# Jonas Hertner | complete plain-text edition > Independent Swiss lawyer for boards, owners, legal teams, families, foundations and individuals. Zurich and Basel. Disputes, governance and AI for legal work. Canonical site: https://jonashertner.com/. Citation rule: Cite the canonical page or one of its stable section fragments. Do not cite this aggregate file as the source of an individual document. Language: English (Switzerland) Last reviewed: 2026-09-21 This file contains the complete English homepage, the service pages, all English notes, the English agents framework and its supporting working note. It is generated from the public HTML. ## Homepage ### Document: [Independent lawyer in Zurich and Basel. Jonas Hertner](https://jonashertner.com/) Canonical: https://jonashertner.com/ Markdown: https://jonashertner.com/index.md Content-ID: https://jonashertner.com/#webpage Language: en-CH Status: current Modified: 2026-09-21 Version: 2026-09-21 Suggested citation: Jonas Hertner, “Independent lawyer in Zurich and Basel. Jonas Hertner” (version 2026-09-21), https://jonashertner.com/. #### Independent lawyer in Zurich and Basel. Jonas Hertner Disputes. Governance. Law & AI. [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com) [Explore the practice](/index.md#expertise) Practice #### Advice, review & representation. ##### Advice & governance Advice to boards, owners and legal teams on decisions about authority, ownership and responsibility, before commitments become difficult to reverse. For families, foundations and individuals, the work includes governance, business and asset transactions, and succession. It takes account of the people, relationships and interests behind the legal structure. [Discuss a decision](/index.md#contact) ##### Disputes & investigations Advice and representation in Swiss and cross-border civil and criminal matters, including shareholder and financial disputes, investigations and corporate criminal liability. An independent review clarifies what a major dispute turns on, what the evidence supports, potential recovery or liability, and the cost of proceeding, funding or settling. The practice also covers Swiss proceedings involving state action, constitutional and fundamental rights, including questions arising from the environment and emerging technology, with counsel abroad where needed. ###### An independent Swiss litigation boutique. I lead the work, select exceptional specialists for each matter and structure our fees to align with the client’s objective. [Investigation, strategy & representation](/disputes/) ##### Law & AI I help legal teams and organisations put AI to work: define a useful task, improve the workflow and keep the knowledge gained available for the next decision. Define the task and sources before choosing or building an AI system. Establish who may decide, what must be checked, how exceptions are handled and what must be recorded. The organisation retains its knowledge, controls the process and can explain its decisions. [Legal agents inside the organisation](/agents/) sets out the operating model. More at [Rule & Reason](https://ruleandreason.com/). [Working together on legal AI](/law-ai/) Profile #### Experience & approach. Jonas Hertner is an independent Swiss lawyer. For more than a decade, he has worked on Swiss and cross-border matters. He advises directly, provides independent review and works alongside existing counsel. [Rule & Reason](https://ruleandreason.com/) brings together legal advice, AI implementation and organisational knowledge. - **Public benefit practice:** Alongside the independent practice, head lawyer at [Regenerative Law](https://www.regenerative.law/). - **Private practice:** Helped establish the Swiss office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. - **Earlier work:** Non-profit organisations, the Directorate of International Law of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Court of Appeal of Basel-Stadt. - **Education:** Law degrees from the Universities of Lucerne and Geneva (with distinction). - **Public work:** Built OpenCaseLaw and wrote The Good Board. - **Languages:** English, German and French. Method ##### Purpose before process. I begin with the client’s objective and remain responsible for the work. The conclusions stay connected to their sources, with uncertainty and the next steps made clear. - **Purpose:** What must be achieved, decided or protected? - **Evidence:** What is known, uncertain or disputed? - **Law:** What does the law permit, require or restrict? What is at risk? - **Course:** What is the simplest sound response: legal advice or action, a change in practice, a tool or no intervention? Notes #### Law & AI Notes on law, artificial intelligence and the decisions that connect them. Selected note 27 July 2026 ##### [AI can widen legal review](/notes/ai-in-legal-work/) AI can help a legal team examine more material and test more questions. Its value depends on traceable sources, measured performance and a lawyer prepared to stand behind the result. [Read the note](/notes/ai-in-legal-work/) 27 July 2026 ##### [Public by law](/notes/open-case-law/) 27 July 2026 ##### [A separate view of a dispute](/notes/independent-judgment/) [All notes](/notes/) [Follow via RSS](/notes/feed.xml) Public work #### Work in the open. These projects and [notes](/notes/) make legal sources, practical guidance and working methods available for others to use and examine. ##### [OpenCaseLaw](https://opencaselaw.ch/) An open, machine-readable corpus of Swiss court decisions and legislation, built for source-linked research. 05.01 · Open legal infrastructure · opencaselaw.ch ##### [The Good Board](https://thegoodboard.ch/) A practical guide to Swiss corporate governance, organised around the decisions boards face. Jonas Hertner also helps board members develop and use AI tools tailored to their research and decision-making. 05.02 · Corporate governance · thegoodboard.ch ##### [Legal agents inside the organisation](/agents/) A framework for keeping legal knowledge inside the organisation, giving AI agents defined tasks and retaining human responsibility for decisions. 