An Outlook add-in for lawyers should help turn a client email into sound legal correspondence. CASUS brings the open email and readable attachments together with the matter context in a Dossier. You resolve conflicting contract versions, review the proposed answer and open it in Outlook's reply window. You decide what gets sent.
Consider a familiar request: the client wants to terminate an agreement and attaches an apparently clear clause. A later amendment sits in the matter file. A polished answer based solely on the attachment could therefore be substantively wrong. Connecting correspondence, the contractual position and the wording of the response is the starting point for the CASUS Outlook Add-in.
The matter: a termination question and two contract versions
The following working example is fictional. The contract extracts and suggested correspondence were created for this article.
On 2 November, the client writes: "We want to end the supply agreement at year-end. The attached version seems to require four weeks' notice. Can you prepare the termination? Delivery quality has been unsatisfactory for months."
Three documents matter:
Email attachment, draft dated 15 January: clause 10.2 provides for ordinary termination on four weeks' notice to the end of a month. The attachment is unsigned.
Signed framework agreement dated 20 January in the Dossier: clause 10.2 requires three months' notice to a quarter-end and contains a separate minimum term.
Signed amendment dated 12 June in the Dossier: clause 2 fixes the minimum term until 31 March 2027. The framework agreement's remaining termination provisions continue to apply.
The legal work involves several decisions. Which version was agreed? What exactly did the amendment change? Which ordinary termination date could follow from that position? Do the alleged delivery failures raise a different route requiring separate analysis?
Summarising the latest email will not answer those questions. Nor will finding the first sentence mentioning a notice period. The useful work is to assess the request against the correct contractual position and give the client a concrete next step.
1. Work with the request and its attachment together
Open the client email and the CASUS pane in Outlook. The documented workflow brings the open message and readable attachments into the conversation. The request is therefore considered alongside the document on which the client bases its assumption.
Frame the first assignment around the client and the requested date: "We represent the buyer. Examine the basis for its assumption that it can terminate on 31 December. Distinguish the attached draft from the agreed contractual position."
First establish which documents are actually available. The product description names PDFs, Word documents and attached emails. A cloud link in the message or an inline image is not automatically a read contract source. If the amendment is missing, make it available before relying on it in the response.
Readability alone does not establish evidential weight. A missing signature page, incomplete schedule or blank date field may limit what a document supports. A filename containing "final" does not establish that the parties agreed that version. Resolve that question using the documents and your knowledge of the mandate.
2. Bring the signed amendment into the analysis
If the operative documents are already in a CASUS Dossier, select it as context for the Outlook conversation. The current product documentation describes comparing an email against Dossier files with references to supporting sources. Here, the assignment is to assess the client's termination assumption against the signed agreement and amendment.
A useful instruction is: "Check the minimum term, ordinary termination dates and notice period in the agreed versions. Identify the relevant clauses. Keep termination for delivery failures separate and identify the information missing for that assessment."
When reviewing the answer, concentrate on three distinctions:
Contract status: the four-week period comes from the attached draft. The agreed document contains a different rule.
Scope of the amendment: the amendment replaces the minimum term. That does not by itself remove the three-month notice requirement or the quarter-end dates.
Scope of the advice: ordinary termination and rights arising from non-performance have different requirements. An answer about the ordinary termination date does not dispose of the second question.
Open the referenced passages and read them in context. Look for priority provisions, definitions, later agreements and the extent of the signatures. The current attachment is the source for what the client has sent. Its contractual status relative to the signed documents is a separate question. The response must keep those two propositions distinct.
The Dossier comparison is a reading task. It does not change the underlying agreements, and selecting a Dossier does not automatically file the open email there. Correspondence work and maintaining the matter file remain deliberate choices.
3. Turn the contractual position into a useful client response
The expressly supplied example documents support a limited preliminary statement. The draft does not support the requested ordinary termination at year-end. The recorded minimum term continues until 31 March 2027. This does not rule out another amendment or a consensual release.
The client also needs the practical consequence: why you are not simply preparing the requested notice from the attachment, and what you need to examine the alternative route. One possible response, written by us for this example, is:
"The attachment is a draft agreement. The signed framework agreement requires three months' notice to a quarter-end. The amendment dated 12 June fixes the minimum term until 31 March 2027 and leaves the remaining termination provisions in place. On that basis, ordinary termination on 31 December 2026 is not provided for. I will confirm the earliest available date and the required receipt of notice against the complete contractual position. To assess the delivery failures separately, please send the affected deliveries, complaints already made and the supplier's responses."
This is working language for the example provisions. It does not claim a final calculation of the notice-receipt deadline or a complete review of every termination right. On a real matter, establish applicable law, form requirements, the proper recipient and any additional agreement.
Keep the supporting sources available for your own assessment. The client email should name the decisive documents in understandable terms and explain the next action. Internal citation markers or a long inventory of every document read will not improve the correspondence.
CASUS provides a "Reply" action for email drafts. It opens the proposed response in Outlook's reply window. Review the recipients, attachments and language in the actual message context before deciding to send.
4. Improve the passages in your own draft that matter
You may already have written the response yourself. The existing text does not need a complete rewrite. CASUS describes individual suggestions for Outlook drafts, allowing you to choose which passages to change.
Consider this example sentence: "Termination at year-end is excluded, so there are no further claims against the supplier."
It joins two different questions and goes beyond the contractual position examined in its second half. A more precise version would be: "The present contractual documents do not provide for ordinary termination at year-end. We will assess potential rights arising from the delivery failures separately."
The change does more than soften the tone. It defines the scope of the statement, avoids prematurely closing a separate line of inquiry and addresses the actual concern behind the client's request. Ask for that reasoning when assessing an amendment: which proposition is clarified, which unsupported inference is removed and which question remains open?
The documented proposal cards allow individual passages to be accepted. Afterwards, read the complete response, including the signature and quoted correspondence. A smoother sentence does not justify accepting a broader legal conclusion.
This matters particularly when a draft contains categorical language such as "no liability", "definitely invalid" or "all claims are excluded". Decide whether the underlying analysis supports that proposition before improving its style. A shorter response can still preserve the distinction between an established contractual fact and an unresolved legal assessment.
Why CASUS fits this law-firm workflow
The practical advantage lies in connecting the tools already used for the matter. The request starts in Outlook. The attachment explains the client's assumption. The Dossier supplies the matter context. The response is completed in the email window where you decide what to send.
CASUS is a legal workspace for document work and research. Its AI chat supports questions and drafting within that work. The product description also allows an Outlook conversation to continue in the CASUS web app, so a complex follow-up need not remain confined to the width of the Outlook pane.
For a firm, the relevant outcome is specific: correct a mistaken contractual assumption, work from the proper contract version and communicate a clear next step. That recommendation does not require a blanket time-saving claim or a guarantee of error-free advice.
The same structure applies beyond termination. A client may quote an earlier liability cap, overlook a signed variation or rely on a service-level schedule that no longer applies. Start by identifying the decision and the operative documents, then shape the response around the client's actual options. The feature supports that work; professional judgement determines the advice.
Introduce Outlook use to the team
Agree the Outlook version, mailbox configuration and team introduction with CASUS. The current product page offers a personal demonstration and joint rollout planning. It does not establish identical behaviour in every Outlook environment without checking the setup.
Begin with an authorised example email and a suitable Dossier. Concentrate on selecting the right contract version, keeping the response within its analytical scope and moving it into the reply window. Access to other mailbox messages is separate from working with the open email and depends on the relevant connection and availability.
Assign a lawyer who can explain the expected contractual distinction in the example. That provides a meaningful basis for discussing the team's use of attachments, matter sources and proposed wording. Avoid turning introduction into a contest to produce the longest answer or the largest number of alleged issues.
For confidential client correspondence, assess the contractual and privacy documents applicable to your Outlook use and the relevant professional secrecy requirements. Those requirements differ between Switzerland, Germany and Austria. The CASUS security information is a starting point for that assessment. A general description limited to Word or the web does not by itself resolve the Outlook scope.
Start with CASUS and discuss Outlook use for your law-firm team.
FAQ
How does CASUS help with a client email and contract attachment?
CASUS brings the open email and readable attachments into the conversation and supports drafting a response. A selected Dossier can supply additional matter context. You assess the contractual position, supporting sources and scope of the proposed advice before responding.
How should I handle a conflicting amendment?
Establish whether it was agreed, which provisions it replaces and which remain unchanged. Identify the relevant passages and read them in context. A later file date or a filename containing "final" does not establish contractual validity.
Does the add-in automatically read my entire mailbox?
The open email and its attachments are distinct from additional access to other mailbox content. Other messages require the relevant connection and availability. Do not assume that earlier correspondence has already been considered.
Which attachments and links are considered?
The current product description names PDFs, Word documents and attached emails in EML or MSG format. Cloud links and inline images are not automatically treated as read contract documents. Establish which sources are available and supply missing material.
Does the matter comparison change Dossier documents?
The Outlook comparison uses the Dossier as readable matter context. It does not change the underlying source documents. Selecting a Dossier does not automatically add the open email to it; filing remains a deliberate action.
Does CASUS send the proposed reply?
No. The reply action opens the draft in Outlook's reply window. You review the text, recipients and attachments and send it yourself. Generating a reply draft is distinct from sending a message.
Can I revise my own response passage by passage?
Yes. The product description provides individual proposal cards for your draft. You choose which passages to accept. Check whether an amendment broadens a legal statement or prematurely closes a question that remains unresolved.
