top of page

Meet The Jurisdiction Sifters

Some LegalSifter users might have already encountered them, but these Sifters haven’t had their moment in the spotlight. So allow me to introduce to you … the Jurisdiction sifters!

  • Jurisdiction: Establishing Jurisdiction (searches for references to which courts have jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from the contract)

  • Jurisdiction: Exclusive (searches for a provision stating that specified courts have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute or consenting to the exclusive jurisdiction of specified courts)

  • Jurisdiction: Consent to Jurisdiction (searches for a statement that the parties consent to the jurisdiction of specified courts)

  • Jurisdiction: No Objecting to Jurisdiction (searches for a provision in which one or more parties waive any objection to courts that the contract says have jurisdiction over disputes)

  • Jurisdiction: Inconvenient Forum (searches for provisions that seek to prevent the parties from claiming that the specified jurisdiction constitutes an inconvenient forum)

Most have been released; a couple are still being worked on, but they’ll be released shortly. And I’ve done help text for all of them, drawing on my research and writings.

If you’d like a quick overview of the issues these Sifters look for, see my 6-minute video Ken’s Hot Take on Jurisdiction Provisions (here). And in exchange for giving your contact information to LegalSifter, you can get my list of relevant blog posts and other resources.

More to Come

This blog post and the related video are the first of what we expect will be a series. It reflects a new approach to how we develop Sifters.

We used to have a single Sifter for jurisdiction provisions. Unsurprisingly, it was called Jurisdiction. It looked for the primary jurisdiction provision—it still does, although that Sifter is now called Jurisdiction: Establishing Jurisdiction—but that left important issues unaddressed. So I recommended we add the other Jurisdiction Sifters. The result is that if you have the urge, you can look for all the key issues that could be addressed, or not addressed, in jurisdiction provisions.

I’ve applied the same approach to other boilerplate provisions by building significantly on the initial coverage we offered. In the coming weeks and months we’ll introduce those new Sifter families to you, in blog posts and videos.

Whether, and how, you can use the new Jurisdiction Sifters depends on your LegalSifter account. If you have a Professionals account, you can incorporate the new sifters in your document types as you wish.

That raises an interesting issue. Should you include all the new families in your doc types? If you do, you might end up with 30 or more new Sifters, giving you more to digest when you sift. It might make sense to limit full deployment of the new families of sifters to high-value deals, or to review your own templates rather than the other side’s draft.

If you have an Essentials account, you won’t have the benefit of the new Jurisdiction Sifters until we incorporate them in document types available to you. We plan to create a “Boilerplate” document type that contains all our new families of boilerplate Sifters.

In the coming months we’ll discuss the possibilities with our clients.

Recent Posts

See All

Recently I noticed this article on Artificial Lawyer. The title is Generative Legal AI + “The Last Human Mile”, and it’s about limits to applying AI to legal work. It says this: The last mile problem

bottom of page