In recent years the term “jural analytics” gained ground, in sense of what many authors imply incorrect or unilateral meaning. Jurisprudence, being a branch of humanities, submits logical and normative connections. The last arises from the fact that law is called to represent in abstract form and regulate life and life-sustaining activity of humans and society (as matters of facts, relations and connections). That means that rules (regulations) are defined in general and level and, being settled in legislative acts. Expressly the abstractness is on what the continental (statutory/normative) juridical framing differs from the Anglo-Saxon (case law/preceding) one. When minding the statutory juridical framing, source of the legal norms are law in its general sense, administrative statutory acts, interpretative acts of the constitutional court and conventions of the highest lawcourts/tribunals; judgements (judiciary practice) are only subsidiary source whereas judiciary acts are only advisory in nature. Enforcement proceedings themselves have three divisions in each particular case:

• Knowingness of the certain norms (statutes) relevant to regulated relations (for example: what the law says about construction contract);
• Interpretation of legal norms (statutes) (i.e a process aimed at apprehending the essentials of the legal regulation, legal purposes and effects that were laid down in laws by the legislative authority. For example, a construction contract: which essential elements differ it from a contract for services either a contract of service, what provisions are imperative, what requisites are obligatory however their content is left to the parties` discretion, and which ones` presence/absence and content are utterly at parties` discretion);
• Analysis of these norms (statutes) (analysis in restricted sense) (that means a process of researching and collating all the documents and acts relating to a certain contract, plus judgements, in order to generalize interpretative resumes (own or conducted by other participators in turnover), to form conclusions in regard to applying particular regulation and to find out omissions in regulating thus to comprehend how better to settle the contract and to fix in writing the agreements between the parties so to avoid further disputes toward content, effect, intensions of the parties and also any claims from the governmental authorities for illegality, absence of economic expediency, absence of commercial purposes and attempt to circumvent the tax system).

Reading the law and learning the law revisions is, at most, providing the process of interpretation of the legal norms (statutes). Knowledge of the law is reduced to the knowledge of procedures: sometimes this might be enough for employer as the legal service is provided and the set goal/task is achieved at first sight. You asked for a registration/licence/permit – you got it. But what indeed you`ve gained (what is the amount of rights, their effect (causal power) and extend so as the possibility of protection and defense of the legal concerns) you normally start thinking about when inability to exercise own rights occurs either such a number of limitations are imposed over their realization that they render useless. Oftentimes jurist`s mistake is unwitting – a many of them don`t observe stages of the enforcement proceedings as well as confound the concept of “interpretation” and the concept of “analysis in restricted sense” – this is thought to be a pure theory from the distant university times having no practical implementation. Apprehension of the jurisprudent activity essence and quality is within the reach of leading jurists and vast-diversified experienced jurists. Only they know the difference between “to have right”, “to have the possibility to exercise right” and “to defend legal concern”. The purpose of providing the full-scale enforcement proceedings is to make sure that client`s interest has due legal form, peremptory effectualness and enforceability – otherwise it would be “bare right” (right valid but ineffectual and unenforceable). The function and sense of law as guaranteed and protected by government system of rights, responsibilities and proper conduct resides primarily in its practical applicability not in casuistry - law (jurisprudence) is not philosophic or scholastic frame but representation of realness on abstract level.

Jural analytics (analysis in the broad sense) is a holistic system of logical assertions and conclusions based on juridical acts/documents/relations. In the process of analyzing single elements so as a particular framework as a whole are correlated and appraised. The task of analysis in the broad sense is to gain representation of the current status of the legal basis, to construct models for optimizing and (or) rectifying errors in the legal component of business and to promote workings in particular aspects related to the legal basis. This could be a legal audit, educing the strong and the weak points in business activities based on appraisal of the presented documents or actual document flow. This could be research on structure optimization, aimed at accommodating relations within a certain financial-industrial group (diversification and consolidation). This could finally be meta-legal analysis, i.e analysis at the intersection of jurisprudence and other departments (such as finance, management (administration development), human resources, marketing etc.).

The main function of analytics resides in the intention that the organization meets the legislative requirements, features a flexible structure and holds the possibility swiftly to adapt to the fluctuating conditions of legal regulation and sociopolitical realia. The highlight is the planned sequent development and alteration herewith holes and variances in the system are restricted to a minimum and the core workings are being operated at the plane present-time sample and midterms. The common sense is constructing a legal frame, a contractual system and a jural document flow in the way that allows to evade the necessity in permanent corrections with past-date effect, whereby contradictions and concurrent-being facts/various-content acts inevitably occur. Building up once integral, logically non-contradictory and systematic frame and document flow network affords much more easier to withstand the line by putting moderate correctives into effect when needed than by constantly changing the basis, and thus engaging attention and excessive questions.

Taking into account all mentioned above, it becomes apprehensible that executing legal norms without employing the analysis in restricted sense is impossible. If separate/eliminate this kind of analysis we`ll obtain quasi-legal but not legal services. Thus, the implication of jural analytics as a kind of legal services resides in analysis in the broad sense: when provided comprehensive and diverse research and appraisement of particular business aspects aimed at :

• Attaining substantive apprehension of the corporate/structural legal strand with the purpose to amend and optimize it;
• Building up models for further advancement and transition of the legal form, structure and connections (concern) relating to the organization itself or to it relations with affiliate companies and third parties;
• Soliciting investors by not only economical criteria but in some way transparent, seamless legal frame attained;
• Estimating expenses for optimizing the business being merged/alienated as far as no one needs “financial giant” having juridical weakness on the horizontal and vertical level leading to problems with counterparties and authorities, where rearrangement of the legal frame and relations may take from three up to six years and assimilate funds commensurate with building up business from scratch…