05.03 · Framework / 2026-08-27 · /agents Supporting note: [Legal work that stays useful](/pivot/). How sources, checks and decision records can serve the next matter. #### Contact Tell me what needs to be achieved, decided or protected. [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com) Zurich & Basel In your first email, name the people and entities involved so that conflicts of interest can be checked. Put any deadline at the start, but do not rely on sending an email to meet it. Send confidential information only through an agreed secure channel. #### Here, on Earth. Law and AI shape how we live together. A wider view of the world we share. Earth Solar system Milky Way Local Group ##### One world. All our lives. Day gives way to night as our planet turns. ≈ 465 m/s Earth’s rotation at the equator ≈ 316 m/s at Zurich’s latitude ##### By the light of a star. Sunlight reaches Earth in about 8 minutes 25 seconds. ≈ 30 km/s Earth around the Sun ##### A shelter made by a star. The Sun’s wind carries a magnetic field far beyond the planets. This heliosphere reduces the galactic cosmic rays that reach us. ≈ 120 AU Scale of Voyager’s boundary crossings ##### Our star, among billions. Our solar system lies in the Orion Spur, about 26,000 light-years from the Galactic centre. ≈ 220 km/s Our solar system around the centre of the Milky Way ##### A neighbourhood of galaxies. The Milky Way belongs to the Local Group. Andromeda, our large galactic neighbour, is about 2.5 million light-years away. ≈ 370 km/s Our solar system relative to the cosmic microwave background Explore the scale Inner planets All eight Heliosphere Real time 6 Sept 2026, 12:00:00 UTC A journey through scale. Planet sizes are enlarged. Light and motion Our motion, in perspective - **Earth’s rotation at the equator:** ≈ 465 m/s [NGA WGS 84](https://earth-info.nga.mil/index.php?dir=wgs84&action=wgs84) - **Earth around the Sun:** ≈ 30 km/s [NASA](https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter1-2/) - **Our solar system around the centre of the Milky Way:** ≈ 220 km/s [ESA Gaia](https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/edr3-acceleration-solar-system) - **Our solar system relative to the cosmic microwave background:** ≈ 370 km/s [Planck](https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833880) Earth turns once relative to the stars in about 23 hours 56 minutes. Rotation carries the equator at about 465 metres per second (1,674 km/h). At Zurich’s latitude, about 47.38° north, this is roughly 316 metres per second (1,140 km/h). The speed decreases towards the poles. The cosmic microwave background is radiation remaining from the early universe. It provides a reference for measuring our motion on a larger scale. These speeds refer to different frames of reference. They are not numbers to add into one absolute speed through the universe. The view follows your device’s current date and time, displayed in UTC. Earth, Moon and planetary positions are approximate calculations that advance in real time. Their motion is usually too slow to see at these scales. Zoom changes only the scale; time is never accelerated. The journey begins over the Atlantic, facing Africa and Europe. Earth turns eastwards, with daylight calculated for the time shown. The marks describe land and ocean, with no political borders. The night side remains gently visible so that the whole world can be read. Planetary positions are calculated from approximate orbital elements. Ellipses, inclinations and relative orbital distances are preserved within the solar view; planets are enlarged for visibility. The Earth and Moon detail enlarges their separation further, while retaining the calculated lunar position. Its line is a mean reference orbit; lunar perturbations can shift the Moon slightly away from it. These are educational calculations, not navigation ephemerides. The zoom connects different scales, compressing the distances between them. Planetary orbits: [NASA JPL](https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/approx_pos.html). Lunar position: [Paul Schlyter](https://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/ppcomp.html). The heliosphere reduces the galactic cosmic rays entering our solar system; it does not block them completely. Earth’s own magnetic field and atmosphere provide additional protection, including from solar particles. About 120 astronomical units, or 120 times the mean Earth–Sun distance, is a rough reference from the Voyager spacecraft’s boundary crossings in different directions. The heliosphere is asymmetric, its boundary changes, and its full shape remains uncertain. The soft enclosure illustrates this region; it is not a rigid sphere or a live measurement of the boundary. The Sun’s protective influence: [NASA](https://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/heliosphere/). [Voyager and the boundary](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/ibex/studying-the-edge-of-the-suns-magnetic-bubble/). [The crossing distance](https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/the-voyage-to-interstellar-space/). ##### Earth’s magnetic shelter. Earth’s magnetic field turns much of the solar wind aside. Solar storms can transfer energy into this magnetic environment, sometimes lighting the polar skies. A schematic illustration with compressed distances. The shield is permeable; this is not a report of a current storm. [NASA: the magnetosphere](https://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/magnetosphere-ionosphere/)[Current space weather](https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind) The Milky Way and Local Group are artistic schematics informed by observed galactic structure. Andromeda’s extended core and star-forming ring differ from Triangulum’s loose spiral disc. Galaxy sizes, orientation and spacing are illustrative; stars and companion marks do not represent a measured catalogue or a member count. Our galactic neighbours: [NASA](https://science.nasa.gov/universe/galaxies/large-scale-structures/). [Andromeda](https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/science/explore-the-night-sky/hubble-messier-catalog/messier-31/). Our solar system takes about 230 million years to orbit the Galactic centre. [NASA](https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/solar-system-facts/) Our place in the galaxy: [ESA Gaia](https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/edr3-acceleration-solar-system). The sunlight reaching Earth has travelled for about 8 minutes 25 seconds. Daylight calculated for 6 September 2026, 14:00 (Zurich time). Geography: [Natural Earth](https://www.naturalearthdata.com/). Solar calculation: [USNO](https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/sun_approx). Light travel time: [NASA JPL](https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_par.html). Published for people and systems. Markdown supports reading and reuse. Structured JSON supports software. Automated systems Human confirmation is required before sending a message or acting for anyone. Independent practice / Revised 2026-09-21 [HTML](/) [MD](/index.md) [JSON](/practice.json) [PDF](/jonas-hertner.pdf) Jonas Hertner Zurich Asylstrasse 41 8032 Zurich Switzerland Basel Münsterplatz 17 4051 Basel Switzerland Other links - [Email](mailto:team@jonashertner.com) - [LinkedIn](https://ch.linkedin.com/in/jonas-hertner-5464492) - [Notes](/notes/) - [Private