed. Garcia testified that he told Smith of the defect before May 4, 2025.1 Smith testified that he first learned of the defect after that date.2
Garcia emailed Smith the defect report on May 2, 2025.3 The email does not show when Smith received or read it.
Proposed request: Smith's copy of the May 2 email, its delivery records, and the review-meeting notes.
1Garcia deposition · Apr 22, 2026 · 118:4–12
2Smith deposition · Apr 24, 2026 · 44:12–20
3defect-email.eml · May 2, 2025, 9:14 AM
Illustration · fictional matter. Read-only product illustration, prepared for attorney review. On a phone, switch between Sources and Draft to inspect the same work.
Across the life of the matter
01
Ask for the document, explain why it matters, and keep the request with the matter. The client can provide it, ask for clarification, or explain why they cannot. The firm sees which response still needs attention.
02
Compare conflicting accounts and map facts to the elements you need to establish. Use the gap to frame a collection request. Collector searches the named sources on the client’s Mac after they accept the scope. Returned files carry receipts and await review.
03
Direct an assignment in Chambers. Desk keeps work in tasks and workflows, with owners, dependencies and items awaiting review. An approved plan can run internal preparation. Sending, signing and other covered external actions still need their own approval.
04
Prepare discovery, a memorandum or deposition work from the matter’s sources. Inspect the passages behind the draft. When an attorney accepts a corrected fact, work with recorded reliance on it is flagged for review. Existing text is not silently rewritten.
05
Review the positions, assumptions, offers and demands on the same matter. A closing statement uses recorded fees, costs and liens. Its reviewed figures can become separate trust-payment proposals. Preparing those proposals does not release funds.
06
Organize the order of proof around witnesses, exhibits, disputed facts and foundation questions. Trial preparation is still being developed; counsel supplies legal authority and decides admissibility. The matter’s evidence remains the starting point.
After a trial day, a confirmed debrief can prepare a client update, a draft time entry and follow-up work. Each still needs the appropriate review. One account of what happened serves the next several jobs.
Evaluating commercial litigation software?
Start with a disputed fact your team needs to resolve before a deposition. Follow the assignment through the client’s response, the evidence search and the draft. Then change one fact and see which work needs review.
Judge the work that reaches the lawyer and the experience of the client asked to help. These are evaluation questions, not measured savings or a claim that another product lacks the capability.
Ask which fact supports or undermines the notice element. Open both witness accounts and their source passages.
Keep: the factual question and the sources behind it.
Show the client the exact request. Let them provide the item, ask a question or say they cannot find it.
Keep: the request, the response and the work still outstanding.
Show the accepted collection scope, returned originals and missing items. Use the reviewed evidence to prepare the memorandum and deposition questions.
Keep: the transfer receipt, source-linked draft and review tasks.
Accept a correction, then inspect work that recorded reliance on the old fact. Follow the review task without treating the draft as automatically corrected.
Keep: the correction, affected work and attorney decision.
A guided demonstration, then an agreed pilot
Start with a guided demo using fictional matter data. A pilot covers the workflows, platforms and review responsibilities agreed with your firm in writing. Choose one assignment, name its reviewers and define usable work before expanding.
Bring your Word, Outlook, research and document-system requirements. Confirm the exact supported flows and deployment requirements; do not assume every integration or migration is included.
Review matter access, ethical walls, client visibility, retention and export requirements with the firm’s decision makers before uploading client material.
Confirm scope, implementation work, support, pricing and exit requirements in writing. Evaluate the work your team can review and use, including the time spent checking it.
For a disputed-fact review, agree the source set, memorandum, open questions and attorney review. Confirm who prepares each deliverable, including any BRON staff support, and what your team receives at the end.
BRON is litigation software for law firms. It connects client requests, evidence collection, matter analysis, drafting and workflows, with settlement and trial preparation on the same matter. Lawyers direct and review the work. BRON is not a law firm and does not replace legal judgment.
Our initial focus is US commercial-litigation firms with roughly 10–100 lawyers, including teams handling contract and business-tort disputes. Managing partners and litigation leaders can evaluate one recurring assignment with the lawyers and staff who actually perform it. That is a starting fit, not a minimum seat requirement.
The client receives matter-specific requests and enabled reminders, can ask the firm questions, and can respond item by item. Confirm which client features are included in your pilot. Legal advice and decisions remain with counsel. A missing document or a client’s request for clarification remains work for the firm to resolve.
Collector can search the authorized sources on a client’s Mac, including supported local files and communications. The person reviews and accepts the scope first. A transfer receipt says what came back. Not found means not found in the searched sources; it does not prove a document never existed.
No. Start with one connected litigation workflow alongside your existing setup. Confirm the exact Word, Outlook, research and document-system connections needed for that workflow. Broader adoption can follow. Do not assume every connector or migration is included.
Start with a guided demo using fictional matter data. A pilot covers the workflows, platforms and review responsibilities agreed with your firm in writing. Agree data handling, named reviewers and success criteria before client material goes in. BRON has not yet been tested on a live matter. Feature labels describe the product; the agreed pilot scope determines what your team will use.
BRON does not publish a rate card. Scope and price are agreed in writing for the team, workflow, implementation and support involved. Requesting a demo does not start a subscription or commit the firm to a pilot.
Start with the work your firm does
Tell us which litigation task stalls between the client, the evidence and the person reviewing it. We’ll demonstrate that sequence with fictional matter data and discuss whether a limited pilot makes sense. Keep client-confidential information out of the initial inquiry.