Employment law: compare the record before drafting

For an employment lawyer or an HR team working with in-house counsel, the difficulty is often fragmentation: the original contract, amendments, collective agreement, correspondence and practices recorded elsewhere. A plausible summary can still miss the exception that changes the advice.

A trial that reveals omissions

Prepare a test file with several contracts, their amendments, a contradictory exchange and one deliberately missing document. Ask each tool to compare clauses relevant to your question, such as working time, mobility, pay or termination. For every finding, require the source document and passage, the version used and any remaining uncertainty.

Add a late amendment, then request a short note and a draft letter or clause in Word. How many corrections does it take to reflect the file and your house style? Does the tool flag inconsistent dates and missing documents, or silently fill the gaps? Check access to the file across partners, associates and HR.

What to test with Jimini

An analysis grid can structure a review of several contracts around your questions. Jimini’s agent helps find the relevant passages; Jimini for Word lets you revise a draft in the working document. Practice-specific training with BCTG illustrates the value of testing on a particular area of law.

Count whether the tool helps you spot the exception, trace the evidence and produce a draft you can approve after review, rather than how many documents it summarises.