LITIGATION SOFTWARE EVALUATION BRIEF
BRON LAW | https://bronlaw.com/commercial-litigation-software
23 October 2026

Use the same fictional dispute across your shortlist. This is a buyer's
evaluation worksheet, not a benchmark or a statement about another product.
Do not supply confidential client material before your firm approves its use.

THE MATTER
Prepare a fictional agreement, two conflicting witness accounts and an email
that supplies new evidence without resolving every question. Keep stable source
names and page/section references. Use the identical input set for each product.
Ask the reviewer to distinguish what was sent from what was received or read.

1. IDENTIFY THE GAP
Map a disputed fact to the element counsel needs to address. Open both
witness accounts and their supporting passages. Keep the unresolved question.
Review: Is a party's assertion distinguished from the underlying document?

2. ASK THE PERSON WHO CAN HELP
Send a specific request explaining what is needed and why. Let the client
provide it, ask a question or explain why they cannot find it. Show the
reminder and the work that reaches the firm after each kind of response.
Record: the request, permitted client view, response and responsible reviewer.

3. COLLECT AND PREPARE
Start with evidence still on a custodian's device. Show the proposed scope,
acceptance, returned originals and items not found in the searched sources.
Prepare a short memorandum and deposition questions from the reviewed material.
Open the passages behind the draft. Confirm research subscriptions and
jurisdiction coverage separately. Show what happens to an unchecked citation.
Record: permission, search limits, receipt, sources, draft and review tasks.

4. CHANGE A FACT
Accept a correction. Identify work that recorded reliance on the earlier fact,
then follow the review task. Do not treat unchanged text as already corrected.
Ask who decides what changes, and what still needs manual identification.
Record: the correction, affected work, unresolved questions and lawyer's decision.

5. FOLLOW THE WORK INTO THE NEXT STAGE
Use the same sources in the settlement discussion or trial preparation.
Ask whether a confirmed hearing debrief can prepare separate client, time-entry
and follow-up drafts. Ask how reviewed closing figures reach proposed payments.
For every example, distinguish preparation, approval, publication and execution.
Record the exact supported workflow and what the demonstration does not prove.

6. TEST THE HANDOFF AND THE WHOLE JOB
Give the exported work and required sources to a second reviewer. Repeat the
available checks. Record accounts/software needed and material still unchecked.
Measure client effort, preparation, source review, corrections and handoffs as
well as generation time. One fictional exercise does not establish firm-wide
savings, legal correctness or a complete record.

7. AGREE ON A LIMITED PILOT
Confirm in writing before client material is used:
- One workflow, supported capabilities, exclusions and accountable reviewers.
- Existing tools to retain, exact connections and manual transfers.
- Matter access, ethical walls, client visibility, retention and export.
- Implementation, support, price, term and exit requirements.
- Evidence needed to continue, repeat or stop the pilot.
BRON begins with a guided fictional demonstration. It has not yet been tested
on a live matter. A limited pilot follows agreement on scope and readiness.

DECISION RECORD (complete separately for each product)
Product / package / date:
Operator / reviewer:
Input set / output retained:
What worked:
What failed or stayed unchecked:
Work required to make the result usable:
Open requirement / owner / evidence needed:
Proceed / repeat / stop, and why:

BRON is litigation software for law firms. It is not a law firm and does
not give legal advice. Product examples use fictional data. A walkthrough
request does not create an attorney-client relationship or a commercial
commitment. Explore BRON's working source-verification sample at:
https://bronlaw.com/legal-ai-source-verification