AI Agent for Litigators [Hacker]

21-04-2025



tldr:

  • Like Claude Code, but the scaffolding is for all the pdf case papers for a legal case (say, ~3000 pages in total).
  • Tool calling in a loop, e.g. read, write, save.
  • Case papers can be scanned pdf files which haven't been OCR-ed yet. Not completely helpless with tables and images.
  • ~1 week project.

Techniques:

  • Gemini 2.5 pro. Giving it the usual read, write, grep tools.
  • Compaction of context is critical.
  • Scaffolding is mostly pre-processing the bundle so the agent can navigate it more easily (ocr, index page, etc).

Output from sample litigation bundle: sample PDF

...

Prompt No. 1:

write me a note on the best arguments of either side. include page and paragraph references to the submissions and to cases.

...

Output No. 1:

Note on Arguments

This note summarizes the best arguments for the Appellants (the pilots) and the Respondent (British Airways) in the dispute over the calculation of holiday pay.

Appellants' (Pilots) Arguments

The Appellants' central contention is that their holiday pay should be their "normal" pay, not just their basic salary. The strongest arguments in support of this position are:

  1. Purposive Interpretation of "Paid Annual Leave": The Appellants argue that the phrase "paid annual leave" in the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 must be interpreted in line with the purpose of the underlying European Directives (2000/79/EC and 93/104/EC) [SC/18/C]. This purpose is to ensure workers actually take their leave to protect their health and safety. If taking leave results in a significant reduction in pay, it creates a disincentive to taking leave, defeating the directive's purpose [SC/19/D].

  2. "Normal Remuneration" Principle from EU Case Law: The Appellants lean heavily on the interpretation of "paid annual leave" from the European Court of Justice in cases concerning the Working Time Directive. This case law establishes that holiday pay must be "comparable" to a worker's "normal" remuneration. The Appellants' pay when on leave is significantly less than when they are working, due to the exclusion of the Flying Pay Supplement (FPS) and Time Away from Base (TAFB) allowance [SC/19/C-D].

  3. Absence of Domestic Calculation Mechanism: The Appellants point out that the 2004 Regulations do not provide a specific method for calculating "a week's pay" for holiday. They argue this is a deliberate omission, requiring the courts to apply a meaning consistent with the European directives [SC/19/F-G]. The Court of Appeal judgment summary notes the Employment Appeal Tribunal's acceptance of this argument [SC/27/D].

Respondent's (British Airways) Arguments

The Respondent's case is that paying the contractually agreed basic salary during annual leave fulfils its legal obligations. Their strongest arguments are:

  1. Literal Interpretation of the Regulations: The Respondent argues for a plain-meaning interpretation of "paid annual leave." The pilots receive their basic pay while on leave; therefore, they are receiving "paid... leave" [SC/21/1].

  2. Contractual Agreement: The pilots' terms and conditions, including holiday pay, are governed by collective agreements negotiated with their union, BALPA [SC/14/G]. The Respondent will argue that these agreed terms satisfy the requirements of the 2004 Regulations.

  3. Absence of Explicit Requirement for "Normal Pay": The Respondent contends that the 2004 Regulations do not explicitly state that holiday pay must include all pay components. They argue that if Parliament had intended to include supplements such as FPS and TAFB, it would have done so expressly [SC/21/1-2]. The Court of Appeal agreed, stating that the ordinary meaning of "paid annual leave" was not pay measured by what a pilot earned while working [SC/27/F].

...

Prompt No. 2:

translate the note you've just written into traditional chinese, and save it as a separate document

...

Output No. 2:

法律論點備忘錄

本備忘錄總結了上訴人（飛行員）與被上訴人（英國航空公司）在假日薪酬計算爭議中的最佳論點。

上訴人（飛行員）的論點

上訴人的核心論點是，他們的假日薪酬應為其「正常」薪酬，而不僅僅是基本工資。支持此立場的最有力論點如下：

  1. 「帶薪年假」的意旨解釋： 上訴人主張，2004年《民航（工作時間）規例》中「帶薪年假」一詞，必須根據其所依據的歐洲指令（2000/79/EC 和 93/104/EC）的意旨進行解釋 [SC/18/C]。該意旨是確保勞工確實休假，以保障其健康與安全。如果休假導致薪酬大幅減少，將會阻礙勞工休假，從而違背該指令的目的 [SC/19/D]。

  2. 源自歐盟案例法的「正常薪酬」原則： 上訴人極力倚重歐洲法院在有關《工作時間指令》的案件中對「帶薪年假」的解釋。該案例法確立，假日薪酬必須與勞工的「正常」薪酬「相當」。由於飛行薪酬補貼（FPS）和離港津貼（TAFB）被排除在外，上訴人在休假期間的薪酬遠低於其正常工作時的薪酬 [SC/19/C-D]。

  3. 缺乏本土計算機制： 上訴人指出，2004年的規例並未提供計算假日「週薪」的具體方法。他們認為這是刻意遺漏，要求法院採用與歐洲指令一致的涵義 [SC/19/F-G]。上訴法院的判決摘要指出，勞工上訴審裁處接受了此論點 [SC/27/D]。

被上訴人（英國航空公司）的論點

被上訴人的主張是，在年假期間支付合約議定的基本工資，即已履行其法律義務。其最有力的論點如下：

  1. 規例的字面解釋： 被上訴人主張對「帶薪年假」進行字面解釋。飛行員在休假期間領取基本工資，因此他們正在領取「帶薪...休假」[SC/21/1]。

  2. 合約協議： 飛行員的僱傭條款與條件，包括假日薪酬，均受其工會 BALPA 協商達成的集體協議所約束 [SC/14/G]。被上訴人將主張，這些議定條款符合2004年規例的要求。

  3. 未明確要求「正常薪酬」： 被上訴人辯稱，2004年的規例並未明確規定假日薪酬必須包含所有薪酬組成部分。他們主張，如果國會有意納入如 FPS 和 TAFB 等補貼，必定會明確規定 [SC/21/1-2]。上訴法院對此表示同意，並指出「帶薪年假」的通常涵義並非以飛行員工作時所賺取的薪酬來衡量 [SC/27/F]。

...