Practice area
Give discovery organization, deposition summaries, and chronologies to an AI paralegal built for litigation teams. It prepares sourced work, flags gaps and conflicts, and leaves every judgment call to your attorneys.
Deposition summary · Hale v. Northgate Supply
Litigation runs on records. Every matter produces pleadings, productions, transcripts, and exhibits, and someone must organize them before anyone can argue from them. These are the workflows the platform can run for your case teams.
Productions arrive in waves, in mixed formats, and often with fixes to earlier sets. The platform sorts each set by category, custodian, and date range, and builds an index your team can search and trust.
Near-duplicates, unreadable files, and undated documents are set aside as exceptions, so a person decides what to do with them.
Assign a transcript and receive a page-and-line summary in your firm's format. Topics, exhibits, and objections are grouped the way your attorneys prefer to read them.
Testimony that appears to conflict with an earlier statement is flagged with both locations, so the attorney can judge it quickly.
A litigation chronology pulls dates from emails, contracts, pleadings, and testimony into one sourced timeline. The platform prepares the first version and cites the page behind each entry.
Gaps are marked. If a document refers to a meeting with no record of it, the timeline says so.
For first-pass sorting, the platform follows written coding instructions supplied by your attorneys. It groups documents by the issues and categories you define.
Attorneys often need the facts tied to one claim or defense. The platform extracts relevant facts, dates, and quotations into an issue outline, each item linked to its source.
The same record feeds a matter summary: parties, posture, key documents, open items, and upcoming dates, ready before a status call.
The platform can gather background material, outline a research question, and prepare a first draft of a routine document in your template. It supports the work. It does not replace the attorney's reading.
Every authority must be read and cite-checked by a person before it is relied on. Drafts are marked Review Required.
Litigation firms do not buy software for its own sake. They buy back hours, tighter control of cost, and fewer late nights before a deadline. Several pressures shape that decision.
Hourly and hybrid billing put every entry under a magnifying glass. A client asks why a senior person spent an evening sorting exhibits. A write-down follows.
Routine organization is hard to defend on an invoice and easy to do badly when rushed. Moving that preparation into a defined workflow lets firms keep attorney and paralegal time for work clients are glad to pay for. Your firm still decides how it bills.
One matter can produce thousands of documents from each side. Productions arrive late, arrive incomplete, or arrive with corrections to earlier sets.
Volume is uneven, too. A quiet month can end with three productions in one week. Fixed headcount handles the average and struggles with the peak, and a coordinator who falls two sets behind spends the week catching up instead of reading.
Review is slow because mistakes are costly. A privileged document sent out by accident is a problem no firm wants, and reviewers tire late in a long batch.
So litigation teams ask for first-pass sorting that follows written coding instructions, a clear exception list, and a second-level check. The platform can prepare that sorting and the draft log entries. Privilege calls stay with attorneys.
The dates in a scheduling order set the rhythm of a case. Discovery cutoffs, expert disclosures, and motion dates do not bend to a team's workload. Rules and orders vary by court and by judge.
Trouble starts when a needed index or summary is not ready two days before a date. Predictable preparation gives attorneys more runway for motion practice and witness work.
A typical team mixes partners, associates, paralegals, and contract reviewers. Each holds a piece of the record in their head.
Questions bounce across email. Someone requests a summary that already sits in another folder. Matter context kept in one place, with every item tied to a source, cuts the repeat asking and helps a new team member get up to speed.
Rework rarely appears as its own line. A chronology built from an old production set has to be redone. A summary in the wrong format is sent back. An associate rewrites what they could have reviewed.
Delegated work that follows the firm's templates, cites its sources, and flags gaps early tends to come back closer to what the attorney wanted the first time.
Managing partners and litigation chairs ask the same questions. Will it keep client material confidential? Can my team check every output? Will it add steps or remove them? Can I trust research support?
They want to see a real workflow on a real kind of matter. That is why the first step is one workflow in a 30-day pilot, measured against what your team spends today. Research help stays under attorney verification, and security details are documented only where they can be verified.
Pick a workflow to see the kind of output that comes back to a litigation team.
| Page:Line | Testimony | Topic |
|---|---|---|
| 14:2 | Confirms role as regional purchasing lead. | Background |
| 27:9 | Describes the supplier call and attendees. | Ex. 3 |
| 41:15 | States the order change was approved verbally. | Order change |
| 52:6 | Answer differs from the written interrogatory response. | Conflict |
| 68:21 | Identifies the signed amendment. | Ex. 7 |
| Category | Range | Docs |
|---|---|---|
| Correspondence | PLT-000001 to 002950, six custodians | 1,102 |
| Agreements | PLT-002951 to 003400, with amendments | 58 |
| Spreadsheets | PLT-003401 to 004900 | 240 |
| Unreadable files | Set aside for staff follow-up | 12 |
| Privilege candidates | Held for attorney review | 47 |
| Entry | Noted basis | Status |
|---|---|---|
| PRIV-0001 | Email to counsel, legal advice requested | Draft |
| PRIV-0002 | Memo prepared for trial team | Draft |
| PRIV-0003 | Forwarded chain with outside party added | Question |
| PRIV-0004 | Email to counsel, attachment unrelated | Draft |
| All | Fields formatted to the firm's log template | Ready |
| Issue | Record support | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Who approved | Witness says approval was verbal. | Dep. 41:15 |
| Written record | Amendment signed by both parties. | Ex. 7 |
| Timing | Approval call precedes the amendment date. | Ex. 3 |
| