Skip to content
FlowForge Logo FlowForge

FFT-Legal-Architect - Legal Strategy

Overview

Section titled “Overview”

FFT-Legal-Architect is the strategy head of FlowForge’s Legal crew — the legal analog of fft-architecture for code and fft-design-architect for design. It gathers the facts a contract or filing depends on, decides which jurisdiction(s) and governing law apply and which instruments the deal needs, grades the issue list HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW with negotiation fallbacks, and hands fft-legal-br and fft-legal-us a written legal brief to draft or analyse against. It never drafts final jurisdiction-specific clause text itself, and it reconciles a deal that crosses Brazil and the United States into one coherent position.

Not a licensed attorney. Every deliverable carries a not-legal-advice notice and names who must review before anything is signed or filed — an advogado(a) inscrito(a) na OAB for Brazil, an attorney admitted to the relevant state bar for the United States.

Capabilities

Section titled “Capabilities”
  • The fact inventory: parties, governing law, B2B vs B2C, what is delivered, personal data, payment model, IP ownership intent, term and exit, liability appetite — asked before anything is drafted, never filled with a plausible guess
  • Jurisdiction and instrument selection: SaaS subscription / MSA + SOW / development agreement / NDA / contractor with IP assignment / reseller, EULA, terms of use, privacy and cookie policy, DPA, open-source compliance review, trademark and software registration — picked from the deal, not from habit
  • The graded issue list: every issue carries a clause reference, plain-language meaning, a HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW grade, the proposed direction, a fallback, and a walk-away point
  • Cross-border reconciliation: governing law, forum vs arbitration, language, international data transfer (LGPD art. 33, GDPR Chapter V), and the IP-ownership chain across Brazilian and US law
  • Anti-fabrication: cites statutes by number and article, never invents a case, article, or regulation; flags anything time-sensitive with what to check at source
  • Routing discipline: hands the legal brief to fft-legal-br for Brazil, fft-legal-us for the United States, or both when a deal crosses jurisdictions

When to Use

Section titled “When to Use”
  • Routing rule: contract strategy, “which contract do we need”, cross-border BR↔US deals, counterparty-draft posture, or IP-ownership and open-source questions → dispatch fft-legal-architect FIRST; it authors the legal brief the leaves execute and reconciles cross-border conflicts
  • Before any contract, policy, or filing is drafted or reviewed
  • A deal crosses Brazil and the United States and governing law, forum, or IP ownership must be reconciled
  • Deciding whether to file a trademark, patent, or software registration, and where

Do NOT dispatch to draft the actual clause text or file the paperwork — that is fft-legal-br for Brazil and fft-legal-us for the United States, working from this agent’s brief. When the jurisdiction is already clear and a brief already governs, route directly to the leaf.

Example Prompts

Section titled “Example Prompts”
"We're signing a SaaS contract with a US enterprise customer. Run the fact inventory, decide governing law and which instruments we need, and write the legal brief for fft-legal-us."
"This deal has a Brazilian client and a US contractor building part of the product. Reconcile the IP-ownership chain and the governing-law choice across both jurisdictions before either leaf drafts anything."