About me
I’m a final-year LLB based in the UK. My focus is on how legal systems function not just in theory, but in practice, structure, and design.
Right now, I’m co-developing L-Wiz Terminal, a modular legal research tool designed to make case analysis faster and cleaner. The project reflects my broader interest in tools that reduce friction in legal workflows by enhancing clarity and access.
I treat law as an interface for resolving conflict and coordinating action. This site collects what I’m working on: writing, tools, and ideas at the intersection of law, systems, and tech.
Featured Project: L-Wiz Terminal
L-Wiz is a legal research interface I’m building with two friends in Computer Science and Physics. It’s designed for fast, structured access to case law, legislation, and annotations, built to reduce the friction of legal research without compromising on depth.
The aim isn’t to create another platform it’s to treat legal data as infrastructure, not content. We’re applying principles from technical domains (indexing, modularity, clarity) to legal workflows, so that users can interact with law more directly and precisely.
I lead on legal logic and contribute to the engineering: from interface structure to parsing workflows. It’s early-stage, but we’re building with a longer view: structured annotations, exportable notes, modular design — tools that make legal research workable.
Philosophy Of Law
Law is a form of constraint system: a stable interface for regulating behaviour under conditions of disagreement. Its legitimacy comes not from outcomes, but from structure rules applied consistently, transparently, and without exception.
A legal system is only valid if it satisfies three conditions: transparency (rules are knowable), repeatability (reasoning is generalisable), and equality of application (rules bind all, including the state). If it fails any of these, it is not law it is power dressed as law.
Discretion is not a solution to unfair outcomes. It is a failure mode. A system that allows ad hoc exceptions invites arbitrariness and rewards those who can manipulate narrative over rule. Principles like fairness and equity are only legitimate when internally codified and procedurally constrained.
I take a formalist view: law should secure basic negative rights freedom from interference, stable property claims, enforceable contracts but should not engineer outcomes or moralise intent. Its role is to define the parameters within which autonomous coordination is possible, not to direct its content.
This view extends to legal technology. Predictive tools and inference engines, if they exist, must be public. Open source justice is the only legitimate form of computational legalism. Anything else creates asymmetry, turning law into a private game rather than a shared infrastructure.
The test of a legal system is not whether it feels just, but whether it performs its structural function under pressure: to coordinate actors, resolve conflict, and preserve intelligibility across time.
Read More
If you're interested on my approach to law or thoughts on various subjects, you can explore the following:
Projects: