A fictional estate · every name invented
In the matter of the Estate of Cornelius Albury Thane, deceased
Contentious probate. Six documents. Every name invented. Press 1–6 to jump.
1 · Will, 12 March 2019
I, CORNELIUS ALBURY THANE of Lyford Cay, New Providence, revoke all former wills. I appoint my daughter MIRABEL THANE-ROLLE sole executrix. I give my residence at Lyford Cay to Mirabel absolutely. I give my shareholding in Thane Marine Supplies Ltd equally to Mirabel and my son DESMOND THANE. The residue of my estate I give to the trustees of the Albury Family Settlement (2011) to hold on its trusts. Signed in the presence of two witnesses, Nassau.2 · Codicil, 4 September 2023 (executed at Sunrise Care Residence)
I confirm my will of 12 March 2019 save that I revoke the gift of my shareholding in Thane Marine Supplies Ltd and give the whole of it to my daughter Mirabel absolutely. Witnesses: E. Ferguson (care assistant), L. Pinder (administrator).3 · Letter from Dr A. Moxey, GP, 2 February 2023
Mr Thane attended today with his daughter. He was oriented to person and place; he was uncertain of the date. Short-term recall was poor. He expressed clear views about his family. I have advised a review in three months and referred him for a memory assessment.4 · Letter from Coral Harbour Bank, 15 April 2025
Further to the death of Mr Thane on 3 March 2025, the brokerage account (ending 4471) stood at B$1,842,600 at the date of death. No transactions have been processed since. We await the grant.5 · Email chain, Desmond Thane to Mirabel Thane-Rolle, 18 January – 9 April 2025
18 Jan: "Dad doesn't remember signing anything in 2023. Who arranged that?" — 2 Mar: "I want to see the codicil." — 9 Apr: "I've instructed counsel. The company shares were always meant to be shared."6 · Caveat, filed 22 April 2025
Desmond Thane, son of the deceased, enters a caveat against any grant in respect of the will of 12 March 2019 and codicil of 4 September 2023 on the grounds of want of testamentary capacity and undue influence as to the codicil.Demo A · 0:00–3:00 · hard stop 3:00
A recorded demonstration
The good
What I asked it
From the six documents, produce a dated chronology of events relevant to the validity of the 2023 codicil, one line per event, oldest first, citing the source document for each line. Do not infer events not stated in the documents.
Recorded · date not setNo recording loaded — Prep tab.
Then one more — the transactional flash
From the same six documents, draft a short letter to the executrix summarising the position and the next three steps, in plain English.
Recorded · date not setNo recording loaded — Prep tab.
Say
"I ran these and recorded every keystroke — you're watching exactly what happened, at the speed it happened."
"Six documents, one instruction: chronology, sourced, no inference. Fifteen lines, each with its source — because I told it to cite. Under Appendix A: Procedural Documents, Permitted. And even this, if filed, carries the certificate."
"Same tool, one more prompt — a first-draft letter from facts you supplied. That's the daily use for most of this firm. You read it, you own it, it never went near a court."
Reflection beatProcedural Documents — Permitted; certify if filed. The letter — not court work at all.
Demo B · 3:00–7:30 · never cut · hard stop 7:30
Recorded — then checked, live
The trap
Three beats. 1 — it refuses to invent (45 sec). 2 — with search on, it looks authoritative (60 sec). 3 — three things to check, checked live (2 min). Hard stop 7:30.
Beat 1 · asked to name Bahamian authorities — from memory
Answer from your own knowledge only. Do not search the web. What Bahamian authorities establish the test for testamentary capacity where a codicil is executed in a care home? Give case names, citations, and the court.
Recorded · date not setNo recording loaded — Prep tab.
"It refused to invent them — and told me why. That is genuinely better than 2025, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. Good. Now watch what happens when I let it search."
Beat 2 · then I let it search
Recorded · date not setNo recording loaded — Prep tab.
"Real cases. Real links. A table, a burden-of-proof framework, a reasoned answer. This is the version most of you would actually use."
Beat 3 · three things a verifying lawyer would check
- A report citation on a case a leading practitioner guide describes as unreported. It gives Rolle v Ferguson "[2013] 2 BHS J No 12". Which is right? We look.
- A secondary source cited as if it were the primary. The link on that row is Coakley v Deshanks — a later judgment that applies Rolle. Fair place to read about it; not the case itself.
- One authority with no source at all. Every other row carries a link. The Ervin Knowles row carries none. So we search for it — now.
