Two products · One engine · Twelve legal frameworks
The drafting floor for Indian advocates
Legosphere Legal drafts from your own precedents, grounds every case reference in a judgment that actually exists, and carries a document from one legal system into another — clause by clause, with the reasoning attached.
Factory generates and converts documents from a firm's own file room. Drafter is where a human advocate actually works. The second is a client of the first — never the other way round.
The workspace
Legosphere Drafter
The application an advocate opens in the morning. Draft an instrument, watch grounded research fill in beside it without typing a search, edit in plain language, export to Word — and keep the diary that decides what today is actually about.
Draft from a prompt, from facts, or from a reference document you upload
A research panel that fires from the draft itself — five buckets, nothing typed
Conversational clause editing: "add an arbitration clause seated in Delhi"
Review with tracked changes you accept or reject one at a time
The practice diary: hearings, limitation dates, cause lists, time and billing
Independent advocates · chambers · litigation teams
A matter file system and the generation engine that reads it. New drafts are assembled from your own precedents, retrieved agentically, with every clause traceable to the file, page and span it came from — and a conversion engine that carries a contract across legal systems.
Every source document, precedent and output versioned in a matter, on a retention policy
Precedent-grounded drafting with clause-level provenance, not blank-prompt generation
A statutory citation gate: an invented section number cannot reach a rendered document
Cross-jurisdiction conversion across India, the UAE, Singapore, Israel, the UK, the EU, Switzerland, the US, Canada and China
Callable by machines — HMAC-signed webhooks, job progress, quotas
Law firms · in-house teams · engineering teams via API
This is the part that is genuinely hard, and the reason the engine exists. Carrying a contract from one legal system into another is not translation and it is not find-and-replace: mandatory rules differ, enforceability differs, and a civil-law code supplies by default what a common-law contract must write out in full.
India
Common law
Court formats, stamp duty and registration, the Limitation Act 1963, and the statutory corpus a practice here actually touches.
United Arab Emirates
Civil law, with common-law financial free zones
Onshore civil code alongside the DIFC and ADGM common-law zones — one country where the answer genuinely depends on which framework the contract sits in.
Singapore
Common law
Where a great many Indian groups hold their offshore structures and where their disputes are seated. Common law, so a clause converts cleanly from an English-law source — the work is in the statutory overlay, not the tradition.
United Kingdom
Common law
England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland treated as the separate jurisdictions they are, not as one.
European Union
Civil law
Union-level instruments over member-state codes, where a civil code supplies by default what a common-law contract has to spell out.
Switzerland
Civil law
Where the money and the arbitration clause both end up. Outside the EU, so EU instruments do not reach it; the banking, financing and security documents behind a cross-border deal are routinely Swiss-law, and so is the seat when neither side will accept the other’s courts.
Israel
Mixed — common law over civil-law codes
A hybrid system: common-law procedure and precedent sitting over codified civil law, which makes it one of the harder corridors and a useful test of whether an engine is really mapping concepts rather than matching templates. Heavy technology and defence contracting with Indian counterparties.
Türkiye
Civil law
A civil code adapted from the Swiss one, so the tradition maps cleanly, while the mandatory provisions and the commercial code are distinctly Turkish. It also has a rule most conversions forget: Law No. 805 requires Turkish companies to keep certain commercial contracts in Turkish, which makes the language a matter of enforceability rather than convenience.
South Korea
Civil law
A German-influenced code with a commercial act over it and a layer of mandatory protections that override what the parties agreed — a contract can be word-perfect and still not say what it appears to. Semiconductor, automotive and shipbuilding supply agreements with Indian counterparties, where the terms of art do not survive a general translation model.
United States
Common law, federal and state
Federal law over state law, because for most commercial agreements the state is the operative jurisdiction and the federal layer is the constraint.
Canada
Common law, with a civil-law province
Federal law over provincial, and Quebec on the Civil Code while the rest of the country is common law — a split that changes the answer inside one country.
China
Civil law
The Civil Code, with terms of art resolved through a legal glossary before any translation model is allowed near them.
A clause with no equivalent in the target system is reported as exactly that. "No equivalent" is a real answer, and an engine that quietly invents one is more dangerous than an engine that says so.
The interaction that distinguishes it
Research that fires from the draft, not from a search box
Type the facts of the matter once. Five searches run in parallel off those facts and stream into the panel beside your document as they resolve. Change the facts and it runs again.
Matter · Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority
Draft · Writ Petition (Civil)
GROUNDS
Drafting section 4 of 9
Research panel · nothing typed
Legal Provisions3 found
Landmark Judgments4 found
Similar Judgments5 found
Recent Judgmentsresolving…
Further Researchresolving…
Legal Provisions
The sections your facts actually engage, from a seeded statutory corpus.
Landmark Judgments
The authorities a bench expects to see cited on this point.
Similar Judgments
Matters that turned on facts close to yours.
Recent Judgments
What has moved recently, so you are not citing a position that has shifted.
Further Research
The threads worth pulling next, with the query that found them.
Every card opens the judgment
In-app, beside the draft. A result you cannot open is a result we do not show.
From practice
No testimonials yet — the beta is still running
We would rather show you nothing than show you something we wrote ourselves. When advocates in the closed beta have used this on real matters and are willing to put their name to what they think, their words will appear here — unedited.
Four people with four different problems, all of which come down to the same thing: the work that has to be right is buried under the work that has to be typed.
The independent advocate
A junior who has read everything and never forgets a date
Draft the petition, get the provisions and the landmark judgments beside it automatically, and keep limitation and tomorrow’s board in the same place you do the work.
Your precedents stop living in five people’s laptops
Every draft the chamber has ever settled becomes the corpus the next draft is built from, with permissions, versions and an audit trail over all of it.
Same standard of drafting, whoever is holding the file
A clause registry and a citation gate mean the fifth draft of the month reads like the first, and nothing leaves the building citing a section that does not exist.
Convert a governing-law-shifted contract clause by clause, each change annotated with the target jurisdiction’s rule and what risk remains after the change.
Six things the software does. Each of them is constrained by something in the manifesto, which is why the list is shorter than it could be.
Generation
Drafting that starts from your own work
Sixteen document types across contract, notice and court paths — writ petition, PIL, civil suit, criminal complaint, bail application, vakalatnama and more.
Upload a reference deed and get a new document in that shape: same clause order, same numbering scheme, new facts.
A clause registry renders the parts a court expects — memo of parties, numbered facts, grounds, prayer, affidavit, verification.
Critic and healer passes run before you ever see the draft, not after you file it.
Grounded research
Research that fires without being asked
Five parallel searches keyed on the matter’s own facts: Legal Provisions · Landmark Judgments · Similar Judgments · Recent Judgments · Further Research.
Buckets stream in as they resolve, so the panel fills while you keep drafting.
Every card opens the real judgment in-app. Change the facts and the panel re-runs.
Hybrid search over the corpus — vector and full text — because neither alone finds an Indian judgment reliably.
Conversational editing
Editing in the language you already use
"Make this favour the tenant." "Add an arbitration clause seated in Delhi." "Make it more concise."
Each instruction becomes a structured edit against the document tree, shown as a diff before it lands.
Every edit is individually revertible and recorded as its own version.
An ambiguous instruction asks you a clarifying question instead of guessing.
Review
Review with tracked changes, not a rewrite
Upload an existing draft for grammar, professionalism, concision and error checking.
Suggestions come back as tracked changes with a reason attached to each one.
Accept some, reject others — nothing is applied without an explicit accept.
Export a DOCX whose tracked changes open correctly in Word’s review pane.
Practice management
The diary the drafting tools forgot
Hearings, tasks, and the day’s cause list matched to your matters by case number.
Limitation dates computed under the Limitation Act 1963 with s.12(1) and s.12(2) applied — and the working shown beside the date.
Court closures and vacations applied under s.4, each shift recorded as its own step.
Time capture and client invoicing, with the billed rate frozen on the entry at the moment it is logged.
Conversion
One contract, twelve legal systems
Clause-by-clause conversion across India, the UAE, Singapore, Israel, the UK, the EU, Switzerland, the US, Canada and China — not translation, and not find-and-replace.
Each clause is bound to a jurisdiction-neutral concept, then re-expressed under the target framework.
Retained, redrafted, added, deleted — or flagged as having no equivalent, which is an answer too.
A compliance check for mandatory clauses, prohibited terms and formalities: stamp duty, registration, notarisation, execution.
The difference
What a general assistant cannot promise you
Not a feature count. These are properties that come from how the system is built, which is why a general-purpose model with a good prompt cannot offer them.
Legosphere
A general AI assistant
A citation that does not resolve never reaches you
General assistants will produce a confident case name that does not exist
Documents are rendered by a clause engine, not written by a chat model
A model writing a petition straight into an editor bypasses every check
Drafts are built from your firm’s own precedents, with provenance
A blank prompt gives you a generic document in a house style that is not yours
Limitation dates arrive with the working and the caveats attached
A bare due date invites reliance no engine has earned
Built for Indian court formats — headings, numbering, prayer, verification
Contract-only tools have no idea what a memo of parties is
Specified by practising lawyers, not by engineers guessing at the work
A team that has never filed anything cannot tell you what it left out
No model credential is ever compiled into the browser bundle
Client-side keys are the most common leak in this category
Where the risk actually sits
Four promises, each with a mechanism behind it
A promise with no mechanism is a preference. Every one of these corresponds to something enforced in code, which is why they are worth reading before you decide.
Grounding, with no bypass flag
Nothing an AI surface outputs may contain a case reference that does not resolve to a real row in the corpus. There is no setting that turns this off, because a setting that turns it off is the setting that will be on when it matters.
Your documents are not our training data
Privileged client documents are the sensitive asset here. Uploads carry an expiry from the moment they are created, and a retention worker deletes the object and the row — not just the row.
The advocate is the last word
An unapproved document exports with an "AI-generated draft — verify before filing" watermark. Approval clears it and is recorded against a named user and a timestamp. The watermark is the default, not the exception.
Proof is an artifact, not a checkmark
Nothing here counts as working because a test went green. It counts when it produces something you can open: a citation that resolves, a DOCX that renders correctly in Word, a stored file that is provably gone after its retention window.
The ones that decide whether this software is safe to put in front of a client's matter.
Two products built on one engine. Legosphere Drafter is the daily workspace for an advocate — drafting, grounded case-law research, plain-language editing, export, and the practice diary. Legosphere Factory is the document engine underneath it: a matter file system, a generation engine that drafts from your own precedents, and a cross-jurisdiction conversion engine. Factory is also sold on its own to teams who want to call it from their own systems.
If you are an advocate or a chamber doing litigation and contract work, you want Drafter — Factory runs underneath it and you never have to think about it. If you are an in-house or engineering team that wants document generation or cross-jurisdiction conversion inside your own product or workflow, you want Factory directly.
Sixteen document types today across three drafting paths. The court path covers writ petition, PIL, civil suit, criminal complaint, bail application and vakalatnama, with the structure a court expects — synopsis and list of dates, index, memo of parties, continuous paragraph numbering, lettered grounds, prayer, affidavit and verification. The contract path covers nine agreement types, and there is a notice path. You can also upload any document you have settled before and get a new one in that exact shape.
Yes. Court formats, the Limitation Act 1963, cause lists and Indian case-number forms, the statutory corpus a practice here actually touches, and rupee-exact billing. The cross-jurisdiction conversion engine in Factory extends beyond India — US, EU, UK and China — but the daily workspace is designed around Indian litigation practice rather than adapted to it after the fact.
Practising lawyers, working with engineers — and the specification came from the legal side, not the other way round. You can check that claim rather than take it: the limitation engine refuses to give you a bare date, cause-list matching is exact-or-normalised rather than fuzzy, the court path knows what a synopsis and list of dates is, and the software will not decide your GST position. Every one of those is a decision that costs something technically and only makes sense to someone who has filed things.
That is the assumption the whole product is built on. Nothing is filed by the software, nothing is sent anywhere, and nothing loses its watermark until a named advocate approves it. Think of it as the most thorough junior you have ever had, not as a replacement for your judgment.
Part of Legosphere
Achieving SuperIntelligence
Legosphere is an AI company building agentic systems for the work that actually runs an organisation. Every line is built to the same standard, in a domain where a confident wrong answer costs more than no answer at all.