Senior associate at Hartwell & Associates.

Sarah Mitchell

Junior associate joining the transaction team.

Evan Brooks

Hi, Evan, this is our new project. We are advising Alder Group on its proposed acquisition of Northstar Mobility.

Whoa, I have never actually worked on this, and I have never heard of this company. Who are they?

Northstar builds route-planning software for logistics fleets. Most of its revenue comes from three enterprise customers, much of its code was developed by the founder and contractors, and the buyer wants to sign next Friday.

Northstar Mobility

You will run the first legal review. Start with ownership and governance, the three customer contracts, the software IP chain, key employees and disputes. Flag anything that could change the price, require a warranty or delay signing. The simulation begins with the data room and your partner briefing.

Introducing the Northstar Mobility project

Acquisition Review Playbook

Test revenue concentration and change-of-control rights in the three key customer contracts.

Verify that the company owns the software created by its founder, employees and contractors.

Translate each finding into a deal action: investigate further, adjust price, seek contractual protection or delay signing.

Trace the target's value drivers

Evan


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Story block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Chats present a prepared exchange between characters through messages, voice notes, video messages, attachments, and visual material.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a Chat to introduce a matter, reveal conflicting perspectives, or show how important information arrives during real work.</p>

  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Messages and Characters:</strong> A Chat is built from an ordered sequence of messages. Each message can be connected to a Character from the Course Cast, so learners see who is speaking, that Character's image, and their role in the scenario. Messages can arrive from different Characters as the matter develops.</p>
  <p><strong>Playbook Plays:</strong> A message can be connected to one or more Plays from a Playbook. Learners can open the connected Play beside the message to see relevant guidance and structured Insights at the moment they need them, without leaving the scenario.</p>
  <p><strong>Widgets:</strong> A message can also be connected to visual widgets that explain evidence or context alongside the conversation. Available widget types include:</p>
  <ul>
    <li><strong>Profile</strong> — introduces a company, person, counterparty, or asset through an image and key facts.</li>
    <li><strong>Timeline</strong> — presents events, deadlines, and changes in chronological order.</li>
    <li><strong>Table</strong> — compares structured facts, figures, terms, or risks.</li>
    <li><strong>Slideshow</strong> — reveals a sequence of images with captions.</li>
    <li><strong>Diagram</strong> — visualises relationships, ownership, dependencies, or a process.</li>
    <li><strong>Document Extract</strong> — displays a focused piece of source material for the learner to inspect.</li>
  </ul>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> It is 4:30 p.m. on the day before an acquisition is due to sign. The buyer&#039;s partner says everything is ready, but a message from the target&#039;s finance director casually mentions that a major customer is threatening to terminate its contract.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> The seller&#039;s lawyer describes the message as ordinary trading correspondence. If the team accepts that explanation without investigating, the buyer may sign using an outdated valuation and without adequate disclosure or contractual protection.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner follows messages from the partner, finance director, seller&#039;s lawyer, and client. They decide which statements are routine, which require evidence, what must be escalated, and how the new information should affect due diligence, warranties, disclosure, and the signing recommendation.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Lawyers learn not to treat informal messages as background noise. They practise identifying commercially significant facts and escalating them clearly before a deadline removes the opportunity to act.</p>



📖 Chats: learn quick case details

BeSavvy

Senior associate at Morton & Price LLP in London's Canary Wharf.

Edward Carver

Covenant certificate — compliance confirmation needed today


      <p>Hi Evan,</p>
      <p>We have received Meridian Logistics' quarterly compliance certificate. It reports leverage of <strong>3.47x</strong> against a maximum ratio of <strong>3.50x</strong>, so the borrower says it remains compliant.</p>
      <p>Please do not confirm that conclusion yet. The calculation includes a <strong>£4.2 million EBITDA adjustment for projected integration savings</strong>. The management note in the data room says the operational changes have not started and no savings have been achieved.</p>
      <p>Compare the certificate with the Consolidated EBITDA definition and the permitted add-backs in the facility agreement. Rebuild the ratio, identify any evidence we still need, and prepare focused questions for the borrower. The relationship director wants our recommendation by <strong>3:00 p.m.</strong></p>
      <p>Edward</p>
    

Finance Document Review Playbook

Rebuild the calculation line by line using the definitions and permitted adjustments in the facility agreement.

Distinguish realised savings from projected synergies and verify whether each EBITDA add-back satisfies its contractual conditions.

Explain the result, evidence gaps and potential lender response without treating a disputed calculation as an established default.

Test covenant compliance against the agreement


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Story block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Longreads present structured source material such as reports, emails, agreements, policies, instructions, and document extracts.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a Longread when learners need to investigate facts or understand source material before advising or making a decision.</p>

  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Source material:</strong> A Longread gives learners the substantive material they need to inspect before making a decision. It can present a standard narrative, an email, a document, a short note, or an image-led source. Formatting, headings, tables, links, and embedded images can make the material resemble the documents lawyers encounter in practice.</p>
  <p><strong>Email format:</strong> An email Longread connects the source to a Character from the Course Cast. The learner sees the sender's name and image, the subject, recipient, date, and formatted email body, allowing instructions and new evidence to arrive naturally inside the simulation.</p>
  <p><strong>Playbook Plays:</strong> A Longread can be connected to one or more Plays from a Playbook. Learners can open the Play beside the source to inspect relevant guidance and structured Insights while they analyse the email or document.</p>
  <p><strong>Learning design:</strong> Authors can reveal the source before a question, decision, drafting task, or conversation. The Longread supplies the facts; the following exercise tests whether the learner noticed, interpreted, and applied them.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Banking and finance — the covenant calculation that looks too good</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> A borrower submits its quarterly compliance certificate showing that it is just inside its leverage covenant. The accompanying accounts include a large adjustment to EBITDA, while an internal email suggests that the adjustment includes projected savings that have not yet been achieved.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> The certificate appears compliant at first glance, but the calculation may not follow the definitions in the facility agreement. Missing the adjustment could prevent the lender from asking questions or exercising rights at the correct time.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner receives a lender briefing, relevant facility-agreement extracts, the certificate, financial figures, and internal correspondence. They compare the calculation with the contractual definition and prepare focused questions for the borrower.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Learners develop careful reading, financial literacy, and the ability to connect contractual language with business data instead of reviewing each document in isolation.</p>



📖 Longreads: share media and tables

Drafting a production-level utilisation clause


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Story block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Slides explain a subject one stage at a time using text, redlines, images, plans, diagrams, captions, or short videos.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use Slides when learners need to see how a legal document, analysis, or process develops through a deliberate sequence of changes.</p>

  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Step-by-step sequence:</strong> A Slides block divides one explanation into ordered stages. Learners move forwards and backwards through the sequence, and a progress bar shows how the current stage fits into the complete explanation.</p>
  <p><strong>Legal redlines:</strong> Slide content can use the editor's insertion and deletion formatting. Inserted wording appears in green and deleted wording appears in red, so an author can expose one drafting decision at a time instead of presenting a finished clause without its reasoning.</p>
  <p><strong>Paired commentary:</strong> Every Slide can pair the working text with an explanation. The redline shows exactly what changed; the commentary explains why it changed, which ambiguity or risk the edit removes, and how the provision will work in practice.</p>
  <p><strong>Progressive drafting:</strong> Authors can begin with a precedent, isolate a weakness on each Slide, and finish with a clean consolidated version. Slides can also include images and audio where a visual plan or spoken explanation helps learners understand the change.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Banking and finance — turning a loose utilisation clause into signing-ready drafting</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> A junior lawyer starts with a two-sentence precedent allowing the borrower to draw under a revolving facility by giving notice. The lender expects a clause that can be signed and operated by its agency team, but the precedent does not say when or how notice must be delivered, how much may be drawn, or which conditions must be satisfied.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> The wording sounds legally plausible but leaves essential mechanics to implication. A late or incomplete request could become disputed, the borrower could request more than the available commitment, and the lender would have no objective drafting against which to test whether it must fund.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> Five Slides take the learner from the loose precedent to a production-level utilisation clause. Each step uses green insertions and red deletions to add a delivery deadline, form requirements, availability and amount controls, objective drawdown conditions, and precise funding mechanics, while commentary explains the legal and operational reason for every edit.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Learners see drafting as the design of an operational process. They learn to replace vague permissions with defined inputs, limits, conditions, deadlines, and consequences that the borrower, lender, and facility agent can apply consistently.</p>



📖 Slides: explain step by step

Good. Your two answers expose the real trade-off: a share deal preserves the operating business, while an asset deal may isolate historic exposure but creates transfer risk.

So we start with a share deal because continuity and the six-week timetable matter most, but only if we can control the tax, IP and change-of-control risks.

Exactly. Confirm the customer consents, quantify and allocate the tax risk, and repair the contractor IP chain. If those liabilities cannot be protected against—and the key business assets can all be transferred on time—we revisit an asset deal.

Closing analysis

Acquisition Structuring

The acquisition brief


      <h2>Your task</h2>
      <p>You are advising <strong>Alder Group</strong> on its proposed acquisition of <strong>Northstar Mobility Ltd</strong>, a UK route-planning software company.</p>
      <table>
        <thead><tr><th>What the buyer wants</th><th>What you know today</th></tr></thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr><td>Own and operate Northstar's software business</td><td>The software, 45 employees, customer contracts and office lease are held by Northstar Mobility Ltd.</td></tr>
          <tr><td>Keep the three major customers without interruption</td><td>Those contracts produce 72% of revenue; two contain change-of-control clauses and all restrict assignment.</td></tr>
          <tr><td>Avoid unexpected historic exposure</td><td>A tax enquiry is open and ownership of code written by early contractors is not fully documented.</td></tr>
          <tr><td>Complete in six weeks</td><td>The founders will sell all shares, but customers have not been approached about consents.</td></tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <div className="question"><strong>Question to hold:</strong> Would you begin with a share purchase or an asset purchase, and which facts could change that recommendation?</div>
    

Why might a share deal work here?

When might an asset deal be better?

Share deal or asset deal? Advising Alder Group

Share deal or asset deal?


      <h2>Northstar Mobility: choosing the acquisition structure</h2>
      <p>Alder Group has asked for an initial recommendation before it issues its offer. Work through the commercial facts and both legal structures, then test which route best preserves value while controlling risk.</p>
    


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Exercise block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Case Studies guide learners through a developing problem using connected evidence, questions, decisions, quizzes, and character interactions.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a Case Study when learners must analyse incomplete facts, choose between strategies, and see the consequences of their decisions.</p>

  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Developing problem:</strong> A Case Study begins with a concrete role, client objective, factual background, and task. The learner does not receive the complete solution at once; further facts, evidence, and complications appear as they move through the matter.</p>
  <p><strong>Connected steps:</strong> Authors can combine Chats, Longreads, multiple-choice checks, open questions, and document exercises inside one Case Study. Each answer or decision can reveal the next step, and different answers can lead to different branches.</p>
  <p><strong>Applied judgment:</strong> Questions can test issue spotting, comparison, prioritisation, and advice rather than recall alone. Feedback can explain not only whether an answer is defensible, but which fact or legal consequence should change the learner's recommendation.</p>
  <p><strong>Progress and conclusion:</strong> The learner can see their progress through the Case Study and finish by producing a recommendation or work product that draws the earlier evidence together.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Corporate — should the buyer acquire the shares or the business assets?</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> Alder Group wants to acquire Northstar Mobility, a UK route-planning software company. Northstar has 45 employees, three customer contracts producing 72% of its revenue, a leased office, valuable software, and a pending tax enquiry. The commercial team wants the business to continue without interruption but does not want Alder to inherit unknown historic liabilities.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> A share purchase preserves the company and its contracts but transfers control of the entity together with its history. An asset purchase can let the buyer select what it acquires, but contracts, intellectual property, employees, leases, licences, and operational relationships may each need a separate transfer analysis. Neither structure is automatically safer.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner works through the transaction facts, then compares a share deal and an asset deal across ownership, liabilities, contracts, employees, consents, tax, price mechanics, and continuity. The final stage asks them to recommend a structure and identify the protections and due-diligence findings that would still be needed whichever route is chosen.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Learners understand that deal structure is a trade-off rather than a label. They learn to connect the buyer&#039;s commercial objective with transfer mechanics, liability allocation, tax input, consents, warranties, indemnities, and execution risk.</p>



🛠️ Case Studies: deep training with a mentor

Supply Agreement Drafting

Make the price review objective

Create a workable liability allocation

Critical Components Supply Agreement


    <p>You are acting for Alder Manufacturing. Find the two highlighted provisions that expose the customer to avoidable risk, click each one, and redraft it in the document.</p>
    <h2>Critical Components Supply Agreement</h2>
    <p><strong>Parties:</strong> (1) Northstar Components Ltd (the <strong>Supplier</strong>); and (2) Alder Manufacturing plc (the <strong>Customer</strong>).</p>
    <h3>1. Supply</h3>
    <p>1.1 The Supplier shall manufacture and deliver the battery-control units described in Schedule 1 in accordance with the agreed specification and delivery programme.</p>
    <h3>2. Price</h3>
    <p>2.1 The initial price is £84 per unit, exclusive of VAT.</p>
    <p>2.2 <span className="editor_error" type="error" elementId="static-text-editor-price-redraft">The Supplier may increase the price at any time, including for units already ordered, by any amount it considers reasonable.</span></p>
    <h3>3. Quality and inspection</h3>
    <p>3.1 Each unit shall conform to the specification, be free from material defects, and comply with applicable product-safety law. The Customer may inspect and reject non-conforming units within 20 Business Days after delivery.</p>
    <h3>4. Liability</h3>
    <p>4.1 <span className="editor_error" type="error" elementId="static-text-editor-liability-redraft">The Supplier shall have no liability to the Customer in any circumstances, including for fraud, deliberate default, defective units or failure to deliver, and the Customer shall bear all resulting losses.</span></p>
    <h3>5. Term</h3>
    <p>5.1 This Agreement begins on 1 October 2026 and continues for three years unless terminated earlier in accordance with its terms.</p>
  

Repair two clauses in a supply agreement


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Exercise block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Text Editors let learners work inside a realistic document by spotting issues, adding comments, answering questions, and redrafting provisions.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a Text Editor when the objective is drafting, document review, risk identification, or explaining why wording is defective.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Related tools:</strong> Text Editors, Blueprints, and Drafting form one document sequence. Use a Text Editor to work inside an existing document, a Blueprint to design the document from precedents, and Drafting to create the document from scratch.</p>


  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Working document:</strong> A Text Editor presents realistic drafting rather than a detached question. The document can include instructions, headings, clauses, tables, and the surrounding facts a learner needs to understand how each provision operates.</p>
  <p><strong>Interactive drafting:</strong> Authors mark exact words or clauses as Redraft tasks, Questions, quizzes, or Comments. The learner finds an issue by clicking the relevant text and works on it in place, keeping the legal problem connected to its contractual context.</p>
  <p><strong>Redraft guidance:</strong> Every Redraft task has its own instruction, professional sample answer, and drafting recommendations. Feedback can test whether the learner preserved the commercial deal, added objective mechanics, used defined terms consistently, and dealt with the risk the original wording created.</p>
  <p><strong>Connected learning:</strong> Text Editors can connect tasks to Playbook Plays and combine several review skills in one document. Authors can ask learners to locate defects, explain consequences, select an answer, and produce replacement wording before completing the document.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Commercial — repairing price and liability terms in a supply agreement</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> Alder Manufacturing is about to appoint Northstar Components as the exclusive supplier of battery-control units for a new product line. The commercial team has agreed a three-year term and a fixed launch budget, but the supplier&#039;s first draft lets it change prices without a workable control and attempts to exclude every category of liability.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> Both provisions look short and commercially convenient, yet they make the customer&#039;s cost unpredictable and could remove meaningful remedies even where the supplier causes serious loss. The defects must be identified in context and replaced with wording the parties can actually operate.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner opens the supply agreement, finds two highlighted drafting errors, edits each provision directly in the document, and compares the redraft with a sample clause and targeted drafting recommendations.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Learners practise turning vague commercial intentions into objective price mechanics and an enforceable, balanced liability allocation rather than merely describing what is wrong.</p>



🛠️ Text Editors: working with a document

<div className="align-center" style="text-align:center"><h3>Acquisition facility — closing package</h3></div>

<p><strong>Corporate authority</strong><br/>Evidence that each English obligor has approved the finance documents and authorised its signatories.</p>

<p>Certified board minutes and resolutions of each English obligor approving entry into the finance documents and the authorised signatories.</p>

<p><strong>Debt terms</strong><br/>The document creating the lenders' funding commitment and the borrower's repayment obligations.</p>

<p>Executed senior facilities agreement between the borrower, guarantors, mandated lead arrangers, original lenders, facility agent and security agent.</p>

<p><strong>Security and perfection</strong><br/>Security over the English obligors' assets together with the immediate filing step needed to preserve priority.</p>

<p>Executed English-law debenture from each English obligor, plus agreed responsibility and deadline for filing each charge at Companies House.</p>

<p><strong>Funding release</strong><br/>Evidence that conditions have been reviewed and the agreed acquisition payments can be made through the correct accounts.</p>

<p>Final funds-flow statement, signed utilisation request and facility-agent confirmation that the conditions precedent are satisfied or expressly waived.</p>

<p>Seller board minutes approving the sale of the target, with no resolution from the borrower or any guarantor.</p>

<p>Original lender presentation and unsigned mandate letter used during syndication.</p>

Assemble the acquisition-finance closing package


    <h2>Build the lender's closing package</h2>
    <p>You act for the lenders financing Alder Group's acquisition of Northstar Mobility. Signing and funding are scheduled for Friday. The data room contains finance documents, corporate approvals, security materials, acquisition documents, and preliminary deal papers.</p>
    <div className="question">Complete the four empty cells with the item that satisfies each finance requirement. Two plausible documents do not belong in this Blueprint.</div>
  

Acquisition Finance Closing

Assemble an acquisition-finance closing package


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Exercise block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Blueprints require learners to construct a document or structured output from available sections, clauses, steps, and distractors.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a Blueprint when learners must understand what belongs in a document, how its parts fit together, and what should be excluded.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Related tools:</strong> Text Editors, Blueprints, and Drafting form one document sequence. Use a Text Editor to work inside an existing document, a Blueprint to design the document from precedents, and Drafting to create the document from scratch.</p>


  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Structured artifact:</strong> A Blueprint presents the framework of a legal or business work product as a grid. Fixed headings and labels provide context, while selected cells are left for the learner to complete.</p>
  <p><strong>Document assembly:</strong> Learners click an empty cell and choose the section, clause, step, classification, or factual item that belongs there. The same format can model closing checklists, transaction diagrams, document outlines, advice matrices, and process maps.</p>
  <p><strong>Distractors:</strong> The available library can include plausible material that belongs elsewhere, applies to a different party, duplicates another item, or is not required. Completing the Blueprint therefore tests both inclusion and exclusion.</p>
  <p><strong>Check and feedback:</strong> When the learner checks the completed artifact, the Blueprint marks each placement and can explain why the selected item belongs in that position. Authors can connect Playbook Plays where source guidance should remain available during assembly.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Banking and finance — assembling the closing package</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> A lender is financing the acquisition of a group with companies in several jurisdictions. The learner is asked to prepare the closing checklist, but the available library contains duplicates, documents for the wrong entities, and several plausible-looking items that do not apply.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> Selecting a guarantee from the wrong company, omitting a required approval, or overlooking a post-completion perfection step can leave the lender without the security package it expected.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner assembles the correct facility documents, guarantees, security documents, corporate approvals, legal opinions, signing steps, and post-completion actions. Distractors test whether every item can be connected to a particular obligor, asset, jurisdiction, and transaction risk.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Learners understand the architecture of a closing set and learn to justify why each document or action is required instead of copying a precedent checklist mechanically.</p>



🛠️ Blueprints: design from precedents

Draft the buyer's protections

Northstar Mobility — Share Purchase Agreement (extract)

Acquisition Protections Drafting

Draft three share purchase agreement protections


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Exercise block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Drafting blocks ask learners to write a document clause by clause from a blank page, with separate instructions and AI review for each provision.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a Drafting block when the learner must produce new wording themselves rather than correct an existing draft.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Related tools:</strong> Text Editors, Blueprints, and Drafting form one document sequence. Use a Text Editor to work inside an existing document, a Blueprint to design the document from precedents, and Drafting to create the document from scratch.</p>


  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Blank page, real instructions:</strong> A Drafting block gives the learner a document title and an ordered set of clauses to produce. Each clause opens as an empty editor beside its own task panel, which states the commercial objective, the facts the wording must reflect, and the protection the client needs. Nothing is pre-written, so the learner has to commit to actual language.</p>
  <p><strong>Clause by clause:</strong> The document is completed one provision at a time. Authors decide the order, so the block can follow the way a real agreement is built — the substantive protection first, then the mechanics that make it operable. Later clauses can rely on defined terms and positions the learner established earlier.</p>
  <p><strong>Guidance on demand:</strong> Before drafting, a learner can ask for a starting point. The block generates a short prompt from the clause instructions, the sample answer, and any connected Playbook Plays, describing how to approach the provision without supplying the wording. Where Plays are connected, a learner can open the underlying guidance and its structured Insights beside the editor.</p>
  <p><strong>Marked-up AI review:</strong> When the learner checks a clause, the block returns a short written assessment and then, on request, the draft itself in redline. Phrases that need work are flagged with specific feedback, wording that should be removed is struck through, and suggested replacements are inserted, all judged against the author's sample clause and drafting recommendations. Editing after a check clears the review so the learner can submit a revised draft.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Corporate — drafting the protections for a tax enquiry and an IP gap</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> Alder Group has agreed to buy the entire share capital of Northstar Mobility Ltd. Due diligence has closed with two unresolved points: an open HMRC enquiry into the target&#039;s historic R&amp;D claims, and code written by early contractors whose assignments were never documented. The partner wants the share purchase agreement to deal with both before the drafts are exchanged on Friday.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> Neither issue is solved by a general warranty. The tax enquiry is a known risk that must sit with the sellers on a pound-for-pound basis, the IP gap must be disclosed accurately while still giving the buyer a remedy, and neither protection is usable unless the agreement says who controls the claim and how it is paid.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner drafts three provisions in order: a specific tax indemnity, an intellectual property warranty, and a conduct-of-claims mechanic. Each clause carries its own instructions, and the AI reviewer marks the submitted wording against a sample clause and drafting recommendations before the learner moves on.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Lawyers practise converting an identified risk into operative contractual wording — allocating it to the right party, defining the trigger, and making the remedy work in practice instead of describing the problem in a note.</p>



🛠️ Drafting: creating a document from scratch

Asset director at Westbridge Estates, the landlord of Alder Retail's proposed flagship store.


      <h2>Your negotiation</h2>
      <p>You act for <strong>Alder Retail</strong>, the proposed tenant of a flagship store owned by <strong>Westbridge Estates</strong>. Negotiate three changes with Edward Carver: narrow the year-five break conditions, make assignment consent objective and prompt, and prevent the repair covenant from requiring Alder to improve the premises beyond their current condition.</p>
      <p>Type one proposal at a time. Explain the commercial risk, offer precise mechanics, and preserve a protection the landlord can justify to its investment committee.</p>
    

Makes the year-five break usable without removing legitimate landlord protection.

Break right

Replaces an absolute veto with an objective consent regime.

Assignment

Aligns the repair covenant with the premises' recorded condition.

Repair

Exchanges value instead of making one-sided demands.

Commercial trade-offs

Turns objections into clauses the parties can operate.

Precision

Maintains a focused, constructive relationship with the landlord.

Professional negotiation

I have twenty minutes before our investment committee. The lease reflects the agreed ten-year term and year-five break, so tell me precisely which changes Alder still needs and what Westbridge receives in return.

Flagship-store lease negotiation


      <p>Alder Retail is negotiating a ten-year English-law commercial lease with a tenant break at year five. The landlord's draft makes the break conditional on full compliance with every tenant covenant, allows absolute discretion over assignment, and requires the premises to be returned in good and substantial repair despite an existing photographic survey showing disrepair.</p>
    

We have a package: a nine-month break notice with limited conditions, an objective assignment test with an AGA where reasonable, and repair measured against the photographic schedule. Send the marked-up lease and I will recommend it to the committee.

Opening position

Agreed package

Commercial Lease Negotiation

Negotiate the flagship-store lease


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Exercise block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Conversations run a live AI role-play in which a character responds to the learner&#039;s questions, explanations, tone, and decisions.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a Conversation when performance depends on listening, questioning, persuasion, empathy, negotiation, or adapting under pressure.</p>

  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Role-play setup:</strong> A Conversation gives the learner a role, a concrete objective, and a Character from the Course Cast to speak with. The Character has their own role, interests, constraints, and negotiation strategy, so the exercise tests professional interaction rather than recall.</p>
  <p><strong>Responsive dialogue:</strong> In a live simulation, the Character responds to the learner's words and the developing exchange. The learner can ask questions, explain risk, make proposals, test resistance, and adapt their tone instead of selecting from prepared answers.</p>
  <p><strong>Conversation goals:</strong> Authors define the outcomes the learner should pursue without prescribing one script. Visible goals can focus attention on the matter's priorities, while the Character's strategy determines what evidence, trade-offs, or safeguards could move the negotiation forward.</p>
  <p><strong>Evaluation criteria:</strong> Six tailored criteria can assess the completed performance across legal analysis, commercial judgment, questioning, persuasion, clarity, and professional conduct. The result reflects how the learner handled the whole conversation, not whether they used a magic phrase.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Real estate — negotiating tenant protections in a commercial lease</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> Alder Retail is taking a ten-year lease of its first flagship store from Westbridge Estates. The landlord&#039;s draft gives the tenant a year-five break right, but makes it conditional on perfect compliance with every lease obligation; it also gives the landlord broad control over assignment and requires the tenant to put the premises into better condition than shown in the survey.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> The client needs flexibility if the store underperforms, while the landlord needs predictable income and a lease it can finance. Simply rejecting the draft will not resolve those competing interests. The lawyer must diagnose the risk in each clause, make precise proposals, and exchange protection rather than concede value accidentally.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner negotiates directly with the landlord&#039;s asset manager. They seek workable break conditions, an objective assignment regime, and a schedule-of-condition repair limit. The landlord tests each request against valuation, covenant strength, reletting risk, and lender expectations before accepting a balanced package.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Learners practise converting legal objections into negotiated drafting outcomes: explaining the commercial reason for a change, making a credible counterproposal, protecting the client&#039;s priorities, and closing a package both sides can implement.</p>



🛠️ Conversations: practicing communication skills

English-law share acquisition, signing and completion

Acquisition Completion Mechanics

Party A is buying Party B. Signing is at 17:00 on Friday and both sides expect to complete immediately. Build the map of what completion actually depends on, then check whether it can happen.

Signing and completion at 17:00

The approval was given before one director disclosed his interest in the seller's management incentive plan.

The facilities agreement became effective at 14:00 and the utilisation request has been accepted.

The change-of-control consent from the customer producing 41% of revenue has been requested but not given.

Clearance was confirmed in writing on Tuesday.

A defective approval is a curable defect: the board can be reconvened with the conflict disclosed.

Financing must be effective before the funds flow can be executed, not merely agreed in principle.

Both conditions must be satisfied. Only the parties can waive a contractual condition; nobody can waive the clearance.

Completion needs authority, funds, and every condition precedent at the same moment.

Map what Friday's completion actually depends on


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Exercise block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Systems let learners build or operate a connected node graph representing decisions, dependencies, approvals, risks, and legal requirements.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a System when a matter succeeds only if several related processes happen in the correct order.</p>

  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>Facts on the canvas, gates in the tray:</strong> A System opens with the established facts already placed and the reasoning steps waiting in a side tray. The learner drags in each gate, draws the arrows between them, and in doing so states which approvals, consents, and conditions the outcome actually depends on.</p>
  <p><strong>Nodes that compute:</strong> A node is not a sticky note. Constants hold authored facts, input nodes take a figure or a yes/no from the learner, formula nodes calculate, and condition nodes return Pass or Fail from the values reaching them. Because the graph evaluates, a wrong dependency produces a visibly wrong answer rather than a diagram that merely looks tidy.</p>
  <p><strong>Step-by-step playback:</strong> After the learner checks their graph, the System replays it one node at a time along the arrows they drew. Each gate shows the value it received and the verdict it produced, so a failed completion can be traced back to the specific approval or condition that caused it.</p>
  <p><strong>Scoring and next step:</strong> Checking scores the graph against the authored answer — every missing or extra block and connector counts, so a near-miss no longer scores the same as a blank canvas. Authors can add named checks ("the map shows completion cannot happen at 17:00") that are marked individually. A deterministic Next step button names the single most useful missing piece, and an AI hint can talk the learner through the reasoning without giving them the graph.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Corporate — can Party A complete the acquisition at 5 p.m.?</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> Party A is buying Party B. Signing is scheduled for Friday at 5 p.m., and both parties hope to complete immediately. At noon, the team discovers that Party A&#039;s board approval was given before one director disclosed a conflict, the acquisition-finance documents are not yet effective, a key customer consent remains outstanding, and regulatory clearance has not been confirmed.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> The client is pressing the team to &#039;just sign&#039;. The lawyers must distinguish defects that can be corrected, contractual conditions that may be waived, approvals that require a properly authorised decision, and legal restrictions that prevent completion altogether.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner builds the signing-and-completion map. They connect approvals, consents, financing, funds flow, document delivery, and regulatory gates; assign responsibility; test attempted waivers; and recommend whether to sign, split signing and completion, restructure the timetable, or delay.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Lawyers learn to see an acquisition as a network of dependencies. They practise spotting defective approvals, identifying who has authority to act, separating contractual flexibility from legal prohibition, and reporting precisely what remains outstanding.</p>



🛠️ Systems: process mapping and workflow building

Trainee, second seat. Has been on this review since day one.

Priya Raman

Associate, two years qualified. The fastest reviewer here.

Tom Whitfield

Paralegal. Runs the review platform and the chronology.

Mara Osei

Supervising a Disclosure Review

Privilege review of the partner's custodian set

Review the 1,400 documents from the partner and general counsel custodians, mark privilege, and produce a log the other side can be shown. Anything withheld has to be defensible on its face.

First-pass relevance review of the new document source

The site manager's laptop was imaged this morning and has added 2,900 documents. Run the first-pass relevance call and issue-code anything touching the change orders.

Chronology of the disputed change orders

Build the dated chronology of the seven disputed change orders, showing who approved each one and what was said about cost at the time.

Progress note for the client

Two paragraphs for the client on where the review stands, what the new source changes, and whether the disclosure deadline is still safe.

Three days to complete disclosure

<p>You are supervising the disclosure review in <strong>Alder Construction v Northstar Developments</strong>. Disclosure is due on Friday, a new document source landed this morning, and the client wants a progress note before the end of the day. You have four hours of working time and three people. Everything has to be delivered, defensible, and produced by a team that can still work tomorrow.</p>

Run a disclosure review against a four-hour deadline


  <h2>Executive Summary</h2>
  <p><strong>Type:</strong> Exercise block</p>
  <p><strong>What it does:</strong> Supervisions place the learner in charge of a simulated team and require them to delegate work, monitor progress, coach colleagues, and meet a deadline.</p>
  <p><strong>When it is useful:</strong> Use a Supervision to train delegation, prioritisation, leadership, project management, and quality control.</p>

  <h2>How it works</h2>
  <p><strong>A team, a tray of work, and a clock:</strong> The learner reads the brief, starts the day, and delegates each assignment from the tray to a member of their team. The clock runs in simulated minutes against a deadline — fast-forwarding while they observe, dropping to real time while they sit with someone — so attention spent on one person is time the working day loses.</p>
  <p><strong>Claimed skills versus real ability:</strong> Every team member shows the skills they claim and what they say about their experience. Behind that, the author sets what they are actually capable of, how fast they work, how much they can hold, and how likely they are to admit they are stuck. The learner never sees those numbers. Each assignment shows the skill it needs beside a team that all look plausible on paper, which is exactly how a confident but wrong allocation gets made.</p>
  <p><strong>Getting stuck, quietly:</strong> When an assignment is harder than the person doing it, their progress stops at about a third. Some raise a hand; others go silent and look busy. Discovering the silent one before the deadline is the skill the block exists to train. Checking in opens a conversation, and when someone is blocked on a point of law the learner must answer their question in their own words — a weak answer costs quality on that piece of work.</p>
  <p><strong>Three criteria, no partial credit:</strong> At the deadline the run is marked on whether everything was delivered in time, the quality of the worst delivered assignment, and how the team was left — anxiety, anger, exhaustion, and whether the workload was shared fairly. All three must pass. A debrief then shows what happened and when, so the learner can see the moment the day was lost.</p>

  <h2>Use case</h2>
  
  <h3>Litigation — three days to complete disclosure</h3>
  <p><strong>The situation:</strong> A litigation team has three days to complete a disclosure review. One junior knows the documents well but is overloaded, another is fast but inexperienced with privilege, and a paralegal is highly organised but has not received clear authority. A new document source then appears while the client asks for an urgent progress update.</p>
  <p><strong>The problem:</strong> Poor delegation produces duplicated work, missed privileged documents, inconsistent issue coding, and a progress report that cannot be trusted. Waiting until the final day to check the work makes those failures difficult to repair.</p>
  <p><strong>The simulation:</strong> The learner assigns review, privilege analysis, chronology, and reporting tasks. Team members ask questions, report problems, or remain silent depending on the instructions and support they receive. The learner must rebalance work, create escalation points, and review high-risk output personally.</p>
  <p><strong>The result:</strong> Learners practise matching work to capability, giving usable instructions, checking progress without micromanaging, and intervening before a supervision problem becomes a missed deadline.</p>



🛠️ Supervisions: delegate and supervise work

A practical framework for building document analysis exercises in legal training — covering the triage task, the deep analysis task, and why extracts work better than full contracts. Built for anyone designing simulations for law students, trainees and junior lawyers.

<p>The hardest part of document review is not reading. <b>It is knowing which document to read.</b></p><p>That distinction sounds obvious until you watch a junior lawyer spend forty minutes carefully annotating a contract that has nothing to do with the problem — while the clause that matters sits three files away, unchecked. What was missing was not diligence. It was triage.</p><p>Document analysis exercises are one of the most transferable formats in legal training. The same underlying structure — a set of documents, a specific question, a decision to make — works for due diligence, disclosure review, regulatory compliance, contract negotiation and a dozen other contexts. Built well, a single exercise can be reused across cohorts, adapted for different practice areas, and scaled without significant additional authoring time. Here is how we build them on <b>BeSavvy</b>.</p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1779988204/savvy/Screenshot_2026-05-28_at_20.09.28_vall2q.jpg alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><h3>Stage one: the triage task</h3><p>The first stage places the student in front of a set of documents and asks one well-defined question: <b>which of these is relevant to the problem?</b></p><p>The documents do not need to be complete. Two or three pages per contract is enough — long enough to require genuine reading, short enough to keep the exercise focused. What matters is that each extract contains enough real drafting for the student to engage with it as they would the genuine article, and that the full set includes both relevant and irrelevant documents. The noise is part of the exercise. Knowing which files to ignore is as important as knowing which ones to open.</p><p>For the change of control exercise we built recently, the question was: which of these twelve contracts contains a provision that could block completion? The answer required reading across all twelve, recognising what a change of control clause looks like in varied drafting contexts, and prioritising the highest-risk ones for escalation.</p><p>An AI mentor sits alongside throughout to discuss the student&#39;s reasoning. Why this contract rather than that one? What does the consequence of this particular trigger mean for the deal timeline? The conversation is where the judgement is built.</p><h3>Stage two: the deep analysis task</h3><p>Once the student has identified the relevant documents, the exercise <b>can go a level deeper.</b> A single document is brought into focus — and within it, problems are embedded.</p><p>These might be drafting errors, missing definitions, conflicting provisions or commercially unreasonable terms. The student reads through, identifies the zones of concern, and either proposes a solution or works through one with the AI mentor. The interaction is direct: find the problem, discuss the fix.</p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1779988398/savvy/Screenshot_2026-05-28_at_20.12.18_y3e0vi.jpg alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>This second stage trains something different from the first. </p><ul><li>Stage one is about breadth — scanning across a set of documents with a clear question in mind. </li><li>Stage two is about depth — reading one document carefully enough to find what is wrong with it. </li></ul><p>Both skills matter; few training programmes build both within the same exercise.</p><h3>What makes this reusable</h3><ol type="1"><li>The format is<b> content-agnostic.</b> The same two-stage structure works for a trainee reviewing warranty disclosures, an apprentice checking a lease for break clause compliance, or a law student working through a set of loan agreements in a restructuring scenario. The documents change. The underlying exercise does not.</li><li>Because the documents are extracts rather than full contracts, they can be generated or assembled <b>without reproducing confidential materials</b>. A fabricated extract that reads like a fabricated extract defeats the purpose — the language needs to be real enough that the student cannot skim it. But two focused pages of genuine drafting, with the surrounding boilerplate stripped away, is often more instructive than the full document.</li><li>The other advantage of extracts is <b>pace.</b> A student reading twelve full contracts loses the thread of the exercise. A student reading twelve focused two-page extracts develops the triage instinct the exercise is designed to build — and finishes with energy left for the discussion that follows.</li><li>Such simulations are generated, not created manually. That makes implementation of these projects fast and friction-free.</li></ol>

How to build a document analysis exercise that actually trains judgement

Mike

Knowing what to measure before you launch makes the difference between a project that proves its value and one that generates good feelings but no data. This article covers the four core metrics BeSavvy recommends tracking — and how to build your own.

<h2>If you don&#39;t define success before you start, you can&#39;t demonstrate it afterwards.</h2><p>One of the most common mistakes in legal training pilots <b>is launching without a measurement framework.</b> The programme runs, lawyers complete simulations, feedback is positive — and then someone in leadership asks &quot;but what did it actually achieve?&quot; and no one has a clean answer.</p><p>BeSavvy generates a significant amount of performance data automatically. This article explains the four core metrics we recommend every firm tracks from day one, and how to build on them with KPIs specific to your programme.</p><h2>The four core metrics</h2><h3>1. Participation, Completion, and Time-to-Completion</h3><p>The starting point for any training programme is whether people are actually doing it — and finishing it. BeSavvy tracks how many target users start each simulation, how many complete it, and how long they take.</p><p><b>Completion rate</b> is a more meaningful signal than it might appear. A simulation that most lawyers abandon halfway through is telling you something important — either about the content, the difficulty calibration, or the relevance of the scenario to the people doing it. <b>Time-to-completion</b> adds another dimension: a simulation that takes most lawyers three times longer than expected may be too complex, or may be surfacing a deeper skill gap worth investigating.</p><p>A well-designed simulation should motivate lawyers to complete it. Tracking this metric holds the content to account, not just the learner.</p><h3>2. Performance and Progress Insights</h3><p>BeSavvy monitors task success rates across every simulation:</p><ul><li>which tasks most lawyers complete successfully,</li><li>which ones produce consistent errors, and </li><li>where the cohort as a whole is weakest.</li></ul><p><b>This data has two uses. </b>At the individual level, it shows each lawyer where their gaps are and tracks improvement over time. At the cohort level, it gives L&amp;D teams and Training Partners a clear picture of where the programme is working and where additional support or revised content is needed.</p><p>The goal is not to rank individuals — it is <b>to identify the zones where lawyers need help</b>, and focus training resources there rather than spreading them evenly across topics people already understand.</p><h3>3. Behaviour Change</h3><p>The most important metric — and the hardest to capture without the right system — is whether lawyers are actually getting better over time.</p><p>BeSavvy measures this through feedback-and-improvement loops. A lawyer completes a task, receives structured feedback on their output, and then re-attempts the task to achieve a higher score. The delta between first attempt and subsequent attempts, tracked across a cohort over weeks and months, is the clearest available evidence of genuine behaviour change rather than one-off performance.</p><blockquote>This is the metric that answers the question leadership always asks: not &quot;did they do the training?&quot; but &quot;are they better as a result of it?&quot;</blockquote><h3>4. User Feedback and Satisfaction</h3><p>BeSavvy supports in-platform surveys that capture usefulness scores and NPS-style feedback after each simulation. These ratings — for example, an average usefulness score of 4.2 out of 5, or the percentage of lawyers who would recommend the simulation to a colleague — provide a real-time signal on whether the content is landing.</p><p>Satisfaction data matters for two reasons. It helps you improve content quickly, before poor simulations become embedded in the programme. And it provides a comparison point against traditional training: in our experience, lawyers consistently rate simulation-based training above lectures, e-learning modules, and workshops on measures of perceived usefulness and engagement.</p><h2>Summary: the four metrics at a glance</h2><table>
  <thead><tr><th>Metric</th><th>What it tells you</th><th>What to watch for</th></tr></thead>
  <tbody><tr><td><b>Participation, Completion, Time-to-Completion</b></td><td>Whether lawyers are doing the training and finishing it</td><td>Low completion rates signal content or relevance issues</td></tr><tr><td><b>Performance and Progress Insights</b></td><td>Where the cohort is strong and where gaps exist</td><td>Consistent errors on specific tasks point to training priorities</td></tr><tr><td><b>Behaviour Change</b></td><td>Whether lawyers are genuinely improving over time</td><td>Delta between first and repeat attempts is the key signal</td></tr><tr><td><b>User Feedback and Satisfaction</b></td><td>Whether lawyers find the training useful and engaging</td><td>Compare against baseline satisfaction with existing formats</td></tr></tbody>
</table><h2>Building your own KPIs</h2><p>The four metrics above apply to every BeSavvy programme. But the most powerful measurement frameworks go further — and BeSavvy is built to support this.</p><div className="flag">Clients can create custom KPIs and attach them directly to individual simulations, particularly conversation simulations and drafting tasks. </div><p>These KPIs can reflect exactly what your firm is trying to develop and measure in a given context. Examples include:</p><ul>
  <li>Tone calibration score in client-facing conversation simulations</li>
  <li>Clause accuracy rate in drafting exercises</li>
  <li>Issue identification rate in due diligence simulations</li>
  <li>Concession discipline score in negotiation scenarios</li>
  <li>Response time and prioritisation in email handling tasks</li>
</ul><p>Custom KPIs allow your programme to generate data that is meaningful to your firm specifically — not just generic engagement metrics. Over time, this data becomes a detailed picture of how each lawyer is developing across the skills that matter most to your practice.</p><p>If you are unsure which custom KPIs to define for your first simulations, the BeSavvy team can help you identify the right measures based on your training objectives and the simulation types you are building.</p>

How do I measure the success of my simulation training programme?

The first few decisions you make when starting with BeSavvy will shape how quickly you see results. This guide covers what to do, in what order, and what not to overlook.

<h2>A good start makes everything easier. A poor one costs weeks.</h2><p>Most delays in legal tech pilots are not technical. They are organisational: </p><ul><li>the wrong person is nominated as lead, </li><li>content collection starts too late, or </li><li>no one has decided what success looks like before the first simulation goes live. </li></ul><p>This guide is designed to help you avoid those delays and start generating value from day one.</p><h2>Step 1: Nominate a decision maker and a day-to-day lead</h2><p>Before anything else, identify two people: the person who has authority to make decisions about the programme — budget, scope, go/no-go — and the person who will be the day-to-day point of contact with the BeSavvy team.</p><p>These can be the same person, but in larger firms they often are not. The decision maker is typically a Training Partner, Head of L&amp;D, or Knowledge Manager. The day-to-day lead is usually someone with time to engage actively — an L&amp;D professional or a practice group coordinator.</p><p>Without a clear lead, decisions drift. With one, the programme moves.</p><h2>Step 2: Start collecting content immediately</h2><p>Simulations are only as good as the source material they are built from. If your firm already has training materials — precedents, know-how notes, internal guides, past training presentations — these can often be converted into simulation content directly.</p><p>If that material is not yet collected, start now. Legal teams are busy, and even gathering basic content takes longer than expected once diary coordination and sign-off are involved.</p><p>To make the collection process easier for your legal teams, share this guide with them: <b>How to collect materials for effective simulation training.</b><a href="https://besavvy.app/blog" target=”_blank”></a></p><h2>Step 3: Decide how you want to build</h2><p>There are two ways to get your first simulations built, and the right choice depends on how much control and flexibility you want.</p><ul><li>We build for you</li><li>Your team builds independently:</li></ul><p>We run our Train the Trainer programme — three sessions over three weeks — so your L&amp;D and legal professionals can build and manage simulations themselves. <b>Full details here.</b></p><ul>
 </ul><p>
</p><p>Many firms start with the first option to generate early momentum, then move to independent building as their team develops confidence with the platform.</p><h2>Step 4: Choose your first audience carefully</h2><p>Do not try to run a pilot for everyone at once. Pick a focused group and do it well.</p><div className="flag">In our experience, trainees and lawyers one to two years post-qualification are the strongest starting point. </div><p>Three reasons: </p><ul><li>simulations for this group require less legal complexity and are faster to build; </li><li>they are more receptive to new training approaches and technology; and </li><li>the feedback loop is tighter — you will see results more quickly than with a senior cohort.</li></ul><p>A focused pilot also makes it easier to demonstrate impact to leadership when the time comes to expand the programme.</p><h2>Step 5: Define your success metrics before you launch</h2><p>Decide in advance what you are trying to measure. A simulation programme that has no defined success criteria will always feel inconclusive — even if the results are strong.</p><p>BeSavvy tracks a wide range of performance metrics across simulations. Before your pilot launches, agree internally on which two or three of these will define success for your firm. Common choices include completion rates, improvement across repeat attempts, specific skill KPIs, and time-to-competency benchmarks.</p><p>Full details on the metrics BeSavvy captures can be found here: <b>What BeSavvy measures and how to use the data.</b><a href="https://besavvy.app/blog" target=”_blank”></a></p><h2>Step 6: Set a deadline and work backwards</h2><p>If you are building for trainees or new joiners, you already have a date in mind: your next intake. Use it. A fixed deadline focuses content collection, build time, and sign-off in a way that an open-ended timeline does not.</p><p>If you are unsure how long simulation development takes for your specific use case, contact the BeSavvy team and we will give you a realistic estimate based on your content and scope. Also worth knowing: BeSavvy maintains a simulation library that can be used out of the box or adapted as templates, which can significantly reduce build time for common training topics. Ask the team about what is available for your practice areas.</p><h2>Step 7: Get SSO set up early</h2><p>This is the step most firms forget to start early enough. Configuring single sign-on through your identity provider — typically Microsoft Entra — sometimes requires IT involvement and can take longer than expected due to internal approval processes.</p><p>Raise it with your IT team in the first week, even if your launch date is months away. A delayed SSO setup is one of the most common reasons a pilot goes live later than planned.</p><h2>Step 8: Establish your communication channel</h2><p>On enterprise plans, we work in close ongoing communication with your team throughout the pilot and beyond. We are happy to connect via email, Slack, or WhatsApp — whatever fits how your team works.</p><p>The goal is to make sure you always have a direct line to the BeSavvy team: for questions, for build support, for reviewing outputs, and for problem-solving when something does not go as planned. Reach out at the start to establish the channel, not when you first need it.</p><h2>A note on scope</h2><p>The most successful pilots are focused ones. Resist the temptation to cover every practice area, every skill type, and every cohort in the first phase. Pick one audience, one or two skill areas, and a clear timeline. Do that well, measure it properly, and use those results to make the case for the next phase. </p><div className="flag">That sequence — focused pilot, clear evidence, expanded programme — is how simulation-based training becomes embedded in a firm, rather than remaining a one-off initiative.</div>

Day One: How to start your BeSavvy use the right way

Security reviews can slow down or block promising legal tech projects. This article explains BeSavvy's security posture, what data we hold and don't hold, and how to assess what level of review your firm actually needs.

<h2>Not every legal tech platform carries the same security risk. It matters to know the difference.</h2><p>Security reviews are a fact of life in law firm procurement. They exist for good reason: legal tech tools that handle client data, financial information, or confidential matter details carry real risk and deserve careful scrutiny.</p><p>The problem is that security processes are often applied uniformly — the same lengthy review for a platform that stores client files and a platform that does not. </p><div className="flag">Understanding what a tool actually does with data is the first step to calibrating the review appropriately. </div><p>This article explains BeSavvy&#39;s security posture honestly, so your security and IT teams can make that assessment quickly.</p><h2>Our certifications and trust centre</h2><p>BeSavvy currently holds Cyber Essentials certification and is in the process of acquiring ISO 27001 certification. We take the view that certifications are a floor, not a ceiling — compliance matters, but demonstrable action matters more.</p><p>For that reason, we maintain a dedicated trust centre where you can review our security practices, policies, and current certification status in detail. We built it specifically because we wanted to give firms something more useful than a checkbox: a transparent, up-to-date record of what we actually do to protect data.</p><p>You can review our trust centre at: <a href="https://besavvy.app/security" target=”_blank”>besavvy.app/security</a></p><h2>Two levels of integration — and two very different risk profiles</h2><p>The most useful way to think about BeSavvy security is to identify which level of integration your firm is considering. The two levels carry materially different risk profiles and warrant different levels of review.</p><h3>Level 1: Standard platform use</h3><p>At this level, BeSavvy receives no client data, no financial data, and no confidential matter information. The only data that enters the platform is:</p><ul>
  <li>User identity information passed through single sign-on from your identity provider — most commonly Microsoft Entra</li>
  <li>Performance data generated by users working through simulations on the platform</li>
</ul><p>All simulation content at this level is either built from generic legal scenarios or developed by BeSavvy using fully anonymised source material. Before any content reaches the platform, we run local anonymisation and risk checks to identify and remove anything that could be considered private or confidential.</p><p>All data is stored on Tier 1 EU or US servers, compliant with local data protection law including GDPR.</p><div className="flag">At Level 1, BeSavvy does not hold client data, matter data, or financial data of any kind. </div><p><b>The platform poses no material data security risk</b> of the type that legal tech tools handling live client information would carry. </p><p>In many firms, this means that a standard Level 1 deployment can proceed with a significantly lighter security review than would apply to, for example, a document management or matter management system.</p><h3>Level 2: Deeper integration</h3><p>At this level, the firm is actively bringing more of its own data into the platform. Examples include:</p><ul>
  <li>Uploading contracts or internal documents to build simulations tailored to specific practice areas or clients</li>
  <li>Creating simulations that reference client-specific information or scenarios</li>
  <li>Opening simulations to external participants, including clients</li>
</ul><p>This level of integration does increase the security surface and warrants a fuller review. We welcome that process. We are prepared to go through your firm&#39;s standard security assessment, respond to security questionnaires, and comply with specific requirements your IT and risk teams identify.</p><p>We already have the foundational certifications in place, and we are actively building toward additional accreditations. If your firm requires specific certifications or contractual commitments as a condition of Level 2 integration, we ask that you raise these early so we can confirm our current status and timeline.</p><h2>A practical note on security reviews</h2><div className="flag">Before beginning any engagement, we ask firms to make an honest assessment of which level of integration they are starting with. </div><p>This is not a legal tactic or an attempt to avoid scrutiny — it is a practical observation that security teams are best served by accurate information about what a tool actually does.</p><p>In our experience, when security teams understand that a Level 1 deployment involves no client data, no matter data, and authentication handled entirely by the firm&#39;s own identity provider, the review process becomes significantly more straightforward. In some cases, a clear explanation of the data architecture is sufficient to resolve concerns that a standard questionnaire process would have taken weeks to work through.</p><p>If you are unsure which level applies to your planned use of BeSavvy, we are happy to work through that assessment with you before any formal procurement process begins.</p>

Security and BeSavvy: A practical guide to what you need to check

Legal judgment is often treated as something that develops mysteriously over time. This article sets out BeSavvy's stance: judgment is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition can be accelerated — with important caveats about when and how.

<h2>Legal judgment is not magic. It is memory.</h2><p>There is a widespread assumption in professional services that senior lawyers possess a form of intuition that cannot be taught — an ability to see around corners, spot the issue no one else noticed, and reach the right answer by some combination of experience and instinct that junior lawyers simply have not yet developed.</p><p>This assumption is flattering to senior lawyers. </p><div className="flag">It is also, according to the best available research in cognitive psychology, <b>largely wrong</b> — or at least, significantly misunderstood.</div><h2>What Kahneman actually says about expert intuition</h2><p>Daniel Kahneman&#39;s work on expert judgment — developed across decades of research and summarised in <em>Thinking, Fast and Slow</em> — reaches a conclusion that is uncomfortable for many professions. </p><p>When asked to explain what expert intuition actually is, his answer is precise: </p><blockquote><em>"The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition."</em></blockquote><p><b>What looks like intuition is pattern retrieval.</b> A senior lawyer reads a set of facts and immediately senses that something is wrong — not because they possess special perception, but because those facts trigger a connection to dozens of similar situations stored in long-term memory. Their brain retrieves the relevant pattern faster than conscious reasoning can catch up, and presents the answer as a feeling.</p><p>Kahneman is explicit that valid expert intuitions develop when professionals have learned to recognise familiar elements in new situations — <b>not through talent, but through accumulated exposure.</b> </p><p>The implication is significant: if expert judgment is the product of pattern recognition built through experience, then the route to better judgment is more experience — specifically, more varied experience, encountered earlier.</p><h2>What this means for simulation-based training</h2><p>The honest position is this: </p><div className="flag">Simulation is exceptionally well-suited to developing the learnable, repeatable dimensions of legal judgment — and those dimensions represent the majority of what junior lawyers need to master in their first three to five years of practice.</div><p>The problem for junior lawyers is not that these patterns are unknowable. </p><p><b>It is that traditional training delivers exposure to them slowly and unevenly. </b></p><p>A trainee in a structured finance seat for six months will develop strong pattern recognition for structured finance scenarios and almost none for anything else. Their judgment at qualification reflects the narrow range of situations they happened to encounter — not the range they needed.</p><p>Simulation addresses this directly. A well-designed BeSavvy simulation is not a quiz or a knowledge test. <b>It is a layered experience that combines multiple elements </b>— narrative context, client communications, documents to review, decisions to make, consequences to observe — into a coherent scenario that builds memory in the same way a real matter does, but in a fraction of the time.</p><p>The platform is built around a set of distinct training blocks that can be combined within a single simulation:</p><ul><li>Story blocks — narrative context that establishes the situation, the people involved, and what is at stake</li><li>Document tasks — drafting, reviewing, and annotating real legal documents</li><li>Conversation simulations — interactions with clients, counterparts, and colleagues that require real-time judgment</li><li>Case studies — analytical tasks that require issue-spotting and structured reasoning</li><li>Blueprint tasks — building deal structures, transaction timelines, and risk frameworks</li><li>Playbook elements — the underlying knowledge frameworks that connect experience to principle</li></ul><ul>
  </ul><p> — the underlying knowledge frameworks that connect experience to principle
</p><p>By combining these elements within a single simulation, BeSavvy delivers a richer, more varied experience per hour of training than any single-format approach can provide. </p><div className="flag">More variety per simulation means more pattern exposure per trainee per year — which means faster development of the judgment that senior lawyers currently accumulate over a decade.</div>

What Is legal judgment — and can it be trained?

Negotiation is one of the highest-value skills a lawyer can develop — and one of the hardest to train without live deals. This article explains how simulation makes systematic negotiation development possible.

<h2>Negotiation is learned through repetition. Most lawyers do not get enough of it.</h2><p>Senior lawyers negotiate constantly. Junior lawyers observe occasionally, assist when permitted, and learn — if they are lucky — through gradual exposure over several years. There is no structured equivalent to the batting cage, the flight simulator, or the moot court for commercial negotiation.</p><p>The result is a predictable pattern: firms invest heavily in junior lawyers who remain under-confident in negotiation settings for far longer than necessary. Not because they lack intelligence or preparation, but because they lack reps.</p><h2>What negotiation training needs to work</h2><p>Effective negotiation development requires three things that traditional training formats struggle to provide simultaneously: </p><ol type="1"><li>a realistic counterpart who responds dynamically to what you say,</li><li>enough repetitions to build pattern recognition, and</li><li>feedback that is specific enough to drive behaviour change.</li></ol><p>A one-day negotiation workshop provides the third, partially. Role play with a colleague provides the first, poorly. Neither provides the second.</p><p>Simulation provides all three.</p><h2>What a simulation-based negotiation programme looks like</h2><h3>1. Counterparts that behave like real negotiators</h3><p>BeSavvy negotiation simulations are built around specific counterpart types: opposing counsel under time pressure, a commercial client pushing on price, a counterparty resisting a key clause, a team member with a different risk appetite. Each counterpart has a defined strategy, a set of objectives, and a repertoire of responses that adapt to how the conversation develops.</p><p>Trainees cannot rely on a script. They have to read the situation, decide on a strategy, and adjust when the counterpart pushes back — exactly as they would in a real negotiation.</p><h3>2. A wide scenario library across deal types</h3><p>A trainee who has only practised one type of negotiation has not developed transferable skills — they have memorised a playbook. Breadth matters.</p><p>BeSavvy supports negotiation simulations across practice areas and deal types: M&amp;A price adjustment clauses, real estate lease negotiations, employment settlement discussions, IP licensing terms, finance covenant negotiations, and others. Trainees build exposure to the range of contexts they will encounter across their career, not just the one their current seat happens to offer.</p><h3>3. KPIs that make progress visible</h3><p>Negotiation performance is notoriously difficult to evaluate objectively. BeSavvy tracks a defined set of KPIs across every negotiation simulation: strategic clarity, concession discipline, response to challenge, use of silence, anchoring technique, issue prioritisation, and overall outcome relative to the scenario parameters.</p><div className="flag">Over time, this data produces a profile of each lawyer&#39;s negotiation strengths and weaknesses — visible to the individual, their supervisor, and the L&amp;D team. Development becomes measurable rather than impressionistic.</div><h3>4. Scenario creation by partners and associates</h3><p>The most contextually relevant negotiation training is built around the deals and situations your firm actually handles. BeSavvy&#39;s conversation simulation agent allows partners and associates to build their own negotiation scenarios — capturing the specific dynamics, objectives, and likely counterpart behaviour they want their juniors to prepare for.</p><p>A partner heading into a difficult renegotiation can build a scenario that reflects that specific counterparty. Their junior practises it before the real conversation. A senior associate can create a scenario based on a deal type they know their team will encounter repeatedly in the next six months.</p><p>This capability turns practical experience into reusable training infrastructure — something that has historically been lost every time a senior lawyer moves on.</p><h3>5. Treating practice as a process, not an event</h3><p>The most important design principle in BeSavvy&#39;s negotiation training is that scenarios are not completed once. A trainee who performs poorly on a concession discipline scenario is not marked down and moved on — they are shown specifically where they gave ground unnecessarily, given guidance on what a stronger approach would have looked like, and given the opportunity to try again.</p><div className="flag">This iteration loop — attempt, feedback, repeat — is what produces genuine behaviour change rather than temporary improvement on a test day.</div><h2>The role of playbooks</h2><p>BeSavvy&#39;s negotiation playbooks provide the strategic foundation before trainees enter a simulation. They cover negotiation frameworks relevant to legal practice: how to anchor effectively, how to manage concessions, how to handle a counterpart who goes silent, how to close when the other side keeps moving the goalposts.</p><p>The simulation then tests whether trainees can apply the framework under pressure. The gap between what they know and what they do under realistic conditions is precisely where the most valuable development happens.</p><h2>Bottom Line</h2><p>Negotiation skill is built through repetition against realistic opposition — not through observation or one-off workshops. The infrastructure to provide that repetition now exists. Firms that build structured negotiation training programmes will produce lawyers who negotiate with confidence and discipline earlier in their careers, on more matters, with better outcomes for clients.</p>

How to train negotiation skills at scale in a law firm

Most firms know client communication matters. Few have a system for training it at scale. This article explains how simulation-based approaches make consistent, measurable communication development possible.

<h2>Soft skills are not secondary skills.</h2><div className="flag">In most law firms, client communication is acknowledged as critical and trained sporadically. </div><ul><li>A junior lawyer shadows a partner on a call. </li><li>They receive occasional feedback on an email. </li><li>They improve — or they do not — largely depending on who happens to supervise them and how much time that person has.</li></ul><p>The problem is not commitment. <u><b>It is infrastructure</b></u>. Without dedicated systems, consistent client communication training is genuinely difficult to deliver at scale. AI changes that.</p><h2>The core challenge: you cannot practise client communication without a client</h2><p>Hard skills training has always had a natural practice environment: you draft a clause, you receive feedback, you redraft. Soft skills training has historically lacked an equivalent. You cannot run a hundred client conversations to build confidence and pattern recognition — not on live matters, not at junior level, not without enormous senior time investment.</p><p>Simulation solves this by replacing the live client with a realistic digital equivalent. Trainees practise the full range of client communication scenarios — delivering difficult news, managing expectations, handling a demanding client, explaining complex advice clearly — with an AI counterpart that behaves like a real person and responds to how the conversation actually develops.</p><h2>What a well-designed communication training system looks like</h2><h3>1. A wide scenario library</h3><p>Effective communication training requires variety. A single scenario teaches a trainee how to handle one situation. A library of twenty teaches them to read a room, adapt their approach, and develop genuine judgement about tone and strategy.</p><p>BeSavvy simulations can represent a range of counterparts: long-standing clients, new clients unfamiliar with legal process, demanding or sceptical clients, clients in distress, internal team members, and opposing counsel. Each scenario is built around realistic fact patterns drawn from the practice areas your trainees actually work in.</p><h3>2. Tracked KPIs across every conversation</h3><p>One of the persistent problems with soft skills training is measurement. How do you know someone is getting better at client communication? Traditionally, you rely on supervisor impression.</p><p>BeSavvy tracks a defined set of communication KPIs across every simulation: clarity of advice, tone calibration, issue prioritisation, expectation management, response to challenge, and others specific to the scenario type. This produces a longitudinal record of each lawyer&#39;s communication development — visible to them, to their supervisor, and to the L&amp;D team.</p><h3>3. Behaviour change, not box-ticking</h3><p>A single communication exercise is an event. A programme of exercises — with tracked KPIs, visible progress, and the ability to repeat scenarios until performance improves — is a development system.</p><p>BeSavvy is designed around this distinction. Trainees are not asked to complete a scenario once and move on. They are shown where they fell short, given the opportunity to try again with different approaches, and tracked over time. The goal is observable behaviour change, not completion certificates.</p><h3>4. Building your own scenarios: the digital client persona</h3><p>One of the most powerful applications of BeSavvy&#39;s simulation tools is the ability for partners and associates to build their own communication scenarios — not just use pre-built ones.</p><p>Consider a partner preparing a junior for their first interaction with a long-standing client. That partner can build a digital version of that client: their communication style, their typical concerns, their history with the firm, their likely reaction to different types of advice. The junior practises the conversation before it happens. They arrive prepared.</p><p>This is not a theoretical capability. BeSavvy&#39;s conversation simulation agent guides you through the information needed, generates a first version of the scenario, and advises on how to review and refine it before use.</p><h2>The role of playbooks</h2><p>Communication simulations work best when grounded in a shared framework. BeSavvy&#39;s in-house playbooks provide the foundation: structured guidance on what good client communication looks like in specific contexts — delivering advice, managing a difficult conversation, handling a complaint, responding under time pressure.</p><p>Trainees engage with the playbook before the simulation. The simulation then tests whether they can apply it under realistic conditions. The gap between the two is where development happens.</p><h2>Bottom Line</h2><p>Client communication is too important to leave to chance supervision and occasional feedback. The infrastructure now exists to train it systematically — with realistic scenarios, tracked KPIs, and a development culture that treats each conversation as practice, not performance. The firms that build this infrastructure now will have a measurable advantage in the quality of their junior lawyers within two to three years.</p>

How to build a client communication training programme with simulators

BeSavvy's Train the Trainer programme is not a platform walkthrough. It is a three-session workshop designed to get your L&D team building, reviewing, and deploying simulations from day one.

<h2>The goal is not to explain the platform. It is to help you build on it.</h2><p>Most software onboarding is a demonstration — someone shows you what buttons do what, and you are left to figure out the rest. BeSavvy&#39;s Train the Trainer programme is different. </p><div className="flag">It is a structured three-week workshop designed around one outcome: your L&amp;D and legal professionals leave with real simulations built, reviewed, and ready to deploy.</div><p>The programme runs across three independent weekly sessions. Each session has a distinct focus, and each one builds directly on the previous week&#39;s output.</p><h2>Session 1: Design</h2><p>Week one is about getting everyone onto the same page — not just technically, but conceptually. Before building anything, your team needs to understand what makes a simulation work: what the BeSavvy design framework is, how AI-enhanced training differs from traditional e-learning, and how to think about skill development in terms of realistic scenarios rather than knowledge modules.</p><p>In this session we cover:</p><ul>
  <li>The principles behind BeSavvy&#39;s simulation design approach</li>
  <li>How to identify which skills and tasks are best suited to simulation</li>
  <li>Access to BeSavvy&#39;s simulation development agent</li>
  <li>A guided session to generate your first simulation ideas and outlines</li>
</ul><p>Participants leave week one with access to the full development toolkit and a set of simulation concepts scoped and ready to build before the next session.</p><h2>Session 2: Review and Refine</h2><p>By week two, your team has been building. Session two is devoted entirely to reviewing those outputs — together.</p><p>AI-generated simulations are first drafts. They require careful review by both L&amp;D professionals and legal subject matter experts before they are ready to deploy. This session teaches your team how to do that review systematically: what to check, what to fix, and how to calibrate the difficulty, accuracy, and feedback quality of each simulation.</p><p>In this session we cover:</p><ul>
  <li>Reviewing AI-generated simulation drafts as a team</li>
  <li>Legal accuracy checking: what to look for and how to correct it</li>
  <li>Calibrating task difficulty and feedback quality</li>
  <li>Iterating efficiently without rebuilding from scratch</li>
</ul><p>Participants leave week two with polished, reviewed simulations that are close to production-ready — and the skills to repeat this process independently.</p><h2>Session 3: Deploy and Analyse</h2><p>Week three is about going live and thinking beyond the launch. This session covers everything from final production checks to how you will use simulation data to demonstrate impact to leadership and provide meaningful feedback to lawyers.</p><p>In this session we cover:</p><ul>
  <li>Final production checks and deployment</li>
  <li>Integrating simulations into your existing training programme</li>
  <li>Setting KPIs and deciding what to measure</li>
  <li>Using BeSavvy analytics to provide feedback to individual lawyers</li>
  <li>How to communicate results to management</li>
  <li>Planning the next phase of simulation development</li>
</ul><p>Participants leave week three with live simulations, a measurement framework, and a clear roadmap for what to build next.</p><h2>What the three sessions cover end to end</h2><table>
  <thead><tr><th>Session</th><th>Focus</th><th>Output</th></tr></thead>
  <tbody><tr><td>Week 1: Design</td><td>Design principles, AI tools, simulation scoping</td><td>Simulation concepts and first drafts</td></tr><tr><td>Week 2: Review and Refine</td><td>Legal accuracy, quality review, iteration</td><td>Reviewed, production-ready simulations</td></tr><tr><td>Week 3: Deploy and Analyse</td><td>Launch, KPIs, analytics, next steps</td><td>Live simulations and a measurement framework</td></tr></tbody>
</table><h2>Who should attend</h2><p>The programme works best with a mixed team: L&amp;D professionals who will own the platform day-to-day, and KM lawyers or practice group leads who can validate the legal content. You do not need technical skills. You need people who understand what good legal training looks like and have the authority to make decisions about what gets built.</p><h2>How it is offered</h2><div className="flag">The Train the Trainer programme is included at no additional cost as part of BeSavvy&#39;s enterprise plan. </div><p>It is not a licence add-on or a professional services engagement — it is part of how we onboard enterprise clients, because we have found that firms who build their own simulations get significantly more value from the platform than those who rely entirely on pre-built content.</p><h2>Bottom Line</h2><p>Three sessions. Three weeks. By the end, your team has built real simulations, reviewed them to production standard, deployed them to your cohort, and established the measurement framework to prove their impact. That is the starting point — not the finish line.</p>

Train the Trainer: How BeSavvy helps your team build and run simulations

There is no single way to integrate simulations into legal training. This guide covers three proven approaches — and how to choose the right one for your firm.

<h2>Simulations work in any training structure. The question is where you put them.</h2><ol type="1"><li>Some firms want to keep their existing programme intact and add simulation as a layer. </li><li>Others want to replace large portions of their current approach.</li><li>Others are building something from scratch. </li></ol><p><b>BeSavvy supports all three </b>— and the right choice depends on your firm&#39;s bandwidth, existing infrastructure, and learning objectives.</p><p>This guide covers <u><b>four proven ways</b></u> to integrate simulations into a trainee programme, with practical guidance on each.</p><h2>Approach 1: Blended Learning</h2><p>Simulations sit alongside your existing programme — live sessions, webinars, mentoring, on-demand video — as an additional practice layer. Trainees complete a simulation after each learning module to apply what they have just covered.</p><p>The key advantage of this approach is <b>the data it generates. </b>BeSavvy tracks exactly where trainees struggled, which concepts were misapplied, and which tasks produced the most errors. This data feeds directly into your live sessions: instead of planning a generic debrief, trainers and partners arrive knowing the three specific issues that need addressing.</p><ul>
  <li>Keep your existing programme structure intact</li>
  <li>Add simulations as a practice layer after each module</li>
  <li>Use BeSavvy analytics to target problem zones in live sessions</li>
  <li>Reduce preparation time for facilitators significantly</li>
</ul><p>This is the lowest-friction way to get started and the most common entry point for firms with an established L&amp;D calendar.</p><h2>Approach 2: Independent On-Demand Training</h2><p><b>Simulations are organised into a knowledge hub</b> — a structured library of topics covering the skills your trainees need across their two years. Trainees access them either when a relevant matter arises in their seat, or by following a structured curriculum with completion deadlines set by the L&amp;D team.</p><p>This approach works particularly well for firms with trainees spread across multiple offices, practice groups, or seat rotations, where synchronised live sessions are difficult to coordinate. It also suits firms that want trainees to take more ownership of their own development.</p><ul>
  <li>Build a library of simulations organised by practice area and skill type</li>
  <li>Allow trainees to access relevant simulations when needed on the job</li>
  <li>Set completion deadlines for core topics across the cohort</li>
  <li>Track completion and performance centrally through the BeSavvy dashboard</li>
</ul><p>The on-demand model scales well. <u>Once the library is built, it runs with minimal ongoing facilitation.</u></p><h2>Approach 3: Simulation-Led (&quot;Flipped&quot;) Training</h2><p>Rather than using simulations to reinforce live teaching, this approach inverts the structure. Trainees complete simulations independently throughout the week or month. A short group session — thirty to forty minutes with a partner or senior associate — is then used exclusively to discuss outcomes, address specific gaps, and share insights from the most interesting cases.</p><p>BeSavvy prepares the discussion points automatically: </p><ul><li>which questions most trainees got wrong, </li><li>which issues were most commonly missed, </li><li>which outputs showed the strongest and weakest work.</li></ul><p>The partner or senior associate arrives at the session with a clear agenda, without spending time preparing it.</p><p><b>Advantages:</b></p><ul><li>Trainees do the practice independently, at their own pace</li><li>Live time with senior lawyers is reserved for <b>high-value discussion only</b></li><li>BeSavvy generates the discussion agenda from real performance data</li><li>Partners spend thirty to forty minutes per session, not half a day</li></ul><ul>
  Trainees do the practice independently, at their own pace
  Live time with senior lawyers is reserved for high-value discussion only
  BeSavvy generates the discussion agenda from real performance data
  Partners spend thirty to forty minutes per session, not half a day
</ul><p>This is the most efficient use of senior lawyer time and the approach that scales best as cohort sizes grow.</p><h2>Approach 4: Seat Onboarding Acceleration</h2><p><b>A targeted application of simulations at the start of each seat rotation.</b> Before a trainee touches live work in a new practice area, they complete a focused set of simulations covering the core tasks they will encounter in that seat.</p><p>The goal is simple: trainees arrive on day one of a seat already familiar with the standard tasks, the common errors, and the expected outputs. Partners and associates spend less time on basics. Trainees reach productive contribution faster.</p><ul>
  <li>Design a short simulation set for each practice area seat</li>
  <li>Trainees complete it in the first week of each rotation</li>
  <li>Partners receive a performance summary before the trainee starts live work</li>
  <li>Supervision time is focused on nuance and development, not fundamentals</li>
</ul><p>For firms running structured two-year training contracts with four to six seat rotations, this approach compounds significantly: each seat starts faster, and the data builds a longitudinal picture of each trainee&#39;s development across their contract.</p><h2>Which approach is right for your firm?</h2><table>
  <thead><tr><th>Approach</th><th>Best for</th><th>L&amp;D effort to set up</th><th>Ongoing facilitation needed</th></tr></thead>
  <tbody><tr><td>Blended Learning</td><td>Firms with an existing L&amp;D calendar</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium</td></tr><tr><td>On-Demand Hub</td><td>Dispersed teams, self-directed learners</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Simulation-Led (Flipped)</td><td>Firms with limited partner time</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Seat Onboarding</td><td>Structured two-year training contracts</td><td>Medium</td><td>Very low</td></tr></tbody>
</table><p>Most firms begin with one approach and expand into others as they see results. BeSavvy&#39;s onboarding team will work with you to identify the right starting point based on your cohort size, existing programme, and objectives.</p><h2>Bottom Line</h2><p>There is no single correct way to use simulations in legal training. What matters is that practice happens consistently, that performance data informs decisions, and that senior lawyer time is spent on what only senior lawyers can do. Any of the four approaches above will get you there — the differences are in how much structure you need and how much you want to change.</p>

How to structure a trainee programme around simulations

Partner time spent reviewing applications and facilitating assessments is one of the most expensive and least visible costs in graduate recruitment. This article shows how simulation makes that process faster, cheaper, and more objective.

