Work through the other side’s statements and proposed terms before deciding how to respond.
Request accessAn opposing message may mix a factual claim, a demand, a proposed term and a deadline. The planned review helps unpack those parts and compare them with relevant records. It should identify what is supported, what is disputed and what still needs clarification, without turning a forcefully worded statement into an established fact.
A response needs to fit the purpose of the exchange. The intended workflow helps you state what you agree with, what you dispute and what information you need, while checking proposed concessions against the wider strategy. Private preparation and proposed wording should stay separate from the message you choose to send and any agreement you choose to accept.
Compare a message or proposal with the relevant case history.
Identify assumptions, unanswered questions and points of disagreement.
Draft wording that reflects your goals and boundaries.
CourtAhead is being designed to help separate what a message says from what the available records support. Proposed agreements should be considered alongside unresolved issues and the consequences you need to understand.
You review and authorize any message before it is sent. Reviewing terms does not create an agreement or a professional engagement.
Our approachAgreement review is part of the planned capability. It should surface unclear terms, unanswered questions and consequences that need further review; it is not a substitute for a professional engagement.
No. Preparation can produce a proposed response, but sending requires your approval of the specific message and destination.