writing tool](/write/) #### Legal information This site gives general information, not legal advice on a particular matter. An email does not establish an engagement. Any engagement is confirmed in writing. #### Privacy No visitor analytics, advertising code or cookies. Full privacy information Jonas Hertner is responsible for personal data processed through this site and email. Contact: [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com?subject=Data%20protection). No visitor analytics or advertising code runs on this site. The site sets no cookies. Your appearance and motion preferences are stored only in this browser and are not sent to Jonas Hertner. GitHub Pages processes technical request data, including IP addresses, to deliver and protect the site. Microsoft 365 processes email to reply, check conflicts and meet legal or professional duties. The writing tool stores text and settings only in the browser and sends nothing to Jonas Hertner. GitHub and Microsoft may process data outside Switzerland, including in the United States. Adequacy decisions or contractual safeguards apply where required. Correspondence is kept only as long as needed. Requests for access, correction or deletion may be sent by email. #### Accessibility If you have difficulty using this site, write to [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com?subject=Accessibility). © 2026 Jonas Hertner · Independent lawyer ## Practice ### Document: [Disputes & investigations](https://jonashertner.com/disputes/) Canonical: https://jonashertner.com/disputes/ Markdown: https://jonashertner.com/disputes/index.md Content-ID: https://jonashertner.com/disputes/#webpage Language: en-CH Status: current Published: 2026-09-21 Modified: 2026-09-21 Version: 2026-09-21 Suggested citation: Jonas Hertner, “Disputes & investigations” (version 2026-09-21), https://jonashertner.com/disputes/. [Practice](/#expertise) Establish the facts. Pursue the goal. This is an independent Swiss litigation boutique. I lead the work. We establish the facts that matter, assess them against the applicable law and pursue the client’s objective with determination. #### The work Advice and representation in Swiss and cross-border civil and criminal matters, including shareholder and financial disputes, investigations and corporate criminal liability. The practice also covers proceedings involving state action and fundamental rights, with counsel abroad where needed. An engagement may involve taking responsibility for the dispute, joining existing counsel or providing an independent assessment of whether to proceed, defend, fund or settle. The role is agreed at the outset. #### Facts, law and action ##### Investigate deeply. Seek out the evidence that supports the case and the evidence that could defeat it. Follow contradictions, identify missing material and keep important conclusions connected to their sources. AI is integral to evidence review and preparation; the findings must withstand human scrutiny. ##### Assess rigorously. Use the legal questions to guide the investigation. Let new evidence change the theory of the case. Establish what is known, what remains uncertain and what could change the decision, including the cost and practical value of pursuing it. ##### Act with determination. Prepare to negotiate, litigate or pursue both routes. Keep the client’s goal in view: secure a judgment, reach a settlement, protect a relationship or prevent further harm. Reconsider the course when evidence or circumstances change. #### A team built for the matter I select exceptional lawyers, investigators and technical specialists when and where the matter requires them. Each person has a defined responsibility; I lead the matter and coordinate the team’s work. We agree the client’s objective at the outset and structure our fees to align our interests as closely as possible, including an element tied to the outcome where appropriate. Scope, responsibility and remuneration are agreed before the work begins. #### A clear first step We begin with the parties, the objective, any urgent deadlines and the available material. We agree the initial scope, identify what is missing and determine which questions could change the next decision. An initial assessment sets out what the evidence supports, the available options and a recommended course. Further investigation, negotiation or proceedings follow an agreed mandate. #### A closer look [A separate view of a dispute](/notes/independent-judgment/) examines what an independent assessment should add to a client’s decision. #### Discuss your dispute [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com?subject=Discuss%20a%20dispute) In your first email, name the people and entities involved so that conflicts can be checked. Put any deadline at the start. Send confidential documents only through an agreed secure channel. ### Document: [Law & AI](https://jonashertner.com/law-ai/) Canonical: https://jonashertner.com/law-ai/ Markdown: https://jonashertner.com/law-ai/index.md Content-ID: https://jonashertner.com/law-ai/#webpage Language: en-CH Status: current Published: 2026-09-21 Modified: 2026-09-21 Version: 2026-09-21 Suggested citation: Jonas Hertner, “Law & AI” (version 2026-09-21), https://jonashertner.com/law-ai/. [Practice](/#expertise) Useful work. Clear responsibility. I help boards, owners and legal teams decide where AI can improve legal work and put that decision into practice. The starting point is a concrete task: better research, a recurring review or knowledge the organisation needs to keep using. #### Where the work starts ##### Research with a question. Define what must be established, choose the relevant legal and factual sources and make the findings traceable. Distinguish the source itself from a calculation, an inference or a recommendation that still needs judgment. ##### A recurring task. Compare contract drafts with an agreed position, prepare a chronology, identify departures requiring approval or repeat a defined check. Establish what the process should detect, where it can fail and who acts on the result. ##### Work the next team can use. Keep earlier advice, decisions and the reasons behind them accessible with their dates, scope and assumptions. Decide what needs active maintenance and what should simply remain in the record. #### From a task to a working process We first define the decision or action the work should support, the people using it and the sources they are entitled to access. A change to an existing process may be enough; some work calls for a configured tool or a new system. We specify the expected result, review requirements and failure conditions, then test the process on representative material whose relevant answers have been checked