International law firm

We don’t sample a case. We exhaust it.

Every available ground. Every exhibit tied to the claim it supports. Every citation verified.

Grounds · 11Exhibits · 24

Preuve directeIndiceSans preuve

Ground × exhibit matrix — case 2024-1187. In red, the claims with no direct evidence.

A case is almost never lost on the advocacy. It is lost on the ground nobody spotted, the exhibit nobody filed, the authority that had already been overruled.

These have never been failures of talent. They have always been failures of time.

Amurabi was built around a single idea: give every partner the means to exhaust a case rather than sample it.

What we gain in hours, we share. A share to the lawyer, a share to the client.

Everything else — strategy, negotiation, the hearing, trust — stays exactly where it has always been.

01 — Exhaustiveness

Eleven grounds, not four.

On any case, you keep the three or four grounds you know best. That is a trade-off of time, never of competence. We exhaust them all — contractual, tortious, procedural, limitation, nullity, jurisdiction — and then we choose.

The first risk in litigation is not poor advocacy. It is the ground nobody had time to look for.

Inexécution contractuelleart. 1217 C. civ.

Manquement à l’obligation d’informationart. 1112-1 C. civ.

Dol par réticenceart. 1137 C. civ.

Responsabilité délictuelleart. 1240 C. civ.

Concurrence déloyale — parasitismejurisp. — art. 1240

Enrichissement injustifiéart. 1303 C. civ.

Nullité pour vice du consentementart. 1130 C. civ.

Clause limitative réputée non écriteart. 1170 C. civ.

Prescription quinquennaleart. 2224 C. civ.

Incompétence territorialeart. 42 CPC

Fin de non-recevoir — défaut de qualitéart. 122 CPC

02 — Evidence

What is not proven shows in red.

Every claim is tied to the exhibits that support it. Those with none are visible at once — before proceedings are issued, not at the hearing. That is the matrix at the top of this page: a working tool, not an illustration.

Detail — matrix 2024-1187

M-04 · Responsabilité délictuelle3 exhibits

M-05 · Concurrence déloyale — parasitisme10 exhibits

M-06 · Enrichissement injustifié0 exhibits

03 — Reliability

No citation we have not verified.

The objection is legitimate and we take it head-on. Every authority is checked for existence, exact scope and subsequent history. Submissions cannot be filed while they contain an unverified citation: that is a technical lock, not an internal instruction.

Cass. com., 12 mars 2019, n° 17-22.312Cited for : caractérisation du parasitismeVerified

CA Paris, pôle 5, 4 févr. 2021, n° 19/08744Cited for : quantum du préjudice d’imageTo check

Cass. 1re civ., 6 juin 2012, n° 11-15.010Arrêt postérieur contraire — Cass. ch. mixte, 26 mai 2017Overruled

04 — Adversity

We attack your submissions before your opponent does.

Every draft is put through systematic contradiction. Weaknesses are ranked, then rebutted in the body of the text. You do not discover the opposing argument by reading their submissions.

Il résulte des pièces n° 7 à 12 que la société défenderesse a poursuivi l’exploitation du procédé litigieux postérieurement à la mise en demeure du 14 mars 2023, sans jamais contester la titularité des droits invoqués.

La demanderesse est dès lors fondée à solliciter la réparation intégrale du préjudice subi, lequel comprend le manque à gagner ainsi que l’atteinte portée à la valeur de son actif immatériel.

Red team · 4 objections

SEVERITY 5

Title to the rights not established by the exhibits filed

SEVERITY 4

Formal notice of 14 March — acknowledgement of receipt missing

SEVERITY 3

Lost profit calculated on a forecast basis

SEVERITY 1

Cross-reference to exhibit no. 11 is inaccurate

05 — Realism

What this court actually awards.

The type of dispute, the subject matter, the court seised: what was decided, at what level, in how long. An excessive claim does not only cost you that head of claim — it discredits the rest of the case.

We analyse decisions and grounds. Never judges.

Observed range — unfair competition, Paris court, 3rd chamber

Q1Q2Q3Q4

Decisions analysed: 412
Success rate of the ground: 58 %
Median duration: 19 mois

06 — Silence

You know where your case stands.

The first complaint made about law firms is not the price, it is the silence. A one-page decision note at the head of every deliverable. The next deadline in plain sight. The budget consumed, available at any hour.

Client portal — case 2024-1187

Updated 2 h ago

Progress

Case management — exchange of submissions no. 3

Next deadline

Filing of submissions in reply18 sept.

Decision awaited from you

Keep the claim for reputational harm, or withdraw it to concentrate the case on lost profit.

79%

of firms use AI to work faster.

pass the benefit on to their clients.

34%

charge a premium instead.

We are in the 6 %.

Axiom, The State of AI in Legal Departments, 2026.

How the equation holds →

For a legal department

What we guarantee

Our four commitments, our pricing, the client portal.

→ /clients

For a lawyer

What we offer

Your portfolio, your fees, your hours. The dial is yours.

→ /join

To understand

How we run a case

The seven stations of a case, from qualification to signature.

→ /method