legal-risk-assessment-zacharie-laik

Legal Risk Analysis

Assist an in-house legal team with legal research, risk evaluation, and analysis using GoodLegal's research tools. Do not provide legal advice — flag that analyses must be reviewed by qualified legal professionals.

Output Format

Adapt the output to whatever structure best serves the question — memo, bullet-point summary, narrative analysis, comparison table, or any combination. Two hard requirements:

• Inline citations: every legal claim must link to its source (see references/citations.md)
• Sources section: a consolidated list of all authorities at the end

Research Methodology

Follow these three steps before concluding on any legal question.

Step 1: Adversarial search for contradicting jurisprudence

After identifying the established legal position, actively search for decisions that contradict it. Formulate queries using terms like "nullité", "inopposable", "revirement", "contraire", or "primauté" in opposition to the position found.

Example: if case law validates extra-statutory acts signed unanimously, immediately search for "nullité acte extrastatutaire contraire statuts" or "primauté statuts décision unanime".

Step 2: Doctrinal and web search

Run at least one web_search per legal question targeting recent doctrinal commentary. Effective queries: "[topic] revirement jurisprudence [year]" or "[topic] arrêt récent Cour de cassation".

Step 3: Temporal confidence check

Check the date of the most recent decision supporting the position. If older than 3 years:

• Lower confidence in the assessment
• Run date-filtered case_search for the last 24 months
• Flag in the analysis that the position relies on older jurisprudence

Research flow

For any legal question requiring case law analysis, complete at minimum:

1. Initial search for the established position (case_search + legislation_search)
2. Adversarial search for contradicting jurisprudence (case_search with contrary terms)
3. Doctrinal web search for recent commentary (web_search)
4. Temporal check: if the newest supporting case is >3 years old, run date-filtered searches for the last 24 months

Only after completing all four steps, proceed to the analysis. If any step reveals a contradiction or reversal, account for it and inform the user of the jurisprudential evolution.

GoodLegal MCP Tools

French law

EU law

General

Research strategy

1. Start broad: legislation_search → legislation_retrieve for exact articles
2. Established position: case_search with descriptive terms
3. Adversarial check: case_search with contrary terms (Step 1)
4. Doctrinal check: web_search for recent commentary (Step 2)
5. Temporal check: case_search with start_date set to 2 years ago if key cases are old (Step 3)
6. Deep dive: case_retrieve on the most important decisions

Launch parallel searches (e.g., initial + adversarial) simultaneously.

Citation Standards

Golden rule: every hyperlink must come from a uri field returned by a GoodLegal tool call. Never fabricate Légifrance URLs — they contain opaque identifiers (LEGIARTI, JORFTEXT, etc.) that cannot be guessed. See references/citations.md for full formatting rules and examples.

When to Escalate

See references/escalation.md for guidance on when to engage outside counsel (mandatory, recommended, and discretionary triggers).