LexVio compresses the mechanical hours of practice: first-pass authority search across six courts and tribunals, citation mapping, contract review and redlining. The argument, the advice and the responsibility for both remain with the advocate whose name is on the brief.
A junior spends a day and a half assembling authorities, and I still open the brief on the morning of the hearing wondering whether the lead judgment has been distinguished by a later bench.
Research sits across several databases and a WhatsApp group, so two associates find the same case in the same week and neither knows the other did.
A client will not pay for four hours of a first-year's time on a document review that ends in a two-line answer, but the review still has to happen before anyone can give that answer.
Drafting is not the problem; it is the third round of the counterparty's mark-up at eleven at night, reconciling three Word versions by hand, that consumes the week.
LexVio covers Indian court research across exactly six courts and tribunals, the Supreme Court, High Courts, NCLT, ITAT, CCI and CESTAT, with filter by jurisdiction so results narrow to the bench that binds your matter. That spans the appellate line alongside tribunal practice, including insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under the governing income-tax legislation, and competition matters under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Citation graph visualisation maps how a judgment connects to the decisions that cite it and the decisions it relies upon, so a line of treatment can be traced rather than assumed from a headnote. Whether a proposition still holds is a conclusion you reach by reading those judgments, particularly where Article 141 of the Constitution of India makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts within the territory of India.
LexVio returns a 0-100 Legal Health Score with clause-level risk flags on a reviewed contract, and search by clause type pulls every arbitration, indemnity or governing-law clause across a document set. It is a first pass that tells the partner where to look; it is not an opinion, and nothing should reach a client without a lawyer having read it.
AI drafting and rewriting produces first drafts and alternative wording, and every edit exports as a tracked-change redline in Word, the format the counterparty, the client and the courts registry already work in. The third round of a mark-up stops being a version-reconciliation exercise and returns to being a negotiation.
Data is encrypted with AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit, customer data is not used to train models, and an on-prem deployment option exists for firms whose matter data cannot leave their own infrastructure. SAML SSO and SCIM provisioning tie access to the firm's identity provider, so an associate who leaves loses access through the same action that closes their mailbox.
Search across the Supreme Court, High Courts, NCLT, ITAT, CCI and CESTAT, and filter by jurisdiction so the results reflect the bench that actually binds the matter. What returns is a starting set of authorities, assembled in minutes rather than over a day and a half.
Citation graph visualisation shows how each authority sits in relation to the decisions citing it and the decisions it follows, so the treatment of a proposition is visible before you build an argument on it. The reading of that treatment, and the decision to rely on a case or distinguish it, stays with the advocate.
Drafting and rewriting produce the note, the pleading draft or the negotiated clause, and edits export as tracked-change redlines in Word for the client and the counterparty. A partner reviews and signs off, because the advice going out carries the firm's name and not the tool's.
LexVio gives you the material to make that assessment rather than the conclusion itself: research across the Supreme Court, High Courts, NCLT, ITAT, CCI and CESTAT, filter by jurisdiction, and citation graph visualisation showing how an authority connects to the decisions that cite it and those it relies on. Deciding that a decision remains binding, has been distinguished on facts, or has been overruled by a larger bench is a legal opinion reached by reading the judgments, and responsibility for advice given to a client rests with the advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules made under it.
Six: the Supreme Court of India, the High Courts, the National Company Law Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Competition Commission of India and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Results can be filtered by jurisdiction, and citation graph visualisation is available across the material so an authority can be traced through the decisions that have cited it. Coverage outside these six forums is not claimed.
LexVio encrypts data with AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit, does not use customer data to train models, and offers an on-prem deployment option for firms that cannot let matter data leave their own environment, with SAML SSO and SCIM provisioning controlling who has access. The duty of confidence to the client is the firm's own and does not transfer to a vendor, so partners should apply the same engagement-level judgement to uploading privileged material as they would to any other disclosure, and should confirm what a specific client's engagement terms permit.
Bring a real contract or a live filing deadline. Half-hour walkthrough, no slides.