# Jonas Hertner | complete plain-text edition > Independent Swiss lawyer for boards, owners, legal teams, families and individuals. Zurich and Basel. Disputes, governance and AI for legal work. Published at https://jhertner.com/ and https://jonashertner.com/. The two domains contain the same current site. Neither has priority. Language: English (Switzerland) Last reviewed: 2026-08-09 This file contains the complete English homepage, all English notes and the English working note. It is generated from the public HTML. ## Homepage ### Independent lawyer in Zurich and Basel. Begin with what must be achieved. **Use law where it helps.** For boards, owners and legal teams. For families, foundations and individuals. Before conflict, the work anticipates legal friction. In disputes, investigations and questions of rights, it provides independent judgment. Recurring legal work can be made reliable through workflows and AI tools that organisations can govern, operate and improve. [01 Method](#approach) [02 Work](#expertise) [03 Public work](#work) [04 Profile](#profile) [05 Contact](#contact) 01 / Method ### Start with the outcome. Choose the means. First-principles work begins with the outcome, not an inherited task or process. What must be achieved, decided or protected? Answer the question at hand. Where work recurs, leave a method that remains usable. A matter may require both a reasoned answer and a reliable method. - **Purpose:** What must be achieved, decided or protected? - **Evidence:** What is known, uncertain or disputed? - **Law:** What does the law enable, require or constrain? What is at risk? - **Course:** What is the simplest sound response: legal advice or action, a change in practice, a tool or no intervention? Independent legal judgment #### A reasoned answer Evidence and assumptions are tested, the legal position assessed and the available courses compared. The lawyer remains answerable for the advice. Organisational capability #### A reliable method Sources, standards, controls and decision records remain usable inside the organisation. Tools may perform defined steps. Authority and responsibility remain with the people who decide. 02 / Work ### Before conflict. Under pressure. Some work anticipates legal friction before conflict. Other work requires independent judgment, negotiation or representation. Both begin with the outcome, the facts and the people responsible for the decision. 02.01 / Before conflict #### Legal work before conflict With boards, owners and legal teams, the work identifies legal friction early, clarifies how law affects governance and proposed decisions, and structures recurring legal work for reliable use inside the organisation. 02.02 / Internal capability #### AI for legal work and governance Recurring legal and governance work is redesigned before any AI tool is selected or implemented. Purpose, authoritative sources, decision rights and exceptions come first. The design specifies authorised users, evaluation, review, escalation and records. Confidentiality, security and legal risk are conditions of use. The organisation governs the work, retains its working knowledge and remains able to explain its decisions. 02.03 / Live matters #### Disputes and investigations Swiss and cross-border civil and criminal matters, including shareholder and financial disputes, corporate criminal liability, investigations, negotiation, mediation and proceedings before Swiss courts and authorities. 02.04 / Separate view #### Independent review of major disputes For boards, owners and family offices: what the matter turns on, what the record supports, the range of exposure, the cost of each path, and whether to proceed, fund or settle. 02.05 / Private structures #### Families, foundations and individuals Ownership, shareholder and financial disputes; investigations; governance; business and asset transactions; succession. The work begins with the people and relationships involved, not only the legal form. 02.06 / Public power #### Constitutional law and fundamental rights Proceedings involving state action and protected rights, including questions arising from the environment and emerging technology, in Switzerland and with counsel abroad. 03 / Public work ### Useful knowledge can be public. These projects make sources, methods and reasoning available to people and machines. #### [OpenCaseLaw](https://opencaselaw.ch/) An open, machine-readable corpus of Swiss court decisions and legislation, built for source-linked research. 03.01 · Open legal infrastructure · opencaselaw.ch #### [The Good Board](https://thegoodboard.ch/) A practical guide to Swiss corporate governance, organised around decisions boards actually face. The work also includes helping board members build and adopt personalised AI tools to sharpen research and decision-making. 03.02 · Corporate governance · thegoodboard.ch #### [Legal work inside the organisation](/pivot/) A working note on repeatable legal work, artificial intelligence and explicit responsibility for decisions. 03.03 · Working note / 2026-08-09 · /pivot 04 / Profile ### Jonas Hertner 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. - **Public benefit 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. - **Public work:** Built OpenCaseLaw and wrote The Good Board. - **Languages:** English, German and French. 05 / Contact ### Write [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com) The first email should identify the people and entities involved for a conflict check. Put any possible deadline first, but do not rely on email to preserve it. Send confidential information only through an agreed secure channel. Automated systems require human confirmation before sending a message or acting for anyone. 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/) - [Complete plain-text edition](/llms-full.txt) ### Legal information This site gives general information, not legal advice on a particular matter. An email does not establish an engagement. Acceptance is confirmed in writing. ### Privacy 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. GitHub Pages logs 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 anything blocks access, write to [team@jonashertner.com](mailto:team@jonashertner.com?subject=Accessibility). © 2026 Jonas Hertner · Independent lawyer ## Notes Essays on independent judgment in disputes, open access to Swiss case law, and the careful use of AI in legal work. ### [A separate view of a dispute](/notes/independent-judgment/) 27 July 2026 Case counsel and an independent reviewer answer different questions. A separate view can help the client test assumptions, value outcomes and decide what to do. Every significant dispute needs a working theory. It gives structure to the facts, documents, witnesses and procedure. It is necessary and provisional. As the record changes, the theory should be tested. Case counsel know the record, the procedural setting and the other side. They are responsible for execution. An independent reviewer has a different role: to answer a defined question without conducting the matter from day to day. The perspectives complement each other. Commitment keeps a case moving. Distance helps test its assumptions. A client may need both when a decision carries substantial capital, time, relationships or reputation. #### When a transaction becomes a dispute The lawyers who advised on a transaction know its documents, negotiations and commercial reasons. That knowledge matters when the transaction becomes a dispute. A fresh reviewer can add a different question: how might a court or counterparty read the same record now? The review does not correct the earlier work. It tests the present position. The same discipline helps before conflict. Where the stakes justify it, a lawyer with litigation experience can test notices, side letters, minutes and decision records while the transaction is still being made. A later dispute often turns on a record created before anyone expected proceedings. #### Two kinds of decision It helps to separate two kinds of decision that are usually discussed as one. The first concerns legal execution: what to plead, how to frame a claim and how to examine a witness. That is case counsel’s work. The second kind is strategic and economic: - whether to bring the claim at all, and when; - what the matter is worth, as a range of outcomes rather than one number; - the realistic downside, including the costs that come whether or not you win; - whether to fund the case, and on what terms; - the point where a settlement stops being a compromise and becomes the better outcome. These are questions of capital, time and risk. The client decides them. Advice from case counsel is essential. A separate review can help when a board, owner or family office wants to test the assumptions apart from the demands of daily case conduct. #### What a separate view tests The review may include the law. Its most useful part is often the path from the record to the decision. What must be true for the claim to succeed? What could cause it to fail? The questions are concrete: which finding, on which document, at which stage. Then ask how much of the claimed value depends on each finding and what supports it today. The answer is a short map of assumptions, evidence, open questions and possible outcomes. Link every material fact and statement of law to its source. Clients often ask for a percentage. Where the record does not support a statistical probability, a number can hide the assumptions that matter. I prefer scenarios. A client who can see the possible outcomes, their costs and the path to each can decide on stated assumptions. #### Scope and limit A fresh reviewer needs time to understand enough of the record. Source-linked tools can help navigate a defined set of material and expose the path to each finding. They do not guarantee complete reading. The review should state what was received, what could not be read and how the record was selected. The review should be defined: one decision or question, agreed sources, a timetable and a written answer. If the decision does not justify the additional work, no separate review is needed. Boards already seek independent valuations, fairness opinions and technical reviews without distrusting their existing advisers. The reason is simpler: the decision belongs to the board, and a consequential decision can merit a separate test. ### [Public by law](/notes/open-case-law/) 27 July 2026 Court decisions are part of open justice. Uneven publication makes the law harder to understand and falls most heavily on people who litigate rarely. The Federal Constitution says it plainly: hearings and the pronouncement of judgment are public. [1](#fn-1) The courts read that as more than an open courtroom. Their decisions must be accessible, in anonymised form where the protection of the parties requires it. Publication is part of open justice. The principle is clear. The published record remains uneven. #### From rule to record The Federal Supreme Court makes its decisions available online, and leading decisions appear in the official collection. At cantonal level, publication practice varies by canton and court. Some decisions appear promptly in searchable form. Some appear as scans that search engines cannot read. Others are available only on request. Commercial databases collect and index part of the published record. When practical access depends on a subscription, however, that record is not equally available to all. #### Who pays for the gap Open case law is often discussed as a matter of transparency. It also has a direct use. Someone deciding whether to bring a claim wants to know how courts have treated comparable cases. Doctrine explains the rules. Decisions show how those rules have been applied. That knowledge is unevenly held. A repeat litigant may have databases and institutional memory. Someone facing a single dispute may have neither. A usable public record narrows that gap. Switzerland is not a common law precedent system. A court is not formally bound by every earlier decision in a comparable case. Yet courts consider prior decisions, parties reason from them and anyone valuing a claim needs to understand them. Lack of formal binding force does not make a decision irrelevant. #### Technology changes the cost Publication and anonymisation require resources and careful review. Modern tools can assist with extraction, redaction and quality checks, but confidentiality risks still require human judgment. Technology can reduce part of the burden. It does not make the work free or automatic. #### opencaselaw.ch I built [OpenCaseLaw](https://opencaselaw.ch) to make that public record easier to use. It collects decisions from Swiss courts and makes them searchable, openly and free of charge. The platform stays deliberately modest: no interpretation, ranking or prediction. It makes the sources findable. Easier access can help a party test a claim, identify uncertainty and decide whether further work is justified. The platform does not decide. It makes the record available for judgment. #### Notes 1. [Art. 30 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#art_30): court hearings and the pronouncement of judgment are public; the law may provide for exceptions. In [BGE 147 I 407, section 6.4](https://www.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), the Federal Supreme Court held that this principle gives the public a general right to inspect judgments after their pronouncement, subject to limits including the protection of privacy. [↩](#fnref-1) ### [What AI can help with](/notes/ai-in-legal-work/) 27 July 2026 AI is useful in legal work when the task, sources and human review are clear. Use defined sources, test the output and name the person responsible. AI is useful in legal work when the task, evidence and review are clear. It is less reliable when asked to supply law or judgment without a defined source. The rule is practical: use defined sources, test the output and name the person responsible. #### A grounded task Language models can help transform text a team already holds: summarise it, arrange it under defined headings, translate it, extract stated dates, amounts and parties, or compare documents for possible inconsistencies. The source remains available. If the model says a notice went out on 14 March, the reviewer can open the document and check. The output may still omit or distort. Verification at least has a known place to begin. This can assist file organisation, source-linked research, standard drafting, document review and preparation for a specific legal question. The tool works on defined material. A person decides whether the result is accurate and fit for its purpose. #### Broader review AI can make systematic review of a large record more practical. A team can process more documents against defined questions, link findings to sources and record files that could not be read. That is not complete reading. Relevance can be missed, extraction can fail and questions can be poorly framed. A reliable workflow makes its coverage and limits visible. #### An ungrounded task Risk rises when a model is asked to supply the law instead of working from named authorities. A fluent answer may combine sound propositions with obsolete, irrelevant or invented support. Its tone does not reveal which is which. Plausibility is the danger. An obvious error is easy to reject. A confident error can survive a hurried reading and enter a decision. To verify an unsourced legal claim, the reviewer must still do the research. The output may offer a line of inquiry. It is not an authority. #### Working rules - Give the system a defined task, record and output format. - Link every material fact and statement of law to its source. - Record coverage, exceptions and uncertainty. - Test the workflow on representative completed work before using it on new work. - Name the person who reviews the output and answers for the judgment. Professional secrecy and data protection govern the choice of system. Before sensitive material enters one, understand where it is processed, who can access it, and how it is retained, reused, transferred, logged and secured. Local processing may reduce some risks, but does not by itself make a system suitable. Anonymisation can fail and is not a substitute for that assessment. #### Test the system that will be used Models, settings and connected sources change. Neither enthusiasm nor dismissal can replace testing. Evaluate the named system on representative earlier work. Define the sources, expected results and known edge cases. Test it again after a material change. Improvement in one task does not prove reliability in another. #### What changes AI can make broader, earlier review practical. It does not turn processing into understanding. Judgment remains with the person who decides what the material means, what to do and what to tell the client. A useful system gives that person source-linked work with visible limits. ## Working note ### [Legal work inside the organisation](/pivot/) Language: English Revised 9 August 2026 A working note on repeatable legal work, artificial intelligence and explicit responsibility for decisions. Jonas Hertner · lawyer #### The purpose Begin with the decision or action the work must support. Understand how the organisation works, then identify what may hinder it: a rule, a contract, a fact not yet known, a decision without an owner, or work that cannot be repeated with confidence. The useful response may be legal, organisational or technical. From first principles, legal work is useful when it removes friction now and leaves better judgment behind. The record, the sources, the standard, the checks and the reasons for decisions should remain available to the people who will need them next. #### What should stay Some work needs outside counsel: independent judgment, representation or specialist knowledge. The organisation should still retain the record and the learning it will need again. When recurring work is sent out, the result should return with its sources, reasoning and decision history. Activity can be recorded. A more useful measure is whether the next decision will be better, whether recurring work can be done with less friction, and whether the organisation can find and test the reasons for its earlier choices. #### What AI changes AI tools can assist with first-pass reading, extraction and comparison. They can help identify dates, compare drafts, build source-linked chronologies and repeat defined checks. This can make broader review practical and expand what a team can prepare and test for itself. Responsibility remains human. The tools can omit relevant material, misread a source or state more than the evidence supports. A named person must decide what the record means and what the organisation will do. Where the work is legal advice, a lawyer verifies the law and stands behind it. The organisation also decides where its information is processed. Sensitive work may require tools within systems it controls. An external service may be suitable only after access, retention, reuse, transfer and disclosure have been understood. The organisation chooses the system. The model does not. #### Records and protection Legal protection depends on the applicable law, the material, its purpose, the people involved and the process. A record is not protected merely because a legal team created, received or holds it. Identify the governing rules and their conditions before deciding how the work will be done and recorded. Before building a system, decide what to record, where to keep it, who may access it, how long to retain it and when independent legal advice is needed. Treat applicable rules on confidentiality, privilege, professional secrecy, compulsory disclosure and cross-border access as design conditions. Map the providers, access routes and locations involved before sensitive material leaves a controlled environment. Labels do not determine protection. #### Controls - **Purpose:** Name the decision or action the work must support. - **Sources:** Link every material fact and statement of law to its source. - **Status:** Mark what is established, contested, open, computed or withheld. - **Limits:** State what could not be grounded and what was left outside the scope. - **Change:** Record what changed, when it changed and why. - **Ownership:** Keep the record, standard, checks and decision history with the organisation. - **Responsibility:** Name the person who reviews the work and answers for the judgment. #### Transactions Measure each draft against the organisation’s own standard: the terms it accepts, the departures it will trade and the ones it will not. Show each change, its effect and the decision it requires. What reaches the person who decides should be short. Each negotiation can improve the standard. Record what was accepted, what it cost and why. Over time, the organisation can see where terms are moving, which clauses cause trouble and where its own position should change. #### Disputes Understand the record first. Gather the contracts, messages and archives. Log what cannot be read. Build a source-linked chronology. Identify the few findings that change the outcome, the exposure or the next step. Show the matter as a live set of findings, amounts and dates. When a fact is established or a deadline passes, the view changes with it. Keep the reasoning and sources one step below, so each part can be opened and checked. #### Work on a schedule Some work should run without a fresh request: check new drafts against the standard, test a position when a deadline nears, watch the questions the organisation has decided matter. Once tested and assigned, the schedule belongs to the organisation. The team starts from a current view, not from zero. #### Outside judgment Independent outside judgment may be needed where there is conflict, contested fact, negotiation, court, state power or a protected right. It can also give the people who decide a needed second view. The division is simple. Keep memory and repeatable work inside. Bring in judgment, representation or challenge when it is needed. A source-linked record lets an outside lawyer begin with the question instead of first learning the organisation. #### A practical start 1. Choose one recurring task with a clear decision. 2. Gather the sources and write the present standard. 3. Build a check that cites its grounds and states its limits. 4. Test it on earlier work before using it on new work. 5. Give a named person ownership of the process and its review. A useful first inventory is the organisation’s own legal record. Identify the material held by outside lawyers and determine what the organisation is entitled to receive or retain. This shows where its legal memory sits and what should be brought into a controlled record. Build before the next urgent matter. Use the organisation’s own systems, licences and people. The work is complete when the responsible people can run it, test it and improve it. #### The point The aim is not to replace lawyers with tools. It is to put tools where they help, judgment where it belongs and knowledge where the organisation can use it again. #### 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) /pivot This is a general working note. It does not address the law of any jurisdiction or give legal advice. [Home](/) [Notes](/notes/) [Privacy](/#privacy) ## Formats and languages - [Source](/) - [Concise English site index](/llms.txt) - [Multilingual structured practice profile](/practice.json) - [XML sitemap](/sitemap.xml) - [Classic archive](https://jonashertner.com/classic/): Earlier presentation, preserved as an archive.