<h2>Assessing 800 applicants is expensive. Most of the cost is invisible.</h2>
<p>Graduate recruitment consumes significant partner and associate time — reviewing applications, designing assessment exercises, running scheme weeks, and evaluating candidates under time pressure. Much of this assessment is subjective, difficult to compare across evaluators, and hard to defend if challenged.</p>
<p>Simulation offers a more efficient, more objective alternative for a significant portion of this process.</p>
<h2>What changes when you use simulation</h2>
<p>A simulation exercise embedded in the application process or scheme week creates a consistent, comparable data point for every candidate. It tests applied legal thinking — how someone actually structures a problem, prioritises issues, and drafts an output — rather than how well they perform in an interview or write a covering letter.</p>
<p>It also signals something to applicants: that your firm trains differently, takes practical skill seriously, and invests in the kind of technology that defines modern legal practice. For the generation you are recruiting, that matters.</p>
<h2>A rough calculation: application screening</h2>
<p>Assume a firm receives 800 vacation scheme applications. Partners review a shortlisted 200 at 20 minutes each.</p>
<table>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Variable</th>
      <th>Without simulation</th>
      <th>With simulation pre-screen</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Candidates reviewed by partners</td>
      <td>200</td>
      <td>60</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Partner review time</td>
      <td>67 hours</td>
      <td>20 hours</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Cost at £500/hour</td>
      <td>£33,500</td>
      <td>£10,000</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Saving per cycle</td>
      <td>—</td>
      <td><strong>£23,500</strong></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<h2>A rough calculation: assessment centre facilitation</h2>
<table>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Variable</th>
      <th>Figure</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Partners in attendance per centre</td>
      <td>3</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Days per centre</td>
      <td>2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Centres per year</td>
      <td>2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Total partner facilitation time</td>
      <td>48 hours</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Value of that time</td>
      <td><strong>£24,000</strong></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<p>Structured simulation data — completed independently by candidates before the assessment centre — replaces a meaningful portion of those exercises with a more objective, more scalable alternative.</p>
<h2>A further benefit: data that compounds</h2>
<p>Every cohort that completes a simulation assessment generates benchmarking data. Over two or three intake years, a firm begins to understand what high-performing candidates actually look like at the application stage — and can refine selection criteria accordingly. No other assessment format produces this at scale.</p>
<h2>Bottom Line</h2>
<p>Simulation does not replace the judgment that good recruiters bring to selection. It removes the low-value, high-cost work — bulk file review, inconsistent exercise scoring, facilitation of standard tasks — so that partner time is spent where it genuinely cannot be replaced.</p>

ROI: How to reduce the cost of vacation schemes and assessment centres

Telling lawyers that AI makes mistakes is not enough. This article explains why personal experience of failure is the only reliable way to change behaviour — and how to create it safely.

<h2>Telling lawyers that AI makes mistakes does not make them better at catching them.</h2><p>Most firms respond to AI risk with a policy document, a training session, or a cautionary email. These approaches share a fundamental problem: </p><div className="flag">They inform people that AI hallucinates. They do not give people the experience of being the one who missed it.</div><p>That distinction matters enormously.</p><h2>Why personal experience changes behaviour</h2><p>Research on error prevention in high-stakes professions consistently shows that behaviours change most reliably <b>when attitudes are formed through direct personal experience rather than instruction alone.</b> Trainees who encounter error situations early in their development are significantly more likely to treat errors as a real and ongoing risk — actively checking, questioning output, and seeking confirmation. Trainees who are only told about errors tend to rationalise them as unlikely.</p><p>The practical implication: </p><blockquote><em>a trainee who has personally relied on a hallucinated citation, produced a draft that survived two read-throughs before the error surfaced, and seen the consequences play out — that trainee checks differently. Permanently.</em></blockquote><h2>How BeSavvy builds this in</h2><p>BeSavvy embeds AI errors directly into simulations: hallucinated case citations, subtly incorrect clauses, plausible but fabricated due diligence findings. Trainees work with them exactly as they would in real life — drafting the advice, sending the email, submitting the review — and then see what happens next.</p><p>The goal is not to trick anyone. </p><p><b>It is to create the personal experience </b>of getting it wrong in an environment where the consequences feel real but remain contained.</p><h2>What this is worth</h2><p>Consider a single AI-related error reaching a client: a hallucinated citation in an opinion, an incorrect clause in a drafted agreement, or a missed risk in a due diligence report.</p><table>
  <thead><tr><th>Scenario</th><th>Cost estimate</th><th>50% probability reduction</th><th>Annual saving</th></tr></thead>
  <tbody><tr><td>Conservative error cost</td><td>£15,000</td><td>50%</td><td><b>£7,500</b></td></tr><tr><td>Mid-range error cost</td><td>£35,000</td><td>50%</td><td><b>£17,500</b></td></tr><tr><td>High-end error cost</td><td>£50,000</td><td>50%</td><td><b>£25,000</b></td></tr></tbody>
</table><p>This is before accounting for the productivity gains from trainees who use AI tools more efficiently and require less supervision to validate their output.</p><h2>Bottom Line</h2><p>The firms that will own the AI-era talent advantage are not those that told their juniors to be careful. They are those that made their juniors personally familiar with what carelessness costs — before it happened on a live matter.</p>

ROI: How to calculate the cost of AI errors — and prevent them through training

You can't improve what you can't measure. This article explains what performance data simulations generate, and how firms use it to focus training spend where it actually matters.

<h2>Most law firms don&#39;t know what their trainees actually know.</h2><ol type="1"><li>Assessment is inconsistent across supervisors. </li><li>Feedback varies by team and seat. </li><li>Performance reviews capture impressions, not evidence. </li></ol><p>When a trainee qualifies, the firm has a strong sense of whether they were good — but <u><b>limited data on why, or on what specifically they still need to develop.</b></u></p><p>Simulations change this.</p><h2>What simulation data looks like</h2><p>Every time a trainee works through a simulation, structured performance data is generated:</p><ul>
  <li>Which concepts are consistently misunderstood</li>
  <li>Which task types produce the most errors</li>
  <li>How quickly individuals improve across attempts</li>
  <li>Where the gap between cohorts is widest</li>
</ul><p>This data is comparable across teams, offices, and intake years. It does not depend on which partner happened to supervise a given seat.</p><h2>Two direct applications</h2><h3>1. More targeted training spend</h3><p>Without data, firms run the same sessions for everyone. With it, you stop covering topics people already understand and focus resources on real gaps — saving facilitation time and improving outcomes simultaneously.</p><h3>2. Better development planning</h3><p>Simulation performance data allows seat allocation and qualification decisions to be informed by demonstrated capability, not just supervisor impression. For firms running structured talent programmes, this is a meaningful competitive advantage.</p><h2>A rough calculation</h2><p>If data-driven training planning eliminates two unnecessary full-day workshops per year:</p><table>
  <thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Figure</th></tr></thead>
  <tbody><tr><td>Cost of one firm-wide training day (30 trainees)</td><td>£15,000–£25,000</td></tr><tr><td>Sessions eliminated per year</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Annual saving</td><td><b>£30,000–£50,000</b></td></tr></tbody>
</table><p>That figure does not include the harder-to-quantify benefit of catching development gaps before they reach clients.</p><h2>Bottom Line</h2><p>The best training programmes are not the ones with the most content — they are the ones that <em><b>know where to focus</b></em>. Simulation is the only format that generates the performance data needed to make that judgement with confidence.</p>

ROI: How to use simulator training data to make smarter L&D decisions

Most law firms don't measure how long it takes a trainee to become competent. This article shows how to calculate that gap — and what it costs every week it stays open.

<h2>The real cost of legal training isn&#39;t the programme. It&#39;s the gap.</h2><div className="flag">In most law firms, there is a structural delay between when a junior lawyer learns something and when they find out whether they can apply it. </div><p>They attend a session in October. They encounter a real situation in February. A partner reviews their work in March. Feedback arrives — five months after the original learning.</p><p>That gap has a direct cost. Every week a junior lawyer operates below competency represents lost billable output, senior time spent on rework, and delayed professional development.</p><blockquote><em><b>The job of a simulation is to close this gap.</b></em></blockquote><h2>How the loop works in traditional training</h2><ul><li>A trainee receives instruction → </li><li>applies it on a live matter → </li><li>gets feedback from a partner/senior lawyer→ </li><li>adjusts their approach.</li></ul><p>In a well-run team, this cycle takes four to eight weeks. In a stretched one, it can take a full seat rotation — or never close at all, if the trainee doesn&#39;t get the right matter at the right time.</p><h2>How simulation compresses it</h2><ul><li>A trainee receives instruction → </li><li>works through a realistic scenario → </li><li>produces an output → </li><li>receives structured feedback immediately → </li><li>repeats with variation.</li></ul><p>The same cycle now <b>takes hours, not months.</b> And it repeats as many times as needed, on demand, without requiring a partner to be available.</p><h2>What this is worth</h2><p>Assume simulation training reduces average time-to-competency on a core task by four weeks per trainee.</p><table>
  <thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Figure</th></tr></thead>
  <tbody><tr><td>Trainee fully-loaded annual cost</td><td>£80,000</td></tr><tr><td>Weekly cost</td><td>£1,540</td></tr><tr><td>Value of 4 weeks recovered per trainee</td><td>£6,150</td></tr><tr><td>Across a cohort of 30</td><td><b>£185,000</b></td></tr></tbody>
</table><p><u>That is a single skill area.</u> A structured trainee programme typically covers six to ten task types across two years.</p><h2>Bottom Line</h2><p>Time-to-competency is not an abstract concept — it is a measurable gap with a calculable cost. Simulations do not replace the feedback a good partner provides. They ensure trainees arrive at that conversation already competent, rather than using it to catch up.</p>

ROI: How to measure the real cost of slow feedback loops in legal training

Discover how a law firm used BeSavvy to train junior lawyers in crucial due diligence skills, reducing the need for 127 hours of senior lawyer involvement. Learn how personalised simulators, AI-driven feedback, and engaging scenarios transformed their training process, boosting efficiency and skill retention.

<h2>1. Introduction</h2><p>A law firm’s workflow for preparing a client for a transaction involves requesting specific documents, analysing them, and using the insights to move the transaction forward. Since the analysis process is uniquely developed in-house, external solutions can’t be used to streamline this task. For junior lawyers, mastering this process quickly and reliably is essential.</p><div className="flag">BeSavvy transforms this challenge <b>by creating simulators</b> <b>tailored to the firm's existing documents and processes</b>. </div><p>This ensures every junior lawyer has a personalised training system. By eliminating the gaps between learning, practising, and receiving feedback, BeSavvy accelerates skill acquisition, making it up to three times faster.</p><h2>2. The Challenge: training juniors&#39; practical skills without the direct involvement of seniors</h2><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733388666/savvy/Woman_in_Mustard_Sweater_qgftws.jpg alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><p>The law firm had a key challenge: training junior lawyers like Sarah, a recent graduate eager to prove herself, to master their unique transaction preparation process. </p><p>The workflow involved requesting and analysing specific client documents, then applying those insights to facilitate transactions.<b> </b><em><b>However, the firm’s in-house Due Diligence system was unlike anything Sarah had encountered in law school or internships.</b></em></p><p>Sarah found herself overwhelmed. Without prior experience with the bespoke system and minimal hands-on practice, she struggled to keep up. Training sessions were sporadic, and feedback was often delayed, leaving her uncertain about her progress. Meanwhile, senior lawyers, already stretched thin with client work, couldn’t dedicate enough time to guide her through the process.</p><blockquote><em>In the meantime, approachability and high-quality supervision are key to attracting top-talent, </em><a href="https://www.legal500.com/future-lawyers/2024/02/20/what-factors-should-i-consider-when-choosing-a-law-firm-2/" target=”_blank”><em>according to Legal 500</em></a><em>. So no law firm should neglect it!</em></blockquote><p>This situation wasn’t unique to Sarah. Other junior lawyers at the firm faced similar hurdles, resulting in:</p><ul><li>Delayed onboarding and reduced efficiency.</li><li>Uneven training outcomes, with some associates taking much longer to get up to speed.</li><li>Missed opportunities for juniors to contribute meaningfully during critical transactions.</li></ul><p>The firm needed a solution that could give juniors like Sarah a clear, hands-on training experience tailored to their unique processes — one that would empower them to succeed faster and more confidently.</p><blockquote><em>BTW. Good formal training program for attorneys is one of the criteria that </em><a href="https://law.yale.edu/choosing-right-employer-you-0" target=”_blank”><em>Yale University recommends</em></a><em> future lawyers to use when choosing their place of work!</em></blockquote><p></p><h2>3. The Solution: using simulators in law firm training</h2><p>To address the training challenge, BeSavvy worked closely with the law firm to create a tailored solution. By developing a customised simulator that mirrored the firm&#39;s unique document analysis process, BeSavvy was able to provide an effective and efficient way for junior lawyers to gain the skills they needed. Here&#39;s how the implementation unfolded:</p><h3>Specific Features and Modules Used</h3><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733390245/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-05_at_13.15.34_pxbavd.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p><b>1. Document Analysis Simulators</b></p><p>BeSavvy developed simulators built around real, anonymised documents from previous transactions. This ensured junior lawyers could train with realistic, relevant materials.</p><p><b>2. Step-by-Step Guidance</b></p><p>Simulators included:</p><ul><li><b>Guided steps for document requests, analysis, and application: </b>This provided a clear structure for juniors to follow, ensuring they understood each stage of the process.</li><li><b>Training for key skills: </b>The simulator allowed trainees to practice analysing documents, identifying key information, and generating insights.</li><li><b>Automated feedback:</b> BeSavvy’s AI system provided instant, actionable feedback on every action taken by the junior lawyer, helping them improve their skills in real-time.</li></ul><p><b>3. Personalised Training Paths</b></p><p>The simulator adapted to each junior’s performance, providing additional practice or guidance where needed. This ensured that every trainee progressed at their own pace, mastering the required skills with confidence.</p><h3>Timeline for Implementation</h3><p>The implementation was completed in just six weeks, ensuring the firm could quickly integrate the solution and begin training junior lawyers. The timeline was broken down as follows:</p><p><b>Week 1–2: Consultation and Workflow Analysis</b></p><ul><li>BeSavvy conducted consultations with the firm to understand their document review workflow.</li><li>Using AI algorithms, BeSavvy extracted relevant information from the firm’s documents and began building the simulator around this knowledge, minimising the workload for the firm.</li></ul><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733391008/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-05_at_13.29.10_ffatkc.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><p><b>Week 3–4: Development and Testing</b></p><ul><li>BeSavvy identified the key skills to be developed in each simulator and set clear goals.</li><li>The simulator&#39;s structure was developed, incorporating training loops designed to:</li></ul><ol type="1"><li>Help the junior lawyer learn new skills.</li><li> Provide opportunities for practice.</li><li>Offer feedback to improve performance.</li><li>Encourage reflection to integrate the skill into their overall skillset.</li></ol><ul><li>Additional components like explanation blocks, practice blocks, and reflection blocks were created.</li><li>BeSavvy tested and refined the simulator, including personalising the feedback and assessment algorithms.</li></ul><p><b>Week 5: Feedback and Refinement</b></p><ul><li>BeSavvy shipped the simulators to the client for senior lawyers to complete.</li><li>Feedback was collected from senior lawyers and analysed to improve the simulators and update the algorithms.</li><li>A production version of the simulators was then released based on this feedback.</li></ul><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733391345/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-05_at_13.35.12_oylfzw.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p><b>Week 6: Deployment and Onboarding</b></p><ul><li>The simulators were deployed, and junior lawyers were granted access to the training materials.</li><li>BeSavvy provided onboarding through an online webinar and ensured continuous support throughout the process.</li><li>BeSavvy monitored the juniors&#39; learning activities and collected data to assess their progress, providing assistance if needed.</li></ul><h3>Number of Simulators</h3><p>A total of 8 simulators were created to address the training needs of the junior lawyers. The breakdown of how this number was calculated is as follows:</p><p><b>1. Training Loops:</b> Each simulator included 3 training loops, with each loop comprising up to 5 learning elements designed to:</p><ol type="1"><li>Teach a new skill.</li><li>Offer practice for that skill.</li><li>Provide feedback on practice.</li><li>Help the trainee reflect and integrate the skill.</li></ol><p><b>2. Skills Identified</b>: After analysing the document review workflow, BeSavvy identified <b>22 key training elements. </b>These were used to create 8 separate simulators that covered all necessary skills.</p><p>By combining customisation with a streamlined implementation process, BeSavvy helped the firm transform its training program, making it more efficient, engaging, and scalable. </p><div className="flag">Junior lawyers gained the confidence and competence they needed to excel in their roles—faster and with greater reliability.</div><blockquote><em>Firms that want to capture best talent </em><a href="https://natlawreview.com/article/guide-to-attract-and-retain-lawyers-and-law-students" target=”_blank”><em>need to include a variety of opportunities to</em></a><em> show their investment in new recruits, such as coaching services, professional development, career planning, CLE training options, and stress management workshops. Simulators can be one of them!</em></blockquote><h2></h2><h2>4. What we have built with BeSavvy, AI and simulators</h2><p>Here are some key elements from the simulators we created:</p><h3>An Engaging Storyline to Boost Retention</h3><p>To enhance memorability, we developed an engaging narrative with relatable characters. </p><blockquote><a href="https://www.harvardbusiness.org/what-makes-storytelling-so-effective-for-learning/" target=”_blank”><em>Research by Peg Neuhauser</em></a><em> shows that learning tied to a well-told story is remembered more accurately and for longer compared to facts and figures. This approach makes complex concepts easier to grasp and retain.</em></blockquote><p><em><b>⬇️ Example</b></em><em>: Interactive dialogues with different characters that immerse students in real-world scenarios.</em></p><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733398625/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-05_at_15.33.58_jplwxl.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><h3>Seamless Integration of Knowledge into Practice</h3><p>All new knowledge is applied directly within the context of documents, bridging the gap between theory and practice. Students dive into the documents immediately, learning as they go.</p><p><em><b>⬇️ Example</b></em><em>: Built-in text editors for annotating, analysing, and applying knowledge directly within the simulator.</em></p><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733398636/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-05_at_15.36.35_ohjxg7.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><h3>Realistic Scenarios That Demand Action</h3><p>We designed scenarios where students encounter documents containing realistic challenges that require decisive action.</p><p>Unlike multiple-choice questions (MCQs), open-ended questions (OEQs), although traditionally avoided due to evaluation complexity (<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10528008.2024.2417106#d1e697" target=”_blank”>Taylor &amp; Francis research)</a>, better mimic real-life situations, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357529129_Analysis_of_Multiple-choice_versus_Open-ended_Questions_in_Language_Tests_According_to_Different_Cognitive_Domain_Levels#:~:text=Open%2Dended%20tests%20eliminate%20the,1992%3B%20Polat%2C%202020" target=”_blank”>fostering deeper skill development</a>. BeSavvy’s advanced AI algorithms ensure effective and scalable assessment of OEQs.</p><p><em>⬇️ </em><em><b>Example</b></em><em>: Simulators present nuanced situations that demand critical thinking and immediate responses.</em></p><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733398644/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-05_at_15.35.00_iqzvxa.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><div className="flag">By incorporating these elements, BeSavvy ensures that trainees are engaged, applying their skills practically, and being evaluated accurately in a realistic and interactive environment.</div><h2>5. Results: how simulators increase engagement and skill adoption</h2><p>The implementation of BeSavvy’s tailored simulator had a significant impact on the firm’s training program. Here are the key outcomes:</p><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733391683/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-05_at_13.41.00_g2hygo.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><ol type="1"><li><b>Completion Rate.</b> All <b>16 junior lawyers</b> successfully completed all 8 simulators, demonstrating full engagement with the training program. This high completion rate highlights the effectiveness of the simulators in keeping the juniors focused and committed.</li><li><b>Net Promoter Score (NPS). </b><u>The average NPS for all simulators was 9.3. </u>First simulators showed lower NPS of 7 which can be explained by the juniors’ fear of making mistakes and familiarisation with the new format.** This improvement reflects the growing satisfaction of the junior lawyers as they became more familiar with how to use the simulator effectively. Their increasing confidence with the system contributed to a higher overall rating.</li><li><b>Time Efficiency.</b> The average time to complete a simulator initially was <b>1 hour 23 minutes</b>, but as the juniors became more accustomed to the system, the time decreased to <b>46 minutes</b>. This reduction in time demonstrates how quickly the juniors adapted to the training process, significantly improving efficiency.    </li><li><b>Skills Development Tracking</b>. BeSavvy’s system effectively identified both the <b>skills that were successfully developed</b> and the areas where further assistance was required. For skills that still needed improvement, the system suggested <b>mentor review sessions</b> or focused training, ensuring that juniors received the support they needed to progress.</li><li><b>Feedback from Junior Lawyers.</b> The junior lawyers found the training experience to be engaging, unique and focused on practical application. They highlighted how the simulators helped them better understand how to perform real-world tasks and apply their learning directly to their work, making the experience feel highly relevant and impactful. <b>**Links and visuals: Quote?</b></li><li><b>Cost Savings.</b> A personalised training approach similar to BeSavvy’s would have required <b>128 hours</b> of senior lawyer time, resulting in an estimated cost of <b>$102,400 USD</b> for the law firm. This significant saving underscores the efficiency of BeSavvy’s automated, personalised training system, which delivers high-quality results at a fraction of the cost.</li></ol><p>In summary, BeSavvy’s tailored training simulators delivered impressive results, including improved efficiency, enhanced skills development, and substantial cost savings for the firm. Junior lawyers gained practical skills quickly and confidently, with valuable feedback on their progress.</p><blockquote><em>This creates an environment that </em><a href="https://law.yale.edu/student-life/career-development/students/career-pathways/law-firms/assessing-law-firms-culture-clients-compensation-and-beyond#training_development" target=”_blank”><em>Yale describes as a great place to work</em></a><em>: "Associates are more likely to thrive in settings where expectations are clearly defined, performance is periodically evaluated, and regular feedback is provided"</em></blockquote><h2></h2><h2>6. Key Takeaways</h2><p>This use case illustrates the powerful impact BeSavvy’s training simulators can have on a law firm’s onboarding and development processes. Key takeaways include:</p><ol type="1"><li><b>Personalised, Scalable Training. </b>BeSavvy’s customised simulators offer a personalised learning experience, adapting to the individual needs of junior lawyers. This scalability ensures that firms can efficiently train large teams while addressing specific skill gaps for each individual, increasing overall effectiveness.</li><li><b>Significant Time and Cost Savings.</b> By automating and streamlining the training process, BeSavvy reduces the need for extensive senior lawyer involvement, saving both time and money. For this law firm, the cost of running a similar personalised training program manually would have been over $102,000 USD. (127 hours / 800 USD an hour) BeSavvy provides a highly cost-effective alternative without compromising on quality.</li><li><b>Engaging and Practical Learning Experience.</b> The interactive and hands-on nature of the simulators ensures that junior lawyers not only learn but also apply their skills in realistic scenarios. Feedback from the juniors highlighted how engaging and relevant the training was, enhancing their overall experience and improving their confidence in performing key tasks.</li><li><b>Continuous Improvement and Data-Driven Insights. </b>BeSavvy’s system tracks and analyses each lawyer’s progress, identifying areas for improvement and offering targeted support. This data-driven approach allows firms to continuously refine their training programs and offer additional mentorship where needed.</li></ol><h3>Application to Other Clients</h3><p>This solution can be applied to other law firms or businesses facing similar challenges of quickly training new hires or improving specific skills within their teams. Whether it’s document review, contract negotiation, or any other critical process, BeSavvy’s training simulators can be customised to mirror existing workflows, making training more efficient, engaging, and cost-effective. Other organisations, such as compliance departments or corporate legal teams, could also benefit from BeSavvy’s personalised, scalable learning system to train staff and improve operational efficiency.</p>