independently. The assessment includes missed evidence, unsupported conclusions and the effort needed to correct them. Before use with sensitive information, we establish where it is processed, who can access it and how it is retained. A handover covers how to run the process, check its results, handle exceptions and revise or stop it. #### What the engagement produces The scope determines the deliverables. These may include: - A defined task, source inventory and decision criteria. - A documented workflow with permissions, review rules and named responsibilities. - A configured tool or working implementation, with tests and a record of its limits. - Guidance and a handover that let the organisation use and maintain the work. #### Personal responsibility I lead the legal analysis and the design of the work, bringing in technical or other specialists where the task requires them. The organisation retains authority over its decisions and control over the knowledge it is entitled to keep. We agree the scope, responsibilities and fees before starting. Further development or ongoing support is defined separately, with a clear purpose and an owner. #### Work behind the method [Legal agents inside the organisation](/agents/) sets out the operating framework. [OpenCaseLaw](https://opencaselaw.ch/), which I built, makes published Swiss legal sources easier to find, examine and use. #### Discuss the work [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com?subject=Law%20and%20AI) In your first email, name the people and entities involved so that conflicts can be checked. Put any deadline at the start. Send confidential documents only through an agreed secure channel. ## Notes Essays and frameworks on law, judgment, institutions and technology. ### Document: [A separate view of a dispute](https://jonashertner.com/notes/independent-judgment/) Canonical: https://jonashertner.com/notes/independent-judgment/ Markdown: https://jonashertner.com/notes/independent-judgment/index.md Content-ID: https://jonashertner.com/notes/independent-judgment/#post Language: en-CH Status: current Published: 2026-07-27 Modified: 2026-09-07 Version: 2026-09-07 Suggested citation: Jonas Hertner, “A separate view of a dispute” (version 2026-09-07), https://jonashertner.com/notes/independent-judgment/. A consequential dispute may justify a second assessment: which assumptions support the case, what could change the outcome, and whether the proposed course still serves the client. A second opinion can leave a client with two answers and no better way to choose between them. It earns its cost when it gives the client better grounds for a decision: an assumption tested, a material risk made clearer, or a reason to trust the existing advice. A dispute needs a working theory: what happened, why it matters in law and how the case can be proved. That theory guides the choice of evidence and arguments. It must also survive new documents, an unhelpful witness or a change in the client’s priorities. The lawyers conducting the case know its history, procedural constraints and the other side. An outside reviewer cannot quickly acquire that knowledge. Distance may make an assumption easier to question; it can also make an unfamiliar fact look like an overlooked one. The existing team needs a fair opportunity to explain its reasoning. #### When a transaction becomes a dispute The lawyers who advised on a transaction know what the parties intended and why the documents took their final form. When the relationship breaks down, that knowledge remains valuable. A separate reader can examine how a court or counterparty might understand the same documents without having shared those intentions. The review can focus on how well the present position holds up. It need not reopen every choice made during the transaction. The same exercise can help before conflict, while a notice, side letter or set of minutes can still be clarified. #### The case and the decision A strong case does not, by itself, answer whether to pursue it. Years of cost, distraction, uncertain recovery or damage to a relationship may outweigh the claim. The useful question is the choice now before the client: whether to bring, defend, continue, fund or settle the matter. Two advisers may agree about the law and evidence yet recommend different courses because they assume different tolerances for cost or risk. They may also be answering different questions: whether a claim could succeed, or whether pursuing it serves this client. Establishing that difference can be more useful than commissioning another opinion. #### What a separate view tests Start with what must be true for the claim or defence to succeed. Distinguish what the documents establish from what a witness may say, what the lawyer infers and what remains unknown. Each material factual or legal proposition should lead to its supporting sources. Then identify which uncertainty could change the decision, and what obtaining better evidence would cost. Where the assessments differ, put the disagreement beside its sources. Are the advisers working from the same material? Which fact, legal proposition or inference separates them? Each should explain what would change the assessment. Some differences will survive that exchange. The client then needs to understand how each view affects the available choices, rather than receive a compromise conclusion that neither adviser can support. Suppose a company asks whether a newly found email should change its lawyers’ settlement recommendation. The email seems to show that the other party accepted defective goods. Read with the surrounding correspondence, it concerns a different delivery. The review finds no reason in this email to change counsel’s recommendation and ends there. The company can now decide without relying on an apparent admission that the record does not support. A percentage of success would add little without a defensible basis. Scenarios may be more useful: the possible outcomes, their costs and the assumptions behind them. The written answer should make the few points that matter intelligible without requiring the client to retrace the entire file. #### Scope and limit A reviewer can feel pressure to reassure the person who commissioned the work, demonstrate value by finding fault, or secure a further role. Those incentives deserve examination alongside the existing team’s attachment to its position. A defined question and endpoint help contain the review; its conclusions still have to withstand challenge. The written answer should identify the material received, how it was selected, what was excluded or unreadable and whose account remains untested. The reviewer’s role should be clear to counsel. An ill-defined parallel mandate consumes time and can obscure who is