Example
LAW = LEGAL_STANDARD × CANONIC
= Structure(legal) × (C1, C2, Temporal, Relational, C5)
= owned legal vertical
LAW = C1 ∩ C2 ∩ Temporal ∩ Relational ∩ C5
= PATENT (#57)
Legal is typically PATENT-level (no structural standard) because:
Structure varies by practice area (no universal legal data standard).
Legal validity is determined by applicable jurisdiction. All legal work MUST identify governing law.
Example: A contract between a California company and a Texas company must specify which state’s law governs disputes. “This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware.”
Legal claims MUST be supported by admissible evidence.
Example: A patent infringement claim must include claim charts mapping accused product features to patent claim elements, with documentary evidence for each mapping.
Legal matters are time-bound. Deadlines MUST be tracked and met.
Example: A provisional patent application establishes priority date. The non-provisional MUST be filed within 12 months. Missing this deadline destroys patent rights.
Evidence MUST maintain documented chain of custody.
Example: Digital evidence in litigation must show: who collected it, when, how it was preserved, who accessed it, and that it remains unaltered. Any break in chain challenges admissibility.
Legal work product MUST withstand adversarial scrutiny.
Example: A patent application must disclose all known prior art. Failure to disclose material prior art can render the patent unenforceable (inequitable conduct).
| Subdomain | Practice Area | Formula | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intellectual Property | Patents, Trademarks, Copyright | 5 governance checks | IP protection |
| Corporate | Entity Formation, Governance | BUSINESS | Business structure |
| Contracts | Agreements, Licensing | (#30) | Binding arrangements |
| Litigation | Disputes, Enforcement | 5 governance checks | Court proceedings |
| Regulatory | Compliance, Licensing | 5 governance checks | Agency oversight |
| Employment | Labor, Benefits | 5 governance checks | Workforce governance |
| Framework | Lattice | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Patent Law (35 USC) | 5 governance checks | Invention protection |
| Copyright Law (17 USC) | 5 governance checks | Creative works |
| Trademark Law (15 USC) | 5 governance checks | Brand protection |
| Contract Law (UCC) | — | Commercial transactions |
| Corporate Law (State) | — | Entity governance |
| Securities Law (33/34 Act) | 5 governance checks | Capital markets |
| Antitrust Law (Sherman/Clayton) | 5 governance checks | Competition |
`` DECLARE(Patent) = USPTO_RULES × CANONIC
Where: USPTO provides Structure: - Application format (specification, claims, drawings) - Filing requirements (fees, declarations) - Prosecution procedures (office actions, responses) - Maintenance (fees, corrections)
CANONIC provides Governance: - C1: Claims in CANON.md (patent claims) - C2: Proof in COVERAGE.md (prior art analysis) - Temporal: Priority dates, deadlines - Relational: Continuation/divisional hierarchy - C5: USPTO examination
Result: Patent = BUSINESS
Lifecycle: IDF — Initial disclosure Disclosure — Public/private boundary Provisional — Filed with proof Filed — Full application Patent — Granted with enforcement ``
`` DECLARE(Contract) = CONTRACT_LAW × CANONIC
Where: Contract Law provides Structure: - Offer and acceptance - Consideration - Terms and conditions - Signatures
CANONIC provides Governance: - C1: Contract terms as claims - Relational: Party relationships, jurisdiction - C6: Template conformance
Result: Contract = (#30)
Lifecycle: Draft — Terms with structure Negotiation — Parties, boundaries Execution — Signed (evidence) Active — Dated, bounded Enforced — Breach remedies ``
| Validator | Checks | Example Failure |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Legal claims precisely stated | Ambiguous contract term |
| C2 | Evidence supports claims | Patent claim without support |
| Temporal | Deadlines tracked and met | Missed filing deadline |
| Relational | Jurisdiction identified | No governing law clause |
| C5 | Enforcement mechanism exists | Unenforceable provision |
LawChat demonstrates MAGIC 255 governance applied to legal information. Not legal advice — legal literacy. Every answer jurisdiction-tagged and source-cited. Same INTEL + CHAT + COIN composition as the clinical AI suite.
| Product | Domain | Standards | URL |
|---|---|---|---|
| LawChat | Legal literacy | Jurisdiction-aware + sourced + non-advisory | [hadleylab-canonic.github.io/CHAT/LAWCHAT/](https://hadleylab-canonic.github.io/CHAT/LAWCHAT/) |
To create a CANONIC legal vertical:
Identify practice area (IP, corporate, contracts, etc.) Create scope with CANON.md inheriting /LAW/ Define legal claims as axioms Document evidence in COVERAGE.md Track temporal elements (deadlines, dates) Specify jurisdiction in Relational bounds Define enforcement mechanisms
Result: Owned legal vertical with complete audit trail.