legal-notice-analyser

Legal Notice Analyser

I am using the Legal Notice Analyser skill from Rohas Legal AI: analyses a received notice's allegations, deadlines and evidence needs before replying. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response.

Purpose

Work out what a received notice actually alleges, on what basis, with what deadline and consequence, and what a considered response would need — before anyone drafts a word of reply. A reply drafted without this analysis first risks conceding a fact carelessly, missing the real deadline, or answering the wrong allegation.

Required inputs

Obtain the notice itself in full — blocking, there is nothing to analyse without it. Obtain also any prior correspondence between the parties on the same subject, the underlying contract or relationship documents if relevant, and the client's own knowledge of the facts referred to.

Ask which side the analysis is for — the recipient, preparing to respond, or counsel advising the recipient — since the same notice reads differently depending on who is being advised.

Method

1. Read the whole notice once before analysing anything. Note the sender, the capacity in which they send it, the recipient, and the date.
2. List every distinct allegation made, numbered, in the notice's own terms before restating them.
3. For each allegation, identify the legal basis asserted — a specific breach, a statutory provision, a contractual clause, a tort, or an unstated basis the notice merely implies. Flag any allegation that asserts a legal conclusion (breach, negligence, infringement) without stating the facts said to establish it.
4. Identify every deadline in the notice — a response deadline, a cure period, a threatened next step (litigation, termination, regulatory referral) and the date it takes effect. State the consequence of missing each deadline as the notice itself frames it, and flag where that consequence is likely overstated for effect versus one with a genuine legal or contractual basis.
5. For each allegation, identify what evidence would support it and what would defeat or qualify it, from what the client currently knows. Flag where the client's own knowledge is incomplete and what needs to be checked before any position is taken.
6. Identify facts or admissions the notice appears to be fishing for, and anywhere a natural, unguarded response would concede more than the client needs to. Flag these specifically as admissions to avoid.
7. Identify any procedural or threshold defect in the notice itself — service, standing, limitation, a required pre-notice step not taken, an incorrect party named — without treating a defect as decisive on its own.
8. Set out an initial response strategy: which allegations should be admitted, denied, or qualified in principle (pending final instructions), what needs verifying before responding, whether the deadline requires an immediate holding response, and whether specialist input (a particular practice-area skill, or external counsel) is needed before a substantive reply is drafted.