responsible for the next step. If the stakes and uncertainty do not justify the additional work, there is no reason to commission it. A useful second assessment leaves the client able to explain the decision, the disagreement that remains and what would justify reconsidering it. ### Document: [Public by law](https://jonashertner.com/notes/open-case-law/) Canonical: https://jonashertner.com/notes/open-case-law/ Markdown: https://jonashertner.com/notes/open-case-law/index.md Content-ID: https://jonashertner.com/notes/open-case-law/#post Language: en-CH Status: current Published: 2026-07-27 Modified: 2026-09-07 Version: 2026-09-07 Suggested citation: Jonas Hertner, “Public by law” (version 2026-09-07), https://jonashertner.com/notes/open-case-law/. Access to judgments is part of open justice. A usable public record helps people understand their position, especially when they rarely litigate. In 2020, a man preparing for divorce asked Zug’s Higher Court for anonymised digital copies of judgments in several areas of family law issued since 2015. The court refused. He went to the Federal Supreme Court, which upheld his right to inspect the anonymised decisions, but found no federal right to have them sent to him. He could be required to visit the court registry and make copies there. Article 30(3) of the Federal Constitution guarantees public court hearings and the public pronouncement of judgments, subject to statutory exceptions. This generally includes a right to inspect judgments afterwards. It does not require every decision to appear online. #### From rule to record A judgment may be available at a registry yet absent from search results. Even online, separate court websites, inconsistent formats and limited indexing can make it difficult to retrieve. A subscription can pay for research tools. It should not be what makes a public judgment findable in the first place. Nor is a searchable collection necessarily complete. A search with no results can mean that no relevant decision was published, indexed or found. It does not establish that no court has addressed the question. #### Who pays for the gap That uncertainty can affect the terms of a settlement. Someone weighing an offer needs to know whether an opponent’s account of the law is sound. Judgments allow that account to be compared with reasons a court has actually given. A repeat litigant may know the local practice, retain past decisions and fund detailed research. Someone facing a single dispute often starts without that accumulated knowledge. Open access cannot give both sides the same budget or experience. It can reduce the advantage gained simply by possessing the relevant decisions. Finding them is the beginning of legal analysis. A similar outcome may rest on a different fact, a procedural obstacle or legislation since amended. A judgment’s weight depends on its reasons and its place in the wider case law, not its position in a list of search results. #### Technology changes the cost Making more judgments available requires careful work. Removing names is not enough if a description still identifies a child or a family. Removing too much can conceal the facts that explain the result. Publishing a judgment should protect the people involved without concealing why the court decided as it did. Software can help extract text, remove identifying details and flag mistakes. Preparing judgments for publication when they are issued reduces the work needed later, when someone asks to read them. #### OpenCaseLaw I built [OpenCaseLaw](https://opencaselaw.ch) to make published Swiss case law easier to find and use. It brings decisions from federal and cantonal courts into an open, searchable, machine-readable corpus. The data and code are open; entries link to their original public sources. The platform describes its coverage and methods. Search, extracted passages and tools that test claims against cited judgments help a reader decide what to examine. I want readers to be able to follow a quotation back to its source, read it in context and see whether it supports the answer. Checking should be easy even when it shows the answer is wrong. The collection cannot supply unpublished judgments or repair gaps in its sources. It can give more readers the chance to examine and question the decisions that are available. #### Notes 1. [Art. 30 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#art_30); [BGE 147 I 407 (1C_307/2020), 16 June 2021](https://search.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/clir/http/index.php?highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F147-I-407%3Ade&lang=de&type=show_document), facts A and sections 6.4.2, 7.2, 8.1 and 8.2. Closed family-law hearings do not, by themselves, exclude public access to the resulting judgments. Privacy may require anonymisation or other restrictions. The work needed to anonymise many judgments must not impose a disproportionate burden; the court’s general assertion of an excessive burden did not suffice in this case. Federal law did not require delivery, but inspection and copying at the registry had to be possible. ### Document: [AI can widen legal review](https://jonashertner.com/notes/ai-in-legal-work/) Canonical: https://jonashertner.com/notes/ai-in-legal-work/ Markdown: https://jonashertner.com/notes/ai-in-legal-work/index.md Content-ID: https://jonashertner.com/notes/ai-in-legal-work/#post Language: en-CH Status: current Published: 2026-07-27 Modified: 2026-09-07 Version: 2026-09-07 Suggested citation: Jonas Hertner, “AI can widen legal review” (version 2026-09-07), https://jonashertner.com/notes/ai-in-legal-work/. AI can help a legal team examine more material and test more questions. Its value depends on traceable sources, measured performance and a lawyer prepared to stand behind the result. AI can make another pass through a large file practical: a chronology, a comparison or a search for evidence that might unsettle a case. That examination must improve the basis for a decision enough to justify checking its findings. A few decisive passages can be worth more than hundreds of plausible observations. The work is to identify which findings matter, check what supports them and judge what may still have been missed. #### Sources and findings A language model can extract a date, calculate from it or draw an inference about it. Those operations need different checks. A reliable account distinguishes what the source says, what was calculated and what the lawyer concludes. Take a hypothetical review of whether a notice reached its recipient in time. A model finds a letter dated 14 March, an email attaching it on 16 March and a later reply acknowledging receipt. The letter’s date proves neither sending nor receipt. The acknowledgment’s wording and the applicable