Jurisdiction update, August 11, 2026
New York: enforceability of restrictive covenants
The problem
This one comes up in almost every matter review, and the answer is less settled than the confidence around it suggests.
Volume changes the shape of the problem. At ten documents you can hold the exceptions in your head. At four hundred you need the exceptions written down and checkable.
What we do about it
We score against a human baseline drawn from executed matters rather than a synthetic set, because synthetic contracts do not contain the drafting scars that cause real misses.
In the current build this runs as part of the standard pass, so it applies to every document in the set rather than only the ones someone thought to check.
Where it breaks
Scanned originals with poor image quality remain the weakest input. So do agreements that were assembled from three precedents and never reconciled, which is common in long-lived supplier relationships.
None of this removes the reviewer. It moves the reviewer to the part of the work where judgement actually pays.
Working notes from the Lawrs team. General information about legal technology and practice, not legal advice.