Home / Documentation / Pleadings

Pleadings

These guides cover the full workspace included in the Pro trial. Compare Free, Starter and Pro for ongoing access; Assist and iPad Companion require Pro.

Working out who has said what in a pleading is fiddly, manual work: matching each paragraph of the defence back to the allegation it answers, then keeping track of what's admitted, what's denied, and what's been quietly passed over. Lexware does that lining-up with you — it suggests, you confirm — so you can see the whole dispute at a glance and stand behind every line of it.

Bringing your pleadings in

Choose Import pleading to bring in a statement of claim, defence, reply or another pleading. Select its Document type and check Responds to so it joins the right pleading chain. You can select a PDF already in the brief, upload a Word document (.docx) or PDF, or drop a file into Pleadings. Where you have the Word version, its paragraph structure usually comes through more cleanly.

Each pleading opens first as a draft: in Viewer, compare the Extracted text with the source, switch to Edit to correct it, then choose Finalise…. A draft stays out of matching and the matrix until finalised. Editing a finalised pleading reopens it as a draft and removes its existing matches, so review the resulting matches again after finalising the correction.

This is the same read-only import you'll know from bringing in a brief — Lexware reads your files as they are and never writes anything back into them.

The allegation tree

From the statement of claim, Lexware rebuilds the numbered allegation tree — the pleaded paragraphs, laid out in order so you can move through the case as it was actually pleaded rather than scrolling a flat document.

It then suggests how the responses line up: which paragraph of the defence answers which allegation, across the defence and the reply. Those suggestions wait in the matrix's Build queue for you to confirm — or you link paragraphs by hand — so the schedule only ever says what you've stood behind. Once confirmed, you can see for any allegation, straight away, how the other side has met it.

The Pleadings Matrix

Alongside the tree, Lexware builds the Pleadings Matrix: a paragraph-by-paragraph schedule of where each allegation stands. For every paragraph it shows you, at a glance, whether it has been met with:

• Admitted — the other side accepts it.
• Denied or Not admitted — the two are kept distinct, as they should be.
• In issue, an Objection, or Unclear — where the response needs a closer read.
• No response — you have reviewed the gap and found no responding paragraph to link. Unreviewed gaps stay in Build. Whether silence amounts to a deemed admission is a judgement Lexware leaves to counsel.

That last category is the one that's easy to miss by hand, and often the most useful: an allegation a defence never properly meets is exactly the kind of thing you want surfaced early, not the night before a hearing.

Three ways to work it: Viewer, Pleadings Matrix, Side-by-Side

The same analysis is laid out three ways, and a single switch moves between them — the view you were last in is the one that reopens.

• Viewer — the allegation tree Lexware built beside the pleading's own source document, so you can check it against the page it came from. This is where a draft is reviewed and finalised.
• Pleadings Matrix — Build is the queue for confirming suggested matches, linking paragraphs by hand and recording reviewed gaps. View offers the filterable Schedule and a Marry-up — Claim | Defence | Reply layout showing the corresponding text in columns. Choose the pleading pair you want to work on.
• Side-by-Side — two pleadings next to each other. Click any paragraph and Lexware traces it across to the response that answers it, dimming everything else so the line you're following stands out.

Linking evidence to an allegation

From the Pleadings Matrix you can attach a document or exhibit as evidence against any allegation — pinpointed to a page or paragraph if you want. The evidence shows as a chip beside the allegation, and a click reopens the cited document at the pinned page.

Evidence links are stored with the matter's pleadings. Attaching evidence does not change an allegation's status; that comes from the confirmed pleading responses and any status correction you record.

Exporting the work

In Pleadings Matrix → View, open Export for an admissions schedule in Markdown or a landscape matrix in Word or PDF. The schedule is grouped by status; the Word and PDF matrix brings the claim, defence and reply text together using confirmed links, without status labels. The matrix needs an aligned claim/defence pair. Finalise every outstanding draft first: exports are held while a draft would be left out. Check the exported document before using it in a brief or for court.

How a barrister uses it

Take the sample matter, Meridian Foods v Harlow Logistics. With the statement of claim and defence in and confirmed, you can run down the matrix and see in one pass which allegations Harlow admits (no need to prove them), which it denies (your evidence has to do the work), and which have drawn no response (worth a closer look). From there you know where to point your chronology and your evidence — and the dates behind those allegations live in your chronology.

One thing to know

For now, a combined Defence and Counterclaim in a single file imports as a single defence. If your matter has a counterclaim, import it separately for now.

Local by default, with optional Claude assistance

Ordinary pleading import, the allegation tree and the Pleadings Matrix run on this computer, and your originals are never changed.

If Lexware cannot reliably read a difficult or scanned pleading, you may choose Extract with AI. That sends the complete document, unmasked, to Claude through your Claude Code installation and subscription. Lexware requires cloud AI consent for the matter, then asks you to confirm that particular document. The option is intended for a filed, public pleading — not a draft or material under seal or suppression. See how Lexware handles matter content.

You can also choose Import and build by hand for a difficult pleading, or Import structure from file… if you have a compatible structure file. These paths still produce a draft for you to check and finalise.

For an Unclear matrix row with a confirmed response, Ask Claude to resolve this row sends that allegation and its responding paragraphs, with limited framing, for a suggested classification. It requires cloud AI consent for the matter and a preview confirmation; the preview lets you choose whether to mask names. Claude's answer stays a suggestion until you accept it, or you can dismiss it and classify the row yourself.