legal rule still need examination. The model also flags a different address in an earlier contract draft. The signed version and the notice use the same address; the apparent discrepancy adds nothing to the timing question. Distinguishing this distraction from the useful lead takes work. Classifying a document as irrelevant does not establish its irrelevance. The search question itself may have left out what matters. #### Broader review AI can help examine many more documents against the same questions and link possible findings to passages. Record what was included or excluded, when it was collected and which files could not be processed. Processing every file does not ensure every relevant point is found. A scanned page may be misread, a question framed too narrowly or a contradiction overlooked. Keep disagreements between sources visible; if the evidence cannot settle them, state which account the advice relies on. #### When the model supplies the law A model asked for the law without specified authorities may combine sound propositions with obsolete, irrelevant or invented support. Its tone gives the reader no reliable way to tell them apart. An error may look entirely ordinary: a plausible citation, a familiar legal test or a proposition that is right in another jurisdiction. It can survive a hurried reading because it fits the expected answer. An unsourced answer may suggest a line of inquiry, but the legal research remains to be done. Even when authorities are supplied, check that they exist, remain relevant and support the proposition in context. #### Before using the system Define what the system should examine, which sources it may use and what the answer must contain. Link every material factual or legal proposition to its sources. Assign review to someone with the time and expertise to check unsupported claims. Confidentiality, professional secrecy, privilege, data protection and information security constrain the choice of system. Before entering sensitive material, establish where it will be processed, who can access it and how it will be retained, reused, transferred, logged and secured. Local processing may reduce some risks; access controls, backups and connected services still need assessment. Removing names is insufficient if the remaining details identify the people concerned. #### Test the system that will be used Evaluate the whole process, from retrieval and extraction to the reviewer’s final assessment. Compare it with an appropriate existing method on the same question and source material. Choose representative documents, independently checked reference answers and difficult cases before running the test. Measure at least: - relevant material missed; - statements unsupported by the specified sources; - citations that do not exist or do not support the proposition; - answers that stray beyond the question or permitted sources; - the time needed to reach a reliable result, including corrections and the pursuit of false leads. Repeat the tests when changes to models, settings or connected sources could affect the result, and investigate failures found in use. Success on one task does not establish reliability on another. #### Responsibility The lawyer must decide whether the findings justify the advice, what could change it and whether more work is needed. Stopping is part of that judgment: further review may be unlikely to affect the decision, or another way of obtaining evidence may be more useful. The client should receive a considered answer and the uncertainties that matter. The supporting record should let another competent person trace the reasoning and question its key inferences, without asking the client to repeat the lawyer’s work. #### Notes 1. [NIST AI 600-1, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1), section 2.2 and actions MP-2.1-002, MP-2.3-001 and MS-2.5-003. NIST identifies confidently presented false content, including invented logic and citations, and recommends testing data transformations, comparing output with known ground truth and verifying sources and citations. 2. [Art. 13 of the Federal Act on the Free Movement of Lawyers](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2002/153/en#art_13) governs professional secrecy. The [Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner](https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/en/ai-and-data-protection) states that the Federal Act on Data Protection applies directly to AI-supported data processing and requires transparency about its purpose, operation and data sources. ## Agents framework ### Document: [Legal agents inside the organisation](https://jonashertner.com/agents/) Canonical: https://jonashertner.com/agents/ Markdown: https://jonashertner.com/agents/index.md Content-ID: https://jonashertner.com/agents/#webpage Language: en-CH Status: current Published: 2026-08-27 Modified: 2026-09-07 Version: 2026-09-07 Suggested citation: Jonas Hertner, “Legal agents inside the organisation” (version 2026-09-07), https://jonashertner.com/agents/. The next team should be able to use what the company has learned. The reasons for a contract exception, a product approval or a settlement may matter again. Legal agents can help keep that record and notice when a change calls it into question. The work is useful only if someone who can respond learns of the change in time. 01 / Decision #### Define the decision first. Record who decides, the reasons for the decision and who must carry it out. A company keeps changing after legal advice is delivered. A product acquires a new use, a contract is amended or an assumption proves wrong. The advice may remain sound within its original scope while becoming unsuitable for the decision now being made. The person making that decision needs to see what the earlier advice did and did not cover. Consider a hypothetical product approval limited to two markets. The decision record should explain the restriction, the evidence supporting it and who can authorise expansion. An agent assigned to watch for changes needs access to the relevant sales plans and instructions for notifying that person of a proposed change. The approval then has conditions the company can check as its plans develop. ##### One operating loop **From a change in circumstances to a decision that can be revisited.** ###### 01 / Signal A relevant legal or business change. ###### 02 / Context Current law, facts and commitments. ###### 03 / Challenge Options, objections and uncertainty. ###### 04 / Decision Who decides, what and why. ###### 05 / Action Who acts, on what conditions. ###### 06 / Outcome What happened in practice. ###### 07 / Memory What to retain and when to reconsider. **Note:** The loop is incomplete until the responsible person can respond and the organisation can establish what happened. 