How Law Firms Use BeSavvy to Teach Crucial Due Diligence Skills and Save 127 Hours of Senior Lawyers’ Time

Simulation technology offers a transformative approach to learning and development in law firms. With real-world scenarios and instant feedback, they bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. This not only enhances skill development but also provides a measurable impact on job performance.

<h2>Brief overview</h2><p>The legal industry faces pressing challenges in training and skill development, traditionally relying on methods like lectures, workshops, and webinars. While adequate, these methods are time-consuming, costly, and often fail to provide measurable ROI or high retention rates. In a rapidly evolving landscape marked by technological advancements, simulation technology emerges as a game-changing solution. It offers a myriad of applications ranging from recruitment and onboarding to ongoing internal training and specialized programs. Moreover, simulation technology allows for real-time analytics that can fundamentally redefine KPIs in learning and development (L&amp;D).</p><p><b>Traditional Training Limitations:</b> The old models are time-intensive and costly, with low engagement and retention rates. The industry spends about $9.1 billion annually due to turnover, partly stemming from ineffective training.</p><p><b>The Need for Modern L&D</b>: Given the complexity and competitiveness of the legal industry, a robust L&amp;D strategy is essential for talent retention, skill enhancement, and maintaining a competitive edge.</p><p><b>Simulation Technology Advantages:</b></p><ul><li>Cost-Effectiveness: Can save up to 30% in annual training costs.</li><li>Time-Efficiency: Reduces training time by up to 50%.</li><li>High Engagement: Up to 80% of learners find simulations more engaging.</li><li>Mistake-Friendly Environment: Allows for risk-free, practical skill development.</li><li>Measurable Impact: Provides real-time analytics, offering clear ROI data.</li></ul><p><b>Applications of Simulation:</b></p><ul><li>Recruitment: Attracts better-prepared talent.</li><li>Onboarding: Makes the process more efficient.</li><li>Ongoing Training: Facilitates quick updates in a continually changing legal environment.</li><li>Specialized Programs: Tailored for niche areas like compliance.</li><li>Assessments: Provides a more rounded picture of training effectiveness.</li></ul><h2>Background</h2><p>The legal industry is a complex and dynamic field that requires continual learning and skill development. For years, law firms have relied on traditional training methods such as workshops, seminars, and webinars to keep their teams up-to-date with the latest legal frameworks, technologies, and client management strategies. While these traditional approaches have served firms adequately, there are inherent challenges. They often consume significant amounts of time and resources, and their impact on skill retention and real-world applicability may be limited.</p><p>In an era characterized by rapid technological advancements and rising client expectations, there&#39;s an increasing need for innovative solutions to modernize the learning and development (L&amp;D) landscape in law firms. The most evident solution is the combination of the tools that have proven their efficiency over the decades (one-to-one mentorship, hands-on practice) with the tools that have become available just now: interactive web-based learning, natural language processing (NLP), and generative AI.</p><h2>Importance of Learning and Development in Law Firms</h2><p>In any competitive industry, the value of L&amp;D cannot be overstated, and law is no exception. An effective L&amp;D strategy serves multiple crucial functions within a law firm:</p><ul><li><b>Talent Attraction and Retention</b>. Skilled professionals are attracted to organizations that invest in their development. A robust L&amp;D program can be<a href="https://www.legalcheek.com/the-firms-most-list/?metakey=_cmb_scorecard_training" target=”_blank”> a significant draw for top talent</a> and can serve as an incentive for existing staff to stay with the firm. And attracting top employees (both fee-earners and support staff members ) <a href="https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/business-management/financial-benchmarking-survey-2023" target=”_blank”>remains the key objective of law firms</a> despite economic difficulties.</li><li><b>Skill Enhancement</b>. Legal professionals need a wide range of skills, from research and litigation to negotiation and client management. Effective L&amp;D programs can facilitate the development of these diverse skill sets, enabling lawyers to offer better services to their clients. The importance of skill development is proved by the emphasis law firms make on this part of their work (<a href="https://www.kirkland.com/content/legal-education-and-development" target=”_blank”>example</a>).</li><li><b>Competitive Advantage.</b> Firms that invest in L&amp;D are more likely <a href="https://www.commerciallaw.academy/pages/blog?p=how-do-law-firms-maintain-a-competitive-advantage" target=”_blank”>to stay ahead of the curve</a> when it comes to legal technologies, methodologies, and best practices. This competitive edge can be instrumental in winning clients and cases.</li><li><b>Employee Engagement and Satisfaction.</b> Investing in L&amp;D <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-companies-should-invest-learning-development-how-implement-kosal/" target=”_blank”>shows employees that the firm is committed to their professional growth</a>. This often leads to increased job satisfaction, higher engagement levels, and, ultimately, better performance. </li></ul><div className="flag"><p>According to JD Match and Right Profile, the top 400 law firms lose about <b>$9.1 billion annually</b> due to turnover—with an approximate cost to a firm of $400k to $800k each time an associate leaves the firm.</p></div><h2>The Challenge: Traditional Training Methods</h2><p>Traditional methods of training within law firms, such as lectures, workshops, and online courses, often face a number of limitations:</p><p><b>Time-Consuming</b></p><p>The average attorney spends approximately <a href="https://www.lorman.com/Minimum-CLE-Hours-by-State" target=”_blank”>15 hours per year on CLE</a>, 30 hours of in-house training, and hundreds of hours on watching videos and researching new topics. This often takes time away from billable hours and client work. </p><p><b>Limited Retention</b></p><p>Studies show that learners retain just <a href="Studies show that learners retain just 10-20% of information obtained from traditional lectures. This begs the question: How effective is this mode of learning for the practical application of skills?" target=”_blank”>10-20% of information obtained from traditional lectures</a>. This begs the question: How effective is this mode of learning for the practical application of skills?</p><p><b>Costs and ROI</b></p><p>The average law firm spends about <a href="https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/cost-to-train-new-employee" target=”_blank”>$1,200 per employee per year on training</a>, with some top-tier firms spending up to $5,000. Yet, the returns on this investment, in terms of skills development and retention, often remain unclear.</p><p>Legal firms will typically purchase online video training programs for their associates. This can be an inexpensive route to take, with a cost per associate of approximately <a href="https://www.altaclaro.com/insights/the-hidden-cost-of-legal-training" target=”_blank”>$500-$1k</a>. But again the ROI of such training is next to impossible to count. <a href="https://savvytraining.com/how-can-i-measure-training-roi-at-my-law-firm/" target=”_blank”>50% of companies felt it was difficult to measure their training ROI. </a>That&#39;s why an overwhelming 61% of training leaders said that they don’t measure training ROI.<a href="https://savvytraining.com/how-can-i-measure-training-roi-at-my-law-firm/" target=”_blank”>link</a></p><p><b>Limited Engagement</b></p><p>Survey data indicates that only about 40% of trainees find traditional training programs to be engaging, limiting the effectiveness of the training.</p><h2>The Solution: Simulation Technology</h2><p>Simulation training may sound just like another fancy technology until we see how it can help law firms solve the inherent problems connected with training.</p><p><b>Data-driven training</b></p><p>Simulation training may provide extensive data on how the students are developing their skills. This data can be used to assess the efficiency of existing training programs and the readiness of the lawyers for real-life projects.</p><p>This gives the L&amp;D team transparent indicators and tools to make their next decisions.</p><p>Cost-Effectiveness</p><p>Simulation training is characterized by long-term usability, scalability, and the reduced need for external trainers.  Simulations can reduce the time needed for training by <a href="https://www.infoprolearning.com/blog/simulation-based-learning-the-future-of-learning-development/" target=”_blank”>up to 50%</a>, allowing lawyers to quickly apply learned skills in their day-to-day work.</p><p><b>Mistake-friendly environment</b></p><p>Reports say that students say that they prefer simulators to other types of training because simulators <a href="https://www.kansashsc.org/blog/the-benefits-of-simulation-based-training/" target=”_blank”>create a mistake-friendly environment.</a><a href="https://www.kansashsc.org/blog/the-benefits-of-simulation-based-training/" target=”_blank”>link</a></p><p><b>Engagement</b></p><p>Studies show that <a href="https://www.learndash.com/did-you-know-this-about-gamification/#:~:text=80%25 of learners say that,increased competition among the students." target=”_blank”>up to 80% of learners claim they would be more productive</a> if their work was more game-like, which is an essential aspect of many training simulations. And AI technologies available now to any company have <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369385210_Education_in_the_Era_of_Generative_Artificial_Intelligence_AI_Understanding_the_Potential_Benefits_of_ChatGPT_in_Promoting_Teaching_and_Learning" target=”_blank”>brought interactivity to a new level.</a></p><p><b>Measurable Impact</b></p><p>Simulations offer real-time analytics and reporting tools, <a href="https://www.usa.edu/blog/simulation-in-education/" target=”_blank”>allowing for measurable KPIs</a> such as training attendance rate, course completion rate, post-training assessments, and more. This provides clear data on the ROI of the training program.</p><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1696337783/savvy/Screenshot_2023-10-03_at_16.55.46_vvpimo.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><h2>The Case for Simulation Technology in a Law Firm</h2><p>Simulation technology offers a transformative approach to learning and development. Traditional training methods like lectures and webinars are often static, one-way forms of communication. In contrast, simulators like those for drafting, compliance, and due diligence create a dynamic, two-way interaction. They allow lawyers to develop practical skills in a risk-free environment, complete with instant feedback on their performance.</p><p><b>Applications of Simulation Technology</b></p><p>Simulation technology is versatile, and able to address a range of needs within the legal education and training landscape. Here are some primary applications where it can make a significant impact:</p><ol type="1"><li><b>Attracting New Talent.</b> Simulators serve as a powerful tool for recruitment. Prospective lawyers can engage with these simulators to gain a realistic idea of what working at your firm might entail. This not only helps them build essential skills but also gives them a sense of familiarity with your firm&#39;s culture and practices. As a result, you can attract and invite qualified and well-prepared students to join your team when the need arises.</li><li><b>Streamlined Onboarding.</b> For new hires, the onboarding process can often feel overwhelming. Simulators offer a way to make this process more efficient, focused, and effective. New employees can be brought up to speed quickly, learning your firm&#39;s procedures and protocols in a hands-on, interactive manner.</li><li><b>Ongoing Internal Training</b>. Continuous learning is crucial in the legal sector, where laws and regulations can change frequently. Simulators offer an adaptable solution for internal training, allowing for quick updates and iterations as needed. Whether it&#39;s a refresher on contract law or an introduction to new regulations, simulators provide a practical, user-friendly platform for internal education.</li><li><b>One-to-One Mentorship</b>. Traditionally, mentorship in law firms occurs through one-on-one interaction, which can be both time-consuming and inconsistent. Simulators can augment these experiences, offering a<a href="https://publicservicesalliance.org/2023/02/09/future-of-learning-in-age-of-ai-5-predictions-by-andreessen-horowitz/" target=”_blank”> &quot;virtual mentor&quot; that provides personalized, instant feedback</a>. This hybrid approach can result in a more effective and consistent mentorship program.</li><li><b>Specialized Training Programs</b>. Some areas of law require highly specialized knowledge and skills, such as compliance or due diligence. Specialized simulators can be developed for these niche areas, ensuring that lawyers are not just well-versed in theory but are also proficient in practical application.</li><li><b>Assessments and Analytics</b>. Beyond training, simulation technology can be employed for assessments. Traditional KPIs like training attendance and course completion rates can be supplemented with data on user engagement, common error patterns, and areas that may require further focus. This gives a more rounded picture of training effectiveness and areas for improvement.</li></ol><div className="flag"><p>And all these processes will now rely on real-time data gathered from every step the student makes on a simulator.</p></div><p>In summary, simulation technology provides an array of applications that can fundamentally revolutionize the way law firms approach recruitment, onboarding, internal training, mentorship, and ongoing assessment. Its versatility, adaptability, and data-driven nature make it an essential tool for any forward-thinking law firm.</p><p><b>Common Concerns</b></p><ul><li><b>Data Security and Privacy:</b> The challenge of maintaining data security and privacy can be significant, especially when integrating new platforms or technologies. One solution could be to opt for services that comply with international security certifications, such as ISO 27001 or GDPR. Companies can also enforce end-to-end encryption and multi-factor authentication to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to sensitive data. Moreover, regular audits and penetration testing can provide an additional layer of security.</li><li><b>Efficacy of AI</b>: The unpredictability of AI can be a concern. To address this, companies can add a special layer to prevent hallucinations and errors. Or the companies can use AI as a guide while making sure that the initial question and final answer are still provided by a real person.</li><li><b>Costs of integration. </b>The financial aspect of integrating new technologies can be a significant concern for many companies. Costs can include not just the price of the software or service itself, but also the training required for employees and any system overhauls that may be needed. To mitigate this, companies can opt for scalable solutions that allow for smaller initial investments with the option to expand as the need arises. </li></ul><h2>Updating Core L&amp;D KPIs with Simulation Technology</h2><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1696857589/savvy/Screenshot_2023-10-09_at_17.18.41_yb97xk.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><h2><p>Key Takeaways</p></h2><ol type="1"><li>Skill Adoption Over Attendance: Unlike traditional training, where attendance might be high but engagement low, Simulator Skill Development Level can offer a more accurate measure of both.</li><li><b>Instant Assessments:</b> The real-time nature of feedback in simulators means we can move from post-training assessments to in-the-moment analytics, capturing how well learners are applying their skills during the simulation itself.</li><li><b>Quantifying Job Impact: </b>Traditional metrics like job performance can be hard to quantify. Simulators, with their data analytics, can directly link learning outcomes with job performance metrics, adding a layer of accountability and effectiveness to your KPIs.</li><li><b>Cost Analysis:</b> The initial cost of setting up a simulator might be higher than traditional training materials, but the Simulator ROI could be significantly higher over time, due to reduced updating costs and the scalability of the simulator programs.</li><li><b>Quality and Relevancy: </b>Traditional training materials can quickly become outdated. Simulators can be updated in real-time, ensuring the training content lawyers are interacting with is always current.</li></ol><h2>Conclusions</h2><p>Simulation technology offers a transformative approach to learning and development in law firms. With real-world scenarios and instant feedback, they bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. This not only enhances skill development but also provides a measurable impact on job performance. Coupled with the ability to update key KPIs to reflect this new mode of training, law firms are well-positioned to optimize their learning and development initiatives for the future.</p><p>In sum, as the legal industry becomes more competitive and the skills required for success become more complex, the case for integrating simulation technology into law firm training programs is not just compelling—it&#39;s imperative.</p>

Report: Integrating Simulations into Law Firm Learning and Development

Struggling to get your team to adopt legal tech? It’s not about the tools. It’s about showing when and why to use them. Simulations make this simple by turning training into a hands-on, engaging experience that helps lawyers see when and how to use the new tech.

