Does your reasoning hold?
ReasonQA analyses the structural integrity of legal arguments. It checks whether your authorities actually support your propositions, searches live case law for counter-authorities you haven't cited, and identifies where conclusions outrun the evidence.
3 free analyses. No credit card required.
Beyond citation checking
Citation checkers verify your cases exist. We check whether they do what you say they do. If you cite an authority for a settled proposition but three subsequent courts have distinguished it, your argument has a problem that no citation checker will find.
Counter-authority you haven't seen
We search live case law to surface authorities that challenge your position — the cases a careful opponent would find, or that a reviewer with more time would flag. Each finding names the specific case and explains how it bears on your argument.
Structural analysis, not just proofreading
Every claim traced from premise to conclusion. Every inference tested for support. Every gap between what you assert and what you demonstrate, identified. The report shows you where your argument is strong and where it's vulnerable — before anyone else does.
What it finds
Real findings from an analysis of a legal advisory memo (anonymised)
The memo's central argument depends on an authority cited by five separate propositions. But subsequent courts have applied this authority on both sides — one held it “has been superseded and is no longer good law” in certain contexts. The memo does not acknowledge the contestation.
Fix: Acknowledge the authority has been narrowed in subsequent case law. Explain why the supportive reading applies in this specific context. Alternatively, diversify the evidential base with additional authorities.
A 2021 High Court decision directly distinguishes the memo's foundational authority. This case is not cited or addressed in the memo. A competent opponent would use it.
Fix: Cite the counter-authority and explain why it does not affect the application in the present context.
The memo asserts that a particular remedy is available as if established fact, but cites no authority for this proposition and does not demonstrate it. The conclusion may be correct — but it is asserted, not argued.
Fix: Cite supporting authority or acknowledge this as an assumption requiring further analysis.
£0
Free · 3/month
£200
Pro · 20/month
ReasonQA analyses the structural integrity of legal reasoning. It is not legal advice and does not replace professional judgment. All analysis should be reviewed by a qualified legal professional. Documents are deleted from our servers after processing. Reports are retained in your account until you delete them. AI processing uses zero data retention configuration.