Where it says no
Four times the software refuses, in its own words.
The question that matters is what it declines to produce, and which rule stopped it.
- The wording is the product's own, quoted from the code.
- Two name their provision and two do not, because a ledger refusal turns on the file.
- Every refusal names the remedy, because stopping at no leaves a deadline and no route.
- Some refusals name nobody, since a rule is not a permission.
Illustrative. Three screens from the working software, on invented files. The platform, screen by screen.
Why the refusal matters most
A tool that knows when a thing cannot be done at all carries the firm's risk.
The will emailed for signature
A fee earner drafts a will and sends it out for signature. Bracton refuses at that door, for every role in the firm.
A will or a codicil
HeldNamed in the refusal: Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837
The refusal in full
- Why
- This paper reads as a will, and a will is signed on paper or not at all. Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 has the testator's signature made or acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, each of whom then signs in the testator's presence, and the Ministry of Justice said when video witnessing was allowed that electronic signatures were not. A will that fails section 9 is void, and nobody finds that out until the testator has died and cannot put it right.
- Who can authorise it
- Nobody in this firm can authorise this, because the obstacle is the form the instrument has to take rather than anybody's authority, so the refusal reaches a partner exactly as it reaches a trainee.
- What would fix it
- Attend on the client, or arrange the attendance at their home or on the ward, with two witnesses in the room at the same time. The original goes on the safe custody register the day it is executed.
The coronavirus order let a witness watch over a video link for wills made from 31 January 2020 to 31 January 2024, and it has expired. It never permitted an electronic signature.
Checked against section 9, the video witnessing guidance, and the Law Commission on electronic execution and wills law.
The transfer with no bill
Money sits in the client account, work has been done, and the firm wants it. Bracton answers from the file's bills.
Transfer to the office account
HeldOurs, not the software's: Rule 4.3, SRA Accounts Rules 2019
The refusal in full
- Where nothing has been billed
- The file owes the firm nothing, so client money stays where it is. A transfer answers costs properly billed.
The sentence is read from the ledger as the button is pressed, and where a bill is outstanding and client money held, an act moves the lesser of the two figures.
The receipt banked as office money
A cheque arrives, somebody decides it is the firm's money, and it goes into the office account. Bracton works the account out from the file instead.
Banking a receipt as office money
HeldOurs, not the software's: Rules 2.1(d), 2.3 and 4.1, SRA Accounts Rules 2019
The refusal in full
- Why
- Nothing stands billed on this file, so no part of this receipt is office money. Receive it as client money entire.
A payment covering a delivered bill and leaving a surplus is split at the door, in one act that commits whole or not at all.
The limitation date already gone
A file is opened on an employment plan and the day of the dismissal given. Where the limitation date has passed, Bracton will not diarise it anyway.
A day the diary cannot hold
HeldThree months less one day, and the judgement that follows it
The refusal in full
- What the plan says when the day has gone
- The tribunal limitation on that day's claim may already have run. Early conciliation can extend it and the tribunal holds its own discretions, but whether the claim lives is a person's decision, and the path will not diarise a day that has gone. Take the limitation decision first and diarise it by hand.
Illustrative. The fourth refusal at the head of the screen, on an invented file.
What this is not
The product carries many more, and some will be wrong, because a rules engine written by one solicitor is exactly that.
Nothing here promises it catches everything in your firm. Test the shape by watching it run, and test it on your own files through the review.
Twelve statements that were wrong
Twelve statements of law in an earlier version were wrong, corrected against primary sources, which is why each entry carries what it was checked against.
How Bracton sits against the bundled assistants is on its own page, and the platform on the platform page.
Contact
Put the hard one to us
Tell us the instrument, the ledger position or the deadline you think would catch it out.
Book a free hour on your own files