<h2>1. Hurdles to Legal Tech Adoption</h2><p>Adopting new legal technology in a law firm can be a challenging process. Lawyers often face significant barriers such as:</p><ul><li><b>Lack of time and incentives:</b> Busy lawyers may find it difficult to dedicate time to training on new tools, especially when their current processes, though inefficient, feel more comfortable. A study <a href="https://avvoka.com/blog/legaltech-barriers-to-adoption/" target=”_blank”>found that only 22%</a> of legal professionals felt adequately trained in the technology they use. Without proper incentives or a structured approach to training, new technology often fails to gain traction in a firm.</li><li><b>Resistance to change:</b> Lawyers are <a href="https://www.opus2.com/legal-tech-adoption/" target=”_blank”>accustomed to traditional workflows</a>, and resistance to change is common. This reluctance to move away from familiar methods is a key barrier to adopting new tools.</li><li><b>Unclear benefits:</b> If legal professionals don&#39;t understand how new technology will make their work more efficient, they are<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/legal-tech-done-right-step-by-step-adoption-guide-nishant-bhaskar-n5ulc/" target=”_blank”> less likely to engage with it</a>.</li></ul><h2>2. Why Training is the Solution</h2><p>Training is one of the most effective solutions to overcoming these adoption barriers. However, traditional training methods often fail to engage lawyers. To be truly effective, training must be:</p><ul><li><b>Engaging and practical:</b> Training should give lawyers an opportunity to use the new tools in a real-life situation, not just share new knowledge.</li><li><b>(➡️) Tailored to different learning styles</b>: Lawyers <a href="https://www.opus2.com/legal-tech-adoption/" target=”_blank”>have varied preferences</a>, so training should include a mix of formats, such as hands-on sessions, online tutorials, and live demonstrations.</li><li><b>Incentivised</b>: Incorporating training into work hours or making it a billable activity can encourage participation.</li></ul><h2>3. The Different Aspects of Efficiency in Legal Tech Training</h2><p>Legal Tech Adoption Training can be divided into 2 parts:</p><ol type="1"><li>When to use the tool?</li><li>How to use the tool?</li></ol><p>While the latter may seem more critical, <b>it is often not the primary barrier to adoption.</b> </p><p>As highlighted earlier, many lawyers fail to adopt new tools not because they lack understanding of how to use them, but because they do not see the need or understand the benefits. Without clear incentives or recognition of when a tool is necessary, the motivation to engage with it is minimal.</p><p>Once the problem at hand becomes clear, users are more likely to understand how the tool can address it effectively. </p><div className="flag">Therefore, the primary goal of legal tech adoption training is to establish when the tool should be used and how it can add value to the workflow.</div><p>Moreover, efficient legal tech training must include key components that enhance the learning process:</p><ul><li><b>Repetition</b>: <a href="https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/oxford_lawtech_adoption_and_training_survey_report_18_march_2.pdf" target=”_blank”>Repeated practice</a> with the tools helps solidify their use in everyday tasks.</li><li><b>Practice</b>: Practical application of the technology through real-life scenarios allows lawyers to understand its value in the context of their work.</li><li><b>Help and Feedback</b>: Immediate feedback and help when needed ensure that any mistakes are addressed and corrections are made in real time.</li></ul><h2>4. Simulations for Legal Tech Training</h2><p>Simulations provide a compelling way to train legal professionals on new technology by replicating real-life scenarios and workflows. Here’s how BeSavvy simulations can help law firms adopt new legal tech tools:</p><h3>4.1 When Needed?</h3><div className="flag">Simulations are particularly valuable when the objective is to explain how <b>a legal tech tool integrates into a lawyer’s daily workflow.</b></div><p>For example, if a firm adopts an AI assistant tool, a simulation can guide lawyers through using it in the context of drafting legal documents, offering them a chance to see the tool in action.</p><h3>4.2 How?</h3><p>A BeSavvy simulation can be designed to guide lawyers through specific tasks, such as a contract review process. </p><p>For instance, a BeSavvy simulator can simulate the following steps in a contract review scenario:</p><p><b>1. Initial Document Review.</b> </p><ol type="1"><li>The lawyer is presented with a fictional arbitration clause</li><li>They are asked to use an AI assistant to scan the document for key terms and potential risks. </li><li>The AI highlights areas that require attention, such as ambiguous clauses, missing terms, or non-compliant language. </li><li><em>The lawyer reviews the AI's analysis by clicking on the parts of the arbitration agreement highlighted by the AI in the simulator. The simulator then provides feedback to confirm if the AI's analysis is correct or needs adjustments.</em></li><li><b>The efficiency of the simulator approach is that while it's easy, it immediately shows when the tools should be used and what are the benfits.</b></li></ol><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733930741/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-11_at_19.24.48_y100z7.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p><b>2. Legal Research.</b> </p><ol type="1"><li>The lawyer is tasked with identifying relevant case law or statutory updates that may affect the arbitration clause. </li><li>Using the AI assistant, the lawyer retrieves the necessary legal information, and</li><li> Verifies it in the simulator to ensure accuracy.</li></ol><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733931465/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-11_at_19.36.06_vlmhad.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p><b>3. Drafting Revisions</b>. </p><ol type="1"><li>The lawyer generates revisions to the agreement with the AI assistant, then</li><li>integrates them into the contract, and </li><li>receives feedback from the simulator on the effectiveness of these revisions. </li><li>The simulator assesses the success of the revisions based on law firm standards and practical relevance.</li></ol><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1733932003/savvy/Screenshot_2024-12-11_at_19.46.21_svraiv.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>This approach provides a comprehensive, interactive training experience, helping lawyers understand how to efficiently use AI tools to enhance their contract review processes.</p><h2>5. Conclusion</h2><p>Adopting new legal technology doesn’t have to be an arduous task for law firms. Through effective training and practical simulations, lawyers can learn to integrate new tools into their existing workflows. </p><blockquote><em>BeSavvy simulators provide an interactive and engaging way for lawyers to master new technologies efficiently, offering hands-on experience, immediate feedback, and clear application to real-world scenarios. </em></blockquote><p>By overcoming common barriers to adoption, such as time constraints and resistance to change, BeSavvy helps law firms successfully navigate the complexities of legal tech adoption, empowering their teams to work smarter, not harder.</p>

4. Case Study: Adopting Legal Tech through Simulators

<h2>What is a Playbook?</h2><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768480437/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_15.32.41_hunxmr.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><div className="flag">A Playbook is best understood as the simulation’s knowledge base. </div><p>It contains curated legal and practical know-how that BeSavvy can use to support the learner during tasks, for example:</p><ul><li><b>Hints and guidance</b> (what to look at next, what framework to apply, what questions to ask)</li><li><b>Explanations</b> (what something means, why it matters, how it works in context)</li><li><b>Feedback</b> (what is missing, what is incorrect, what is good but incomplete, and how to improve)</li><li><b>Assessment logic</b> (what “good” looks like, how to prioritise issues, what is market-standard vs aggressive)</li></ul><p>In other words, tasks define what the learner must do; the Playbook defines the knowledge and reasoning framework the simulation should use to help and evaluate the learner.</p><h2>How Playbooks are organised? </h2><div className="flag"><em>Playbooks → Chapters → Plays → Insights</em></div><p>Playbooks are modular, not one long document. They are organised as a hierarchy so you can reuse and attach the right knowledge in the right place:</p><ol type="1"><li><b>Playbook</b>: the overall knowledge base for a subject area (e.g., Due Diligence, Drafting, Negotiation).</li><li><b>Chapters</b>: high-level sections that group related topics (e.g., “Contract Risks”, “Regulatory”, “IP”).</li><li><b>Plays</b>: focused units within a chapter, each covering one specific topic (e.g., “Change of Control”, “IP Ownership”).</li><li><b>Insights</b>: the individual multi-level knowledge items inside a Play (principle → rationale → application → pitfalls).</li></ol><p>This structure makes knowledge easier to maintain and lets you attach specific Plays (and their Insights) to any task in a simulation.</p><h2>What are Insights?</h2><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768480425/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_15.33.08_onjxeu.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p></p><p>Inside a Playbook, the core building blocks are <u><b>Insights</b></u>.</p><p>An Insight is a piece of structured knowledge designed to be multi-level. That means it can capture:</p><ul><li>a core principle (the baseline rule or concept),</li><li>the rationale (why it exists and what risk it addresses),</li><li>practical application (how it shows up in real matters),</li><li>drafting / negotiation implications (how lawyers respond),</li><li>common pitfalls (how juniors typically misinterpret or miss it).</li></ul><p>This multi-level structure is what allows the simulator to provide support at the right depth – basic explanations for beginners, deeper nuance for more advanced learners, and practical “what to do next” guidance when someone gets stuck.</p><div className="flag">When building a simulation, you can attach an unlimited number of Plays to tasks, explanations, mentor guidance, and feedback points – so the simulator knows exactly what knowledge to rely on in each context.</div><h2>The two roles a Playbook plays</h2><p>A Playbook serves two distinct roles inside BeSavvy. Understanding this distinction will help you build Playbooks that are both usable and scalable.</p><h3>1) A Playbook guides the simulation (teaching and assessment)</h3><p>First, a Playbook acts as the simulation’s internal reference framework. It informs how BeSavvy should support the learner and evaluate performance. When the learner submits work or asks for help, the simulator can draw on the relevant Plays and Insights to generate:</p><ul><li>targeted hints and next-step prompts,</li><li>consistent explanations aligned with your approach,</li><li>feedback tied to the underlying principle (not generic commentary),</li><li>structured assessment against clear criteria (accuracy, prioritisation, commercial judgement, drafting discipline).</li></ul><p>This is what makes feedback and scoring feel credible and repeatable across users, cohorts, and simulations.</p><h3>2) A Playbook is a user-facing data source (on-demand help during tasks)</h3><h3></h3><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768480566/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_15.35.36_fgkjhd.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>Second, the Playbook can be surfaced as an on-demand resource that users rely on while completing tasks. In practice, this means that when a user is stuck or uncertain, the simulator can provide help grounded in the Plays you attached, such as:</p><ul><li>a step-by-step reasoning framework (“how to analyse this clause”),</li><li>checklists and issue-spotting prompts (“what to verify and why”),</li><li>examples and guidance on how lawyers typically express a position,</li><li>common pitfalls and how to avoid them.</li></ul><p>This turns the simulation into more than a test. It becomes a guided learning environment where users can pull the right knowledge at the point of need.</p><h2>Why this structure matters</h2><p>Without a Playbook, simulations often produce inconsistent guidance and generic feedback. </p><div className="flag">With a Playbook, you get a repeatable, scalable system: the same Plays can power multiple simulations and provide reliable help to learners across different tasks.</div><p>As you grow your simulator library, Playbooks ensure your methodology stays consistent and your learner support remains high quality. </p><p><em><b>And you get a special layer between the simulation and the LLM knowledge providing the quality you need and expect.</b></em></p>

Playbooks on BeSavvy: What they are and how they power your simulations

This article explains a practical framework for designing a contract drafting simulator on BeSavvy.

<p>This article explains a practical framework for designing a contract drafting simulator on BeSavvy.</p><div className="flag">The principle is the same as with any strong simulation: define a single, realistic use case, break it into a small number of steps, build each step as its own learning element, then connect the elements into one continuous “matter”. </div><p>For drafting, the most reliable structure is a <b>three-step flow</b>: </p><ol type="1"><li>identify the problem through a client interview,</li><li>implement changes in the document, and</li><li>defend those changes in a negotiation-style discussion.</li></ol><h2>Start with a clear drafting use case</h2><p>Drafting is too broad to train in one simulator. Your first design decision is to pick a narrow, recognisable scenario.</p><p>A good use case statement includes:</p><ul><li><b>Document type</b>: NDA, services agreement, SaaS terms, share purchase agreement clause set, employment contract, data processing addendum, etc.</li><li><b>Perspective</b>: acting for customer/supplier; buyer/seller; employer/employee; landlord/tenant</li><li><b>The “problem”</b>: what the client is worried about (risk, cost, timing, liability, confidentiality, IP ownership, termination, regulatory exposure)</li><li><b>Deliverable</b>: amended mark-up + explanation/negotiation of key positions</li><li><b>Success criteria</b>: accuracy, prioritisation, clarity, commercial reasonableness, consistency across clauses</li></ul><p>Example use case (copy/paste and edit):</p><blockquote><em>“This simulation trains a junior lawyer to interview a client and then mark up a supplier’s standard services agreement to reflect the client’s risk appetite. The learner produces a clean set of amendments and then defends the key changes in a short negotiation with the counterparty (or a supervising partner).”</em></blockquote><p>Keep the scenario tight: one document, a defined client objective, and a clear end deliverable.</p><h2>Step 1: Problem identification via Client Interview (Conversation block)</h2><p><b>Objective</b>: teach the learner to identify what needs to be drafted by extracting facts and priorities – <u><em>before they touch the document.</em></u></p><p><b>Block to use: Conversation → Type: Client interview</b></p><h3>What this step should train</h3><p>– Asking structured, purposeful questions (not generic “tell me more”)</p><p>– Separating:</p><ul><li><b>facts</b> (what is happening),</li><li><b>constraints</b> (timing, budget, approvals),</li><li><b>priorities</b> (what the client cares about most),</li><li><b>risk appetite</b> (what they will and won’t accept)</li></ul><p>– Translating business concerns into legal drafting targets</p><h3>How to design the client interview</h3><p>Give the client a realistic backstory and incomplete information. The learner should have to work for clarity.</p><p>Include:</p><ul><li>Client role and context (e.g., Head of Procurement at a scale-up)</li><li>The commercial goal (e.g., sign in 10 days, launch a product)</li><li>A few hidden issues the learner can uncover (e.g., use of subcontractors, sensitive data, IP created during the project, reliance on a key supplier)</li></ul><p><b>Output of Step 1:</b> a short, structured drafting brief the learner will use in Step 2, for example:</p><ul><li>Client objectives (3 bullets)</li><li>Non-negotiables (3 bullets)</li><li>Fallback positions (3 bullets)</li><li>Red-flag issues to fix in the document (5 bullets)</li></ul><p>This “brief” is what turns drafting into a disciplined workflow.</p><h2>Step 2: Implement changes in the document (Document Editor block)</h2><p><b></b></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768479322/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_15.14.21_vcegti.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>Objective: teach the learner to apply the brief to real contract language – making precise changes that are internally consistent.</p><p><b>Block to use: Document Editor</b></p><p>1. Provide either:</p><ul><li>a template (your starting document), or</li><li>the other party’s draft (more realistic in practice)</li></ul><p>2. Give the learner clear instructions:</p><ul><li>what to change,</li><li>what outcome each change must achieve,</li><li>how to balance risk vs commercial practicality.</li></ul><div className="flag">Best practice: integrate tasks into the document text</div><p>Within the document, insert task prompts such as:</p><ul><li>“Update this clause to reflect the client’s requirement that…”</li><li>“Add a limitation so this obligation only applies where…”</li><li>“Make this consistent with the termination clause at section X.”</li></ul><p>You are training the learner to:</p><ul><li>locate relevant provisions,</li><li>choose an appropriate drafting technique,</li><li>keep positions consistent across the agreement (definitions, liability regime, termination mechanics, IP provisions, etc.).</li></ul><h3>What to assess in Step 2</h3><ul><li><b>Substance</b>: did they fix the right risks?</li><li><b>Drafting technique</b>: did they use a workable mechanism (not just deleting everything)?</li><li><b>Precision</b>: are the edits clear and legally coherent?</li><li><b>Consistency</b>: no conflicts across clauses, defined terms used correctly</li><li><b>Commercial realism</b>: changes are defensible and proportionate</li></ul><p><b>Output of Step 2:</b> a marked-up document (and optionally a short rationale note for the key changes).</p><h2>Step 3: Defend the changes (Negotiation Conversation block)</h2><p><b></b></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768479515/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_15.18.02_vxr28p.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>Objective: teach the learner to justify drafting positions and negotiate them credibly—either with the counterparty or internally with a partner.</p><p><b>Block to use: Conversation → Type: Negotiation</b></p><h3>Two common variants (choose one)</h3><ol type="1"><li><b>External negotiation (counterparty).</b> The counterparty pushes back on liability, IP, confidentiality, SLAs, termination, etc.</li><li><b>Internal negotiation (partner review).</b> The partner challenges whether the positions are too aggressive, commercially unworkable, or inconsistent.</li></ol><h3>How to design the negotiation step</h3><p>Give the other party (or partner) a clear agenda and realistic pushback:</p><ul><li>“We can’t accept unlimited indemnities.”</li><li>“Our standard is caps at fees paid in 12 months.”</li><li>“We don’t assign IP by default; we license it.”</li><li>“We need the right to use subcontractors.”</li></ul><p>Train the learner to respond with:</p><ul><li>the <b>principle</b> (why the client needs this),</li><li>the <b>risk framing</b> (what happens if not),</li><li>a <b>fallback</b> (alternative drafting or compromise),</li><li>a <b>trade</b> (if we give X, we need Y)</li></ul><p>Output of Step 3: an “agreed position” summary:</p><ul><li>accepted points,</li><li>concessions made,</li><li>open points,</li><li>next drafting actions.</li></ul><h2>Connecting the three steps into one coherent simulator</h2><p>A strong drafting simulation has <b>continuity</b>:</p><ol type="1"><li>Client interview output becomes the learner’s drafting brief.</li><li>Drafting edits become the subject of the negotiation.</li><li>Negotiation outcomes lead to final drafting actions (optional final step: produce a clean version).</li></ol><div className="flag">This makes the simulator feel like real work: facts → drafting → negotiation.</div><h2>Practical design principles for drafting simulations</h2><ul><li><b>One document, one client objective</b>. Avoid multi-document scope in early versions.</li><li><b>Teach “positions”, not perfection</b>. Juniors need to learn what is market, what is aggressive, and what is unacceptable.</li><li><b>Build in constraints</b>. Time pressure, client sensitivity, and business trade-offs create realism.</li><li><b>Use explicit evaluation criteria</b>. Accuracy, clarity, consistency, risk allocation, and commercial reasonableness.</li><li><b>Iterate fast</b>. Run the simulation with 3-6 users and refine where they misinterpret tasks or over-edit.</li></ul>

3. How to Build a Drafting Simulation on BeSavvy

A quick guide on how to create proofreading exercises that can help law firm trainees and summer associates develop their proofreading and drafting skills.