So we look. The judgments of the Supreme Court are public and searchable:
- Search the unsourced case. Narrate the result, whatever it is.
- Found: "there it is — and that is exactly what checking does. You don't know until you look."
- Not found: "and that is the one that would have reached a filing."
"Nothing was invented. Everything is plausible. So which is harder to catch at six in the evening — a case that does not exist, or a citation that is subtly wrong on a case that does? The failure moved from fabrication to attribution. That is why section 10 says every citation must exist and be accurate — and the second half is now the half that matters."
Recorded · date not set · fallbackFallback empty — the live search is the plan.
Nothing on this screen is a verdict. The room watches the check happen. Run the names through the firm's database on Friday morning anyway — so nothing surprises you — but the beat no longer depends on any answer.
Reflection beatThat was the s 10 duty — exists, and accurate — and why the certificate says "all legal authorities have been verified."
Demo C · 7:30–10:00 · compressible to 90 sec
What never enters a public tool
The line
Not into a public tool — ever
- The trust deed, the will, the codicil.
- The client's name, or anything that identifies them.
- The facts of the matter.
Practice Direction No. 3, section 8 — the reason
"…prompts, requests or interactions within the program may be automatically added to the large language model database, and used to respond to queries from other users… unless it is disabled."
And s 8(3): material to which professional privilege may attach may not be put into a public chatbot at all.
Which is what "an approved tool" means
A secured deployment where retention is off, training on your data is off, and both are committed in writing. That single word in section 8 — disabled — is the whole difference between a public tool and one the firm can approve.
Say
Show the bundle — document 1, the will, and the Albury Family Settlement. Nothing is pasted anywhere.
"This does not go into a public tool. Not the deed, not a client name, not the matter facts."
"Section 8's own logic: prompts may be added to the model and surface for other users — unless that is disabled. That word is the whole difference between a public tool and a secured deployment: retention off, training off, in writing. That is what an approved tool means."
No vendor named. No product endorsed. If the clock is against you: the first two panels and two sentences.
Reflection beat · and the bridgeThat was s 8. And notice — for the trust deed there is no row on the grid at all. Which brings us to what this means at your desk.
Then
Back to the deck → slide 7 "What this means at your desk".
Prep · saved in this browser only
Load the recordings
The four runs from 6 September are already loaded — the tabs work as they are. Edit only if you re-record, or to fix the date.
Recording date — shown on every replay, always (this is the only place the date is stated)
A1 · the chronology — paste the model's output verbatim
A2 · the letter — verbatim
B1 · the refusal (browsing off) — verbatim
B2 · the searched answer (browsing on) — verbatim, untouched
Verification fallback — only for a dead connection
Leave this blank unless you want insurance. It is hidden from the room by default; press F to summon it if courts.bs will not load on the day. If you fill it, paste the result of the search exactly as the site showed it — never a note to yourself.
Firm database link (optional)
How to record — Tuesday, 20 minutes
- Open any leading consumer model, fresh session, browsing off.
- Paste the bundle + prompt A1. Copy the output into A1 above, verbatim.
- Prompt A2. Copy into A2.
- Prompt B with browsing OFF ("answer from your own knowledge only"). Copy the reply into B1 — the refusal is the first beat.
- Prompt B again in a NEW chat with browsing ON. Copy into B2 exactly — do not tidy it; the authority of its formatting is the point.
- Search courts.bs for the party names and the citation. Note the result in the fallback box.
- Enter the date and time. Save. Reload the page and press Play on each tab.
Two rules. The tag says RECORDED with the date on every replay — the design will not let a recording masquerade as live. And nothing is edited: the model's refusal and its searched answer both go in exactly as they came. The point is no longer that it invents — it is that the failure moved from fabrication to attribution.
Friday, before 10:00
- Clean desktop: this page, the deck, one browser tab for courts.bs. Nothing else.
- Teams: share the window, not the desktop.
- Browser zoom 150%. Read a replay from the back row.
- Press Play on A1, A2, B once. Load the fallback.
- Names checked against the Bar directory and the judgments list.
Audience mode — important
The stage opens in audience mode: your script, the reflection beats, the checklists and this Prep tab are hidden, and the recordings run full-width in larger type. Press N to show your notes (rehearsal only) and N again to hide them. A small "Presenter view" flag appears bottom-right whenever notes are showing — if you can see that flag, so can the room.
Your script for the day is the printed lectern card, not this screen.
Keys
N notes on/off · Space clock · R reset · A B C tabs · 0 bundle · 1–6 document · P play the current tab's first recording