Summarize complex lawsuits in seconds with AI

A new statement of claim lands on your desk. Before the actual legal work can begin, there is usually time-consuming groundwork to be done: the document must be reviewed, the facts separated from the legal arguments, and the opponent's line of reasoning extracted. This ties up valuable resources, especially in the case of lengthy pleadings.

In this article, we show you how Pylehound can drastically shorten this process and allow you to focus immediately on strategic client work.

Key Takeaways

• Immediate orientation: Get a structured overview of new complaints and the mandate in seconds.
• Precise separation: Pylehound automatically differentiates between chronological facts and legal assessment.
• Prompt assistance: AI actively supports you in formulating the perfect instructions for legal analysis even before the file is processed.

How can AI speed up the overview of new cases?

Artificial intelligence speeds up the initial case intake by not only reading complex documents, but also summarizing them in a logically structured way. Instead of working through the text linearly, Pylehound provides an immediate breakdown according to the categories relevant to lawyers: the pure facts and the legal assessment. This enables an immediate assessment of the prospects of success and the further course of action without overlooking any details.

Why is an optimized prompt crucial for legal analysis?

A precise prompt is crucial because it provides the AI with the exact legal framework, thus preventing hallucinated or superficial answers. Many lawyers know what they want to know, but not always how to communicate it to the AI in the most technically optimal way.

In the video, we see a classic example of “meta-prompting”: The user first asks Pylehound for help in creating the instruction itself (“Help me create a good prompt”). The result is a highly specific prompt that includes instructions such as:

• Facts: Chronological and neutral, without judgment.
• Legal assessment: Focus on norms and subsumption.
• Arguments: Differentiation between primary lines of argumentation and supporting reasoning.

This intermediate step ensures that the result precisely meets the high standards of legal work.

How does the lawsuit summary workflow work in Pylehound?

The process for AI-assisted file analysis can be divided into four efficient steps:

1. Prompt creation: Have Pylehound generate an optimized command for the summary that explicitly separates the facts from the legal assessment.
2. Project & knowledge base: Create a new project (e.g., “Lawsuit Summary”) and upload the complaint (PDF) to the knowledge base. The file is processed locally and securely.
3. Instruction: Start a new conversation and paste the previously optimized prompt.
4. Result: Pylehound delivers a structured analysis, separated into facts, legal assessment, and individual arguments of the opposing party.

Conclusion

Using AI in everyday legal practice does not mean relinquishing control, but rather freeing yourself from repetitive analytical work. With Pylehound, lawyers can transform a lengthy statement of claim into a precise working basis in just a few moments.

Would you also like to speed up your case processing? Test how Pylehound can make your law firm more efficient.

---

Transcript

00:00 I received a lawsuit today. And of course, the first thing I want to do is get an overview. Of the statement of claim, of the case itself.

00:15 That means I would like a summary of the lawsuit. Divided into facts and legal assessment.

00:26 Before I actually start the project, start working on the lawsuit, I'm going to start by getting Pylehound to help me with the prompting for this specific case.

00:42 That means I'm making the request: “Help me create a good prompt. I want to summarize a lawsuit, separated by facts and legal assessment with the plaintiff's individual arguments.”

01:09 So, let's see to what extent Pylehound would improve my prompt here. Yes, very good.

01:18 The summary should be divided into the following sections: Facts, summarized chronologically and neutrally – exactly, of course, no legal assessment or evaluation should be included here.

01:30 In this case, the arguments should also be differentiated between primary arguments and supporting reasoning. Great, I wouldn't have thought of that at this point. But good to know, I'll use that right away.

01:46 Now I'm creating the new project “Summary of lawsuit.” First, I want to add a knowledge database. In my case, that's just the lawsuit, the model lawsuit.

01:58 I'm importing the file. File processing is already complete, the check mark is green. And here we go.

02:08 I start with a new conversation. Down here, I can see the right project again, and the right knowledge base, “Summary of Lawsuit,” is attached here.

02:22 And that means I can now use Control-V or Command-V to insert my great prompt from Pylehound from earlier, and off we go.

02:32 And wonderful: here I have a summary of the lawsuit. First, the facts of the case, the legal assessment, and here are the plaintiff's individual arguments.