<p>In today’s legal environment, effectively training junior associates and trainees is critical for maintaining high document quality and boosting overall efficiency. </p><p>In this resource, you&#39;ll learn how to build AI-powered proofreading exercises, perfect for legal associate training, onboarding simulations, and enhancing trainee proofreading skills.</p><h2>What Is an AI-Powered Proofreading Exercise?</h2><p>An AI-powered proofreading exercise is a simulated scenario designed to help law firm associates and trainees spot and correct grammar errors and typos embedded intentionally in a legal document. This interactive method:</p><ul><li><b>Highlights intentional errors:</b> Trainees identify and fix these embedded typos.</li><li><b>Tracks attempts:</b> Records each trainee&#39;s corrections for progress monitoring.</li><li><b>Provides instant feedback:</b> Trainees immediately learn if their corrections were successful.</li></ul><h2>Step-by-Step: Build Your First Proofreading Simulation</h2><h3>1. Access the BeSavvy Simulation Platform</h3><p>Start by logging into the BeSavvy Simulation Platform. Go to your <a href="https://besavvy.app/account" target=”_blank”>account page</a>. Go to Developer page. Click new course “Create” button. You will find yourself inside the first simulator of your course.</p><h3>2. Choose the Appropriate Content Block</h3><p>Select the content block suitable for text editing or proofreading exercises. This is the &quot;Doc Editor&quot; block in our case.</p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1741779497/savvy/Screenshot_2025-03-12_at_15.38.07_irwwmz.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><h3>3. Upload Your Template Document</h3><p>Paste or upload your base legal document into the text prompt field. For this example, we will use a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).</p><h3>4. Define Your AI Prompt</h3><p>Instruct the AI clearly:</p><blockquote><em>“Turn all underlined parts of the document into typos that the trainee needs to fix.”</em></blockquote><h3>5. Add Errors and Generate</h3><p>Identify specific sections to introduce errors. All you need is to select the text, add an error / typo and then underline it.</p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1741779761/savvy/Screenshot_2025-03-12_at_15.42.31_wsopmi.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>Click <b>'Generate with AI'</b> — the simulation will be created in 30-40 seconds, highlighting newly created errors with red.</p><p>Click &quot;<b>Save</b>&quot;.</p><h3>6. Test Your Proofreading Exercise</h3><p>Test if everything works well. If something is incorrect, click &quot;Update&quot; and make changes. To learn how it is done, watch the video below.</p><p></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1741779905/savvy/Screenshot_2025-03-12_at_15.44.00_jjtqbp.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><h3>7. Share the task</h3><p>Share the task by sending the link from the Settings section on top of the page to lawyers who might need it.</p><p>Allow trainees to practice fixing errors. Each correction attempt is tracked, and they receive instant feedback.</p><p>You will also be able to see their results in a short table making it easy and quick to track progress or make hiring decision.</p><h3>Advanced Simulation Options</h3><ul><li><b>Drafting assignments</b>: Add complexity with document drafting exercises.</li><li><b>Custom questions</b>: Embed additional challenges or scenario-based questions.</li><li><b>Advanced AI verification</b>: Future updates will introduce even more sophisticated error detection.</li></ul><h2>Why Integrate AI-Powered Proofreading Exercises?</h2><ul><li><b>Improved Document Quality.</b> Enhance trainee proofreading skills rapidly, ensuring attention to detail in all legal documentation. <a href="https://www.insightlegal.co.uk/news/how-to-train-your-firm-with-new-technology/" target=”_blank”>Immediate feedback</a> can help with that.</li><li><b>Efficient Associate Onboarding.</b> <a href="https://www.techlawcrossroads.com/2024/04/revolutionizing-law-firm-training-with-ai-the-power-of-large-language-models/" target=”_blank”>Accelerate your associate training program</a> by seamlessly integrating AI-powered legal simulations.</li><li><b>Data-Driven Legal Training.</b> Identify skills gaps through exercise analytics, improving your training effectiveness over time. Using new tech is essential to ensure that <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/4-ways-to-better-associate-training/" target=”_blank”>lawyers get necessary practical experience during training.</a></li><li><b>Scalable Legal E-learning Platform.</b> BeSavvy is adaptable for boutique practices or large firms, making AI adoption straightforward and non-disruptive.</li></ul><h2>Learn more here:</h2><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uPaiPcw3h4s?si=kaGuhJc_-lDZ7PXk"></iframe><p></p><p></p>

2. How to Build an AI-Powered Proofreading Exercise for Law Firms in Just 1 Minute

This article explains a practical way to design and build your own due diligence (DD) simulator on BeSavvy.

<p>This article explains a practical way to design and build your own due diligence (DD) simulator on BeSavvy. The core idea is simple: start with a clear use case, break it into a small number of steps (elements), build each element as its own learning unit, and then connect them into one coherent workflow. Done well, a DD simulator trains three things junior lawyers actually need: (1) spotting issues, (2) extracting and analysing facts from documents, and (3) communicating findings clearly.</p><h2>1) Start with the use case (and keep it narrow)</h2><p>Before you create any content, agree on the details:</p><ul><li><b>Who it’s for:</b> e.g., trainees / 0–2 PQE / interns</li><li><b>Context</b>: share purchase DD for a mid-market acquisition; vendor DD; financing DD; IP DD, etc.</li><li><b>Inputs</b>: what documents the learner will review (or what a data room looks like)</li><li><b>Outputs</b>: what the learner must deliver (issues list, DD report extract, email to a partner, red flag summary, call with a client)</li><li><b>Success criteria:</b> what “good” looks like (accuracy, prioritisation, clarity, commercial judgement)</li></ul><p>Example:</p><blockquote><em>“This simulation trains a junior lawyer to run a first-pass legal due diligence review for a share purchase. The learner reviews a small set of documents, identifies key legal risks (including change of control and IP issues), and produces a clear red-flag summary and an issues list for the supervising associate.”</em></blockquote><p>The most common mistake is trying to cover “all of due diligence”. Instead, pick one slice and do it properly.</p><h2>2) Break the simulation into 3 core elements</h2><p>A due diligence workflow naturally splits into <b>three parts:</b></p><ol type="1"><li>Understanding what to look for (knowledge acquisition)</li><li>Document review (doing the diligence)</li><li>Reporting (delivering the output)</li></ol><p>Build these as <b>separate</b> “blocks” first. Once each block works on its own, <b>connect</b> them into a single end-to-end simulator.</p><h3>Element A: Understanding what to look for with a Case Study</h3><h3></h3><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768473902/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_13.44.44_bxhfaz.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p><b>Goal</b>: help the learner build a clear “search plan” before they dive into documents, so they know what they are looking for and why it matters.</p><p><b>Recommended format:</b> a <u>Case Study</u> block with a <u>mentor-style discussion</u> that guides the learner through issue-spotting logic and prioritisation while asking guiding questions.</p><p><b>What to include:</b></p><p><b>1. A short scenario</b>: business model, deal context, timeline, key parties, constraints, and any obvious pressure points.</p><p>2. <b>A set of guiding questions</b>. Examples:</p><ul><li><em>How do NSIA notification/approval requirements work at a high level, and what facts would you need to know to assess whether the regime is triggered?</em></li><li><em>What is a change of control clause in practical terms, and why can it create deal execution risk? Where do you typically find it?</em></li><li><em>If this is an IP-heavy business, what are the three key IP risks you would look for first, and why?</em></li><li><em>What are the likely red flags vs medium-risk vs low-risk issues in this scenario, and what would move an issue up or down in severity?</em></li></ul><p>Compile all this this into a <b>Case Study block</b> to help the users prep for the actual due diligence.</p><h3>Element B: Doing the DD (two practical approaches)</h3><p>Once the learner has a search plan, you train them on actual document handling. In BeSavvy, there are two strong ways to do this – choose based on the skill you want to train.</p><p><b>Approach 1: “Find the right documents” using the Search component</b></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768473939/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_13.24.13_hkvbrq.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>Best for: data-room navigation, triage, recognising which documents matter.</p><p><b>How it works</b></p><ul><li>You provide a set of documents (or document titles/excerpts).</li><li>The learner looks through them and selects documents relevant to a given risk.</li><li>The task focus on document selection and prioritisation, not only clause reading.</li></ul><p><b>Example tasks</b></p><ul><li>“Find the documents that would confirm whether a change of control consent is required.”</li><li>“Locate evidence of IP ownership and any licence restrictions.”</li><li>“Identify which HR/contract documents matter for key personnel risk.”</li></ul><p><b>What you’re training</b></p><ul><li>Judgement under time pressure: “What do I look at first?”</li><li>Practical workflow: finding needles in a data room haystack</li><li>A defensible approach: “I checked X because Y”</li></ul><p><b>Approach 2: “Read and flag the clause” using the Editor function</b></p><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768473961/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_13.43.42_nqks7q.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>Best for: clause literacy, spotting specific issues in contract language.</p><p>How it works:</p><p>– You upload or paste a document (or excerpt) into the <b>Editor Block.</b></p><p>– The learner must find and highlight the relevant clause(s) and explain:</p><ul><li>what it says,</li><li>why it matters,</li><li>what the follow-up question is,</li><li>what risk level it is (red/amber/green).</li></ul><p><b>Example tasks</b></p><ul><li>“Highlight the change of control clause and explain when consent is required.”</li><li>“Find any IP assignment gaps or ‘licence-only’ language that creates ownership risk.”</li><li>“Identify termination triggers and how they affect deal certainty.”</li></ul><p><b>What you’re training</b></p><ul><li>Close reading</li><li>Translating legal text into plain English</li><li>Distinguishing “issue exists” vs “issue is material”</li></ul><h3>Element C: Reporting the results (written and/or oral)</h3><img src=https://res.cloudinary.com/mkpictureonlinebase/image/upload/v1768474035/savvy/Screenshot_2026-01-15_at_13.25.53_bouc9e.png alt="caption_goes_here"/><p>The final module is where the simulation becomes “real work”: the learner must communicate findings clearly and in the right format.</p><p><b>Common reporting formats you can simulate</b></p><ul><li>Red flag summary (short, partner-friendly) – Draft Block</li><li>Issues list (structured table style) – Editor Block</li><li>Email update to supervising associate – Draft Block</li><li>Client-facing note (careful tone, clear recommendations) – Draft Block</li><li>Oral update (stand-up / call with partner or client) – Conversation Block</li></ul><h2>3) Connect the elements into one coherent simulator</h2><p>Once you have built Elements A–C as standalone blocks, connect them into a single end-to-end workflow so the learner experiences a realistic “matter” rather than three disconnected exercises.</p><div className="flag">The key design principle is continuity: the output of each element should become the input for the next element.</div><p>Recommended end-to-end flow:</p><h3>Element A (Case Study): build the search plan</h3><ul><li>The learner works through the scenario and mentor-led guiding questions.</li><li>They finish with a hypothesis list / search plan (typically 3–7 bullets): the risks they expect to find, what would trigger them, and where they would look.</li></ul><h3>Element B (Search and/or Editor): execute the review against that plan</h3><ul><li>The learner uses their search plan to prioritise documents and clauses.</li><li>If you use the <u>Search block</u>, the learner selects the documents that are most likely to confirm or disprove their hypotheses (triage and prioritisation).</li><li>If you use the <u>Editor block</u>, the learner flags the relevant clauses, explains their meaning, and assigns a risk level (close reading and issue articulation).</li><li>The output here should be structured working notes: <b>flagged clauses, risk ratings, and follow-up questions.</b></li></ul><h3>Element C (Draft / Editor / Conversation): report the results</h3><p>The learner converts their notes into a deliverable that matches real practice:</p><ul><li>Red flag summary (Draft block)</li><li>Issues list (Editor block, table-style)</li><li>Email update (Draft block)</li><li>Client note (Draft block)</li><li>Oral update (Conversation block)</li></ul><p>The learner should be assessed not only on spotting issues, but on prioritisation, clarity, and actionability (what the team should do next).</p><h3>Make the handoffs explicit (so it feels like real work)</h3><p>To reinforce continuity, include short “handoff” instructions between elements, for example:</p><ul><li>“Use your hypothesis list from Element A to decide which documents to review first.”</li><li>“Your flagged clauses and follow-up questions from Element B will be the basis of your red flag summary in Element C.”</li></ul><h3>Optional final step (high value): close the loop</h3><p>Add a short mentor debrief after reporting: the mentor challenges one or two judgement calls (“Why is this red, not amber?”), checks whether key items were missed, and confirms what a supervising associate would do next. This makes the simulator feel complete and reinforces the learning objectives.</p><h2>4) Practical design principles that make simulations work</h2><ol type="1"><li><b>Keep documents realistic, but not overwhelming. </b>Start with 6–12 documents (or excerpts). Add complexity later.</li><li><b>Train one decision per step.</b> Each task should force a clear judgement call (what matters, why, what next).</li><li><b>Use consistent labels.</b> For example: Red / Amber / Green, and always define what each means in your simulation.</li><li><b>Iterate with real users.</b> You will see exactly where learners get stuck – and that’s where your best training value is.</li></ol>

1. How to Build a Due Diligence Simulation on BeSavvy

For Enterprise customers, we provide onboarding for the first user cohort, structured offboarding at the end of the pilot, and hands-on training for admins (KM/L&D) who will build and maintain simulations.

<p><b>Short answer: </b>For Enterprise customers, we provide onboarding for the first user cohort, structured offboarding at the end of the pilot, and hands-on training for admins (KM/L&amp;D) who will build and maintain simulations.</p><h3>Onboarding and training for users (learners):</h3><ul><li><b>Onboarding session</b> for the first cohort (pilot / first cohort) to set expectations and show how to use simulations effectively</li><li><b>Support channel</b> for user questions about the platform (email / Slack / messengers)</li></ul><h3>Onboarding and training for admins (KM/L&amp;D / creators):</h3><ul><li><b>Training on simulation building</b> for KM and L&amp;D teams (2 sessions)</li><li><b>Support channel for creator questions</b> to resolve issues quickly and help convert ideas into buildable simulations (email / Slack / messengers)</li></ul><h3>Pilot close and improvement cycle:</h3><ul><li><b>Offboarding session</b> at the end of the pilot project to review usage, outcomes, feedback themes, and what to improve next</li></ul>

What onboarding and training do you provide for admins and users?

Yes. Our Enterprise plan includes structured onboarding/offboarding for a pilot cohort, enablement for KM/L&D teams to build simulations, and real-time communication channels to keep delivery moving.

<p><b>Short answer: </b>Yes. Our Enterprise plan includes structured onboarding/offboarding for a pilot cohort, enablement for KM/L&amp;D teams to build simulations, and real-time communication channels to keep delivery moving.</p><h3>What’s included in the Enterprise plan:</h3><ul><li><b>Onboarding session </b>for the first cohort of users (pilot / first cohort)</li><li><b>Offboarding session</b> at the end of the pilot project</li><li><b>Training for KM and L&D teams</b> on simulation building (2 sessions)</li><li><b>A communication channel for creators</b> (L&amp;D, KM, lawyers) to ask questions in real time and get help turning ideas into workable simulations (email / Slack / messengers)</li><li><b>A channel for users </b>to ask platform-usage questions (email / Slack / messengers)</li></ul><h3>Materials you can share internally:</h3><p>We provide practical materials explaining:</p><ul><li>what simulations are and how they work</li><li>the benefits and typical use cases</li><li>how much time to allocate</li><li>how to build your own simulations</li></ul><p>You can distribute these to team members to make internal onboarding smoother.</p><p><b>What to do next:</b> If you’re planning a pilot, start by agreeing on a single cohort, a clear timeline, and one to three priority skills to focus on. This keeps the pilot manageable and makes outcomes easier to assess.</p><p>We’ll then work with you to translate those goals into a clear, practical communication plan so your team knows what to expect, how to engage, and how to get value from the simulations from day one.</p>

Resources from the BeSavvy team

BeSavvy Blocks

BeSavvy Overview

Getting started

Training Lawyers

Legal Hard Skills Training

Business and Soft Skills Training

Simulator Tech Overview

Security and Compliance