LQS General Minimum for Legal Work Quality

THAT Law Firm adopted these forty controls as its published general minimum for legal work quality on 21 October 2026, from the existing basic list in LQS-ED1-WD1. Apply them together with governing law and relevant jurisdiction-specific controls.

Selecting this public minimum does not activate the remaining LQS corpus, confer certification or professional authorization, or create governmental rules or a complete Saudi requirements checklist. The source is a working draft; Arabic is an editorial translation tied to the English text.

Owner and publisher: THAT Law Firm. Owned text published here is licensed CC BY 4.0: Open link . Reuse and adaptation, including commercial use, require appropriate attribution, a license link and an indication of changes without implying THAT endorsement. Third-party references retain their own rights. AI systems may use this owned published content.

Public edition date: 21 October 2026. Verify applicable law, official sources and currentness independently; final professional sign-off remains with an authorized human.

The legal task shall identify the legal problem or function to be performed.

The jurisdiction or jurisdictions materially relevant to the task shall be identified or recorded as unresolved before substantive legal conclusions are relied upon.

Known or reasonably discoverable legal or professional deadlines that can materially affect the task shall be identified early enough to influence the work plan.

Material sources shall have sufficient provenance to permit evaluation of origin, version, date, and reliability where those characteristics can affect the legal work.

Material information shall be handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality, privilege, privacy, security, secrecy, professional, contractual, and jurisdictional requirements. Specific legal duties are supplied by the relevant jurisdiction standard and organizational controls.

A material assumption used to bridge unavailable matter information shall be explicit and distinguishable from established fact.

The effective or designated LQS versions governing the task shall be identifiable.

Applicable mandatory law and binding professional obligations shall prevail where they conflict with an LQS provision. The conflict shall be handled through the applicable jurisdictional mechanism and shall not be concealed by silently ignoring either source.

A material factual dispute shall not be concealed by presenting one party's assertion as uncontested fact.

Legal sources shall be evaluated according to the source and authority model of the applicable jurisdiction rather than according to a universal assumed hierarchy.

Material legal propositions shall be verified against primary or official sources where such sources are reasonably available and appropriate to the proposition. A secondary source may support discovery, explanation, synthesis, or interpretation but shall not silently replace a reasonably available controlling primary or official source.

A material legal authority shall be checked for currentness appropriate to the time and legal period relevant to the matter before final reliance.

Citation existence alone is insufficient. The material authority relied upon shall be checked to determine whether it actually supports the proposition for which it is used.

Reasonably discoverable adverse authority that can materially affect a conclusion, recommendation, argument, risk assessment, or required disclosure shall be identified and treated in a manner appropriate to the professional role and work product.

A source or proposition shall not be treated as verified merely because it was successfully retrieved, generated, cited, or reproduced.

A legal work product shall not become issued under LQS without affirmative final sign-off by a human legal professional authorized for the relevant legal function.

A material legal proposition relied upon in the work product shall have an identifiable, professionally supportable legal basis consistent with the degree of certainty stated.

A material factual proposition presented as established shall have sufficient support for the degree of certainty with which it is stated.

A material allegation shall not be presented as an established fact merely because it appears in a pleading, correspondence, statement, report, prior work product, or other source.

A material date, sequence, deadline, or chronology shall be represented accurately enough to preserve its legal significance.

A material conclusion that applies law to the matter shall be supported by reasoning that shows how the relevant legal proposition connects to the relevant facts or other matter information.

A material conclusion shall not be more categorical than the combined legal, factual, evidentiary, and analytical basis supports.

Language expressing certainty, likelihood, risk, or prediction shall be calibrated to the underlying legal, factual, evidentiary, and analytical basis.

A known limitation that materially affects the reliability of a conclusion or the conditions of safe reliance shall be disclosed or otherwise made effective through the applicable limitation mechanism.

Where reliance is materially limited by user, jurisdiction, time, facts, purpose, or another condition, the limitation shall be communicated where necessary to prevent reasonably foreseeable misuse.

A material factual or legal proposition shall be traceable to its supporting source or basis to the extent required by the intended purpose and assurance profile.

A legal work product shall not contain a fabricated source, citation, quotation, case, instrument, authority, fact, evidence item, calculation, or other material support represented as genuine.

A material uncertainty known to affect safe reliance shall not be concealed by drafting confidence, selective citation, formatting, or omission.

A WPS shall state whether and when the work product itself requires visible legal citations, factual source references, footnotes, source tables, exhibits, or other user-facing traceability beyond LQS 200 and LQS 300.

A Reference Structure shall be defined by the function of its components before prescribing particular headings, labels, sequence, or formatting.

A universal WPS shall not embed a jurisdiction-specific legal rule as though it were universal.

The requested task label shall not substitute for identifying the actual legal work product or products required for the intended purpose.

Where material risk of correlated model error exists, a conformity design shall not rely solely on the same generation context reasserting that its own output is correct.

A material automated test shall be documented clearly enough for a competent reviewer to understand both what it establishes and what remains outside its scope.

The reviewer shall test material legal and factual source support to the extent required by the Review Configuration and risk.

Material assumptions and limitations shall be assessed for visibility, supportability, effect if false, and compatibility with the intended purpose.

Where adverse authority or counteranalysis is material, the reviewer shall assess whether it was treated sufficiently for the professional role and intended purpose.

An LQS conformity declaration shall not be represented as external certification, regulator approval, court approval, ISO certification, or independent third-party assurance unless that status has actually been obtained and is accurately identified.

A completed checklist or dashboard shall not substitute for access to the actual candidate work product where meaningful human sign-off requires review of the work itself.

A machine implementation shall not transition a legal work product to issued without recorded human sign-off.