Explore

Asesor experto en litigación civil latinoamericana bajo sistemas de derecho civil. Está diseñado para asistir a abogados litigantes, equipos legales internos y clientes directos con estrategia procesal, análisis de riesgos y orientación sobre el proceso civil en América Latina. Al final de cada sesión redacta un correo electrónico claro que resume los hallazgos para el cliente. Cinco modos de operación: 1) Estrategia: cómo enfocar el litigio, qué vía procesal elegir, cómo construir la posición del cliente. 2) Riesgo: evaluar viabilidad, probabilidades de éxito, prescripción, caducidad. 3) Proceso: etapas del proceso, plazos, recursos disponibles, pasos inmediatos. 4) Asesoría cliente: explicaciones claras para clientes. 5) Email al cliente: borrador automático de email al final de cualquier análisis.

Use when a calculator, financial model, investor memo, due diligence report, risk review, dashboard, or client-facing explanation needs clear distinctions between accounting and finance concepts such as cash flow vs profit, EBIT vs EBITDA, CapEx vs OpEx, debt vs equity, market value vs book value, ROI vs ROE, assets vs liabilities, and accounting vs finance.

Use for due diligence, legal-financial risk review, investment or business transaction checklists, and preliminary screening where facts, documents, assumptions, legal uncertainty, debt/equity, assets/liabilities, contracts, tax, regulatory, compliance, technology/product, and financial-model issues must be separated clearly.

Verification-first methodology for the UNMIK Regulation 64 Panels of the Kosovo district courts (2000–2008). Citations are verified against UNMIK/EULEX archives and legal-tools.org. Keeps the Reg. 64 Panels distinct from the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and clarifies that Reg. 2000/64 permitted (did not impose) internationally-majority panels. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for Section I (War Crimes) of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Citations are verified against the Court of BiH, the ICTY/IRMCT archives and OSCE. Distinguishes ICTY-referred (Rule 11 bis) cases from locally-initiated ones; covers Stanković, Janković and the Maktouf lex mitior ruling. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court (UNTAET, 2000–2006). Citations are verified against JSMP, the UN archives and legal-tools.org. Covers the Los Palos case, the Serious Crimes Unit caseload (391 indicted; about 88 tried) and the SPSC-vs-Jakarta distinction. Research aid, not legal advice.

“Verification-first” methodology for the Extraordinary African Chambers, covering the Hissène Habré trial in Dakar. Every citation is verified against forumchambresafricaines.org and legal-tools.org. Covers the judgment of May 30, 2016, the appeal judgment of April 27, 2017, reparations of CFAF 82.290 billion for 7,396 victims, and universal jurisdiction. Research aid, not legal advice.

“Verification-first” methodology for the Special Criminal Court of the Central African Republic, a hybrid court seated in Bangui. Every citation is verified against JusticeInfo, FIDH, HRW, and legal-tools.org; the official sites often return a 403 error. Covers the Paoua case, the word “notamment” in Article 3, and complementarity with the ICC. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its Residual Special Court. Citations are verified against rscsl.org and legal-tools.org. Covers Taylor, the AFRC/CDF/RUF cases, the child-soldier and forced-marriage holdings, the head-of-State immunity decision, and the fixed-term (no life) penalty regime. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office (The Hague, applying Kosovo law). Citations are verified against scp-ks.org before use; appeal registry numbers are cited only once confirmed. Covers Thaçi et al., Mustafa, Pjetër Shala and Gucati & Haradinaj. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Citations are verified against the STL legacy archive and legal-tools.org. Covers the Ayyash et al. case, the two contempt cases (STL-14-05 New TV/Al-Khayat and STL-14-06 Akhbar Beirut/Al-Amin), and the 2011 terrorism decision. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the post-WWII tribunals: the IMT at Nuremberg, the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and the IMTFE at Tokyo. Citations are verified against the official records (Blue/Green Series, Pritchard-Zaide) and the digital archives (Avalon, Harvard NTP, UVA IMTFE). Guards the four classic traps (IMT vs NMT; Nuremberg vs Tokyo; Charter article numbers; majority judgment vs separate opinions, e.g. the Pal dissent). Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the ICTY, the ICTR and the Residual Mechanism (IRMCT). Citations are verified against irmct.org, the Case Law and Unified Court Records databases, and legal-tools.org. Handles the IT/ICTR to MICT case-number transition (Karadžić, Mladić) and the protective-measures rule. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the ECCC (Khmer Rouge Tribunal). Every citation is verified against eccc.gov.kh, the ECCC archive or legal-tools.org. Covers Case File numbering, the 001/002/002-01/002-02 structure, the genocide findings against the Cham and the Vietnamese, and the Internal Rules revision discipline. Research aid, not legal advice.