02 / Memory #### Keep the reasons as well as the documents. Keep enough of the reasoning to recognise when a decision needs to change. In the product example, suppose one reviewer doubts that the company can keep distributors from selling outside those markets. Keep that objection and how it was addressed alongside the approval, with appropriate access and retention rules. Approval alone does not show that the reviewer was wrong. A later proposal to use a new distributor may make the objection relevant again. Record which facts, law and commitments the decision relied on, so a change in one can prompt a review. Treat a link inferred by a model as a hypothesis until it has been checked. Earlier advice also needs to be read on its own terms, including its date, scope and assumptions. ##### What the organisation should retain The people carrying out a decision can record what worked, where they made exceptions and what went wrong. Keep that account where future colleagues can find it, with access limited to those who need it for an authorised task. Outside counsel can then work from a precise question and a history they can follow. Their advice should return with its author, date, scope and assumptions attached. 03 / Operation #### Keep relevant work moving between decisions. Specify the job, the sources the agent may use and when it must ask a person to decide. State which changes the agent watches for and what it may miss. In the same example, a reviewer may dismiss an alert about a rule affecting a different product, recording why it does not apply. A proposal to enter a third market should reach the person authorised to approve it, with the original restriction and the proposed change together. Forwarding every alert would consume the attention needed for that decision. Before a review, the agent can assemble current sources, retrieve earlier advice, identify missing facts and prepare questions for research. For a decision with serious consequences, have a separate reviewer examine the evidence and assumptions. This may require fresh research. Asking the producing model to check itself, or merely switching models, does not show that the work has been checked independently. Once a person has decided, the agent can send the authorised instruction to the team that must act, check specified conditions and record whether the work was done. If a decision is due and the person responsible is absent or does not respond, specify who else may decide. A delivery receipt does not tell the company whether anyone acted in time. 04 / Control #### Keep control when the technology changes. The organisation should be able to replace a model or provider without losing its knowledge or controls. The company needs to keep its sources, permissions, instructions, tests, review rules and record of actions when it changes a model or supplier. These determine what an agent can read, do and pass on. They must remain available for inspection and amendment, and in a form the company can use elsewhere. 01 / Sources ##### Keep each claim connected to its evidence Legal propositions should lead back to the relevant authorities; statements about the business should lead back to the underlying documents or system entries. An entry can itself be mistaken. Preserve its date and origin, distinguish it from an inference and restrict access to those entitled to see it. Decision histories, source references and test results should remain accessible independently of the model that helped produce them. 02 / Runtime ##### Know where the information goes Models and the software operating them may run locally, on infrastructure the organisation controls or through an approved external service. Assess the whole arrangement: model processing, connected tools, storage, logs, support access, backups, keys and network routes. A locally hosted model may still send information through an external component. For every such transfer, establish what leaves, why, who may access it and how long it is kept. 03 / Authority ##### Grant authority explicitly Specify what an agent may read, produce, communicate and change. For each permission, name who grants and reviews it, its limits and when it expires. State who reviews the work and when it must stop or be referred to someone else. A better test result may support a request for wider permission; it does not grant that permission. People retain professional responsibility and the authority to commit the organisation, wherever the software runs. ##### Build in order Begin with one decision and its sources. Define the permissions, expected results, failure conditions and human review. Test the process before adding scheduled runs, including how it reports missed checks to the person responsible. For each additional agent or handoff, state why it is needed and who is responsible. Remove authority when its purpose ends. 05 / Board #### Ask for evidence that the work improves. The board should be able to see whether the system helps people make better decisions, where it can fail and who must put mistakes right. Six questions help establish that: 1. Which decisions should this help us make, and what would count as an improvement? 2. Which legal or business changes will the system detect, and what will it miss? 3. Can we trace an important recommendation to its sources and explain what would make us reconsider it? 4. Which decisions need human review, an independent assessment or formal approval? 5. Where is information processed, who can access it and what can the system do outside the organisation? 6. Can management show which alerts led to reconsideration, which were dismissed and whether the required action followed in time? Conclusion #### A continuous legal function. In the product example, someone authorised to decide must review the proposed expansion before sales begin in a third market. That person needs the earlier restriction, the reasons for it and any objection that remains unanswered. The test is whether the company can use what it learned in time to change what it does. Jonas Hertner Document Legal agents inside the organisation Published 27 August 2026 Revised 7 September 2026 [jonashertner.com/agents/](/agents/) Related - Supporting note: [Legal work that stays useful](/pivot/) - [AI in legal work](/notes/ai-in-legal-work/) - [Main page](/) Formats - [Markdown edition](/agents/index.md) - [LLM index](/llms.txt) - [Site privacy](/#privacy) #### Scope This is an operating framework, not legal advice or a statement that any particular use is lawful. The applicable law, professional duties, corporate authority and technical controls must be assessed for the organisation and the work concerned. #### Privacy No visitor analytics or advertising code runs