Research, drafting, and analysis involving the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute system). Enforces a verification-first methodology — every case-law, decision, filing, warrant, and statement citation is verified against an authoritative primary source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org) in the current conversation before it appears in an output. Foundational texts (Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations of the Court) may be cited from project knowledge when present. Use whenever the user is working with ICC case law, OTP statements, ASP documents, or ICC procedure.

Use when a lawyer, legal team, or client needs to assess AI agents that can act on someone's behalf: send messages, search, draft, file, pay, delete, connect to accounts, use tools, or rely on external data. Produces a practical delegation, oversight, accountability, and control audit for legal operations.

Audits the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment. Use it before an AI-generated analysis, memo, contract review, compliance finding, or workflow output is acted upon to check whether authority, evidence, mandate, uncertainty, procedure, and review conditions remain sufficient.

Audits AI-assisted legal, compliance, governance, and institutional decisions before reliance to determine whether the responsible human or institution has enough access to the evidence, reasoning basis, uncertainty, authority, and review path to genuinely own the decision rather than merely approve, sign, or transmit it.

Turns dense legal documents, matter notes, and brainstorming dumps into clear, editable Mermaid diagrams to make strategizing and communicating clearer and faster. Use timelines and Gantt charts to uncover chronology gaps, flowcharts and decision trees to map litigation paths and negotiation possibilities, and entity relationship or class diagrams to clarify ownership, control, and corporate structure. Upload source files (.md, .docx, .pdf, .xlsx, or .pptx), paste text, or describe the issue you’re working on. /legal-diagram guides you through a simple interactive process to setup the skill and create timelines, Gantt charts, org charts, obligation checklists, litigation flowcharts, decision trees, corporate structure diagrams, and more.

Turn a lawyer's bounded expertise, workflow, review standard, or legal judgment pattern into a safe, inspectable legal AI skill. Use when a user provides legal memos, comments, checklists, negotiation notes, review habits, compliance playbooks, or professional feedback and wants a reusable Lawve-style skill. Do not impersonate the lawyer or claim to reproduce a person; distill only authorized, source-bounded capability.

Audits legal AI outputs and workflows for honest compression: unnecessary complexity, false simplicity, excessive caveats, hidden uncertainty and poor cost per legally acceptable output.

Audits legal AI outputs, prompts, skills, workflows and MCP/tool instructions for fluent but unsupported reasoning, missing evidence, overconfidence, hidden assumptions, weak causal links and absent human-review gates.

Draft, adapt, and review contracts and clauses aligned with The Chancery Lane Project's methodology for reducing carbon emissions through legal agreements. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Draft new climate-aligned clauses (e.g., net zero commitments, carbon accounting, supply chain decarbonization), (2) Adapt or modify existing contracts to incorporate climate objectives, (3) Review and analyze clauses for alignment with climate goals and decarbonization strategies, (4) Provide guidance on The Chancery Lane Project's house style and drafting methodology for climate-conscious legal work.

Jurisdiction-aware review of technology and commercial contracts — MSA, DPA, SOW, LOE, NDA, SLA, EULA, IP assignment, vendor/supplier, and API/platform ToS. Classifies every clause (acceptable / negotiate / red-flag / missing), proposes redline replacements, checks governing law and data-protection obligations (GDPR, UK GDPR, India DPDP Act, CCPA), and outputs a structured risk summary. Built for tech and AI deals where training-data, IP-ownership, and liability terms need heightened scrutiny. Not a substitute for qualified legal counsel.