on this page. It sets no cookies. GitHub Pages processes technical request data, including IP addresses, to deliver and protect the site. © 2026 Jonas Hertner · Independent lawyer ## Working note ### Document: [Legal work that stays useful](https://jonashertner.com/pivot/) Canonical: https://jonashertner.com/pivot/ Markdown: https://jonashertner.com/pivot/index.md Content-ID: https://jonashertner.com/pivot/#article Language: en Status: current Published: 2026-08-03 Modified: 2026-09-21 Version: 2026-09-21 Suggested citation: Jonas Hertner, “Legal work that stays useful” (version 2026-09-21), https://jonashertner.com/pivot/. Legal work should help with the decision at hand and leave the organisation better equipped for the next one. A practical note on sources, systems and responsibility. Jonas Hertner · lawyer #### The purpose Begin with the decision the organisation needs to make and what stands in the way: a contractual restriction, an unresolved fact or an approval nobody owns. The response may require advice, a practical change or a better way to handle information. Then decide what should remain useful after this matter ends. Preserving a file and maintaining it as guidance for new work are different commitments. #### What should stay Keep work the organisation is entitled to retain and likely to need again, with its sources, scope, assumptions and date. Give priority to what would be costly to reconstruct or misleading without its history. A negotiated exception illustrates the choice. The signed contract belongs in the record. Using its exception in future negotiations also requires an explanation of what was exchanged and when the concession is appropriate. Without that context, an isolated bargain can become the default by accident. #### What AI changes AI can help compare drafts, assemble chronologies and repeat defined checks. Count the time spent verifying and maintaining the output when deciding whether it makes the work easier. More summaries are not necessarily more useful. A tool can miss a document or cite a source that does not support its conclusion. Someone with the necessary knowledge must assess the findings; a lawyer giving legal advice remains responsible for it. #### Records and protection A document does not acquire protection from disclosure simply by passing through a legal team. Applicable law, purpose and the people involved matter. Establish the relevant rules before deciding what to retain, share or delete, including any duty to preserve it. Assess providers, support access, backups and transfers as part of the arrangement, with independent advice where needed. #### Controls A reusable record needs its source, scope, current status and reasons for change, together with a named person responsible for keeping it useful. Unresolved questions must remain visible. The [legal agents framework](/agents/#control) develops the operating controls: source verification, information flows, authority and review. This note concentrates on choosing what is worth maintaining and putting it to work. #### Transactions Compare a draft with the organisation’s agreed position. Show each important departure, its practical effect and the choice requiring approval. Give the decision-maker a short account, with the clause and reasoning close at hand. Recurring exceptions may show that the agreed position needs to change. Someone must compare the bargains, consult the people affected and withdraw obsolete guidance. Leaving several plausible versions in circulation passes that work to every later negotiation, often under greater time pressure. #### Disputes Build a chronology linked to the contracts, correspondence and other evidence. Identify missing or unreadable material and the factual and legal questions that could change the outcome, the amount at stake or the next step. A chronology may remain accurate while a new document changes the inference drawn from it. Keep the assessment current, showing why it changed and what remains disputed. The reader should be able to move directly from a conclusion to its reasoning and evidence. #### Work on a schedule Recurring checks need someone to investigate failures and revise the rules. Their frequency should follow how soon a decision may depend on the result. When the last relevant contract expires or a product is withdrawn, reconsider what still needs watching. Stop checks whose purpose has ended, while meeting retention and preservation duties. #### Outside judgment Bring in outside counsel for specialist knowledge, representation or an assessment independent of earlier decisions. A [separate view of a dispute](/notes/independent-judgment/) can help test the preferred course. Give counsel a precise question and the relevant sources and history. Good preparation leaves more time for judgment and less for reconstructing the file. Keep the resulting advice and its limits intelligible to the people who will use it next. #### A practical start 1. Choose one recurring task where better information could change a decision. 2. Gather the sources and state what the decision depends on. 3. Test the proposed check on earlier work with independently verified answers. 4. Name who will maintain the process, review its results and retire it when no longer useful. Use systems the organisation can administer and involve the people who will maintain the work. A handover is incomplete if they can run the process but cannot check its results or change it. If no one can do that, maintain less. #### The point The aim is to leave a colleague able to use earlier work without trusting it blindly or reconstructing it from scratch. Preserve enough context to understand it and provide enough continuing care to know whether it still holds. #### The author Jonas Hertner is an independent lawyer. He works on disputes, governance and AI for legal work. He built [OpenCaseLaw](https://opencaselaw.ch), an open source and open access legal research platform. He works in English, German and French. Contact Jonas Hertner, lawyer Asylstrasse 41, 8032 Zurich · Münsterplatz 17, 4051 Basel [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com) jonashertner.com/pivot This is a general working note. It does not address the law of any jurisdiction or give legal advice. [Home](/) [Agents framework](/agents/) [Notes](/notes/) [Privacy](/#privacy) ## Formats and languages - [Source](/) - [English Markdown edition](/index.md) - [Concise English site index](/llms.txt) - [Multilingual structured practice profile](/practice.json) - [Public content catalogue with full text and section links](/content/index.json) - [Content catalogue schema (version 1.0)](/content/schema.json) - [Reading and navigation guide](/interface/) - [Atom site feed](/feed.xml) - [XML sitemap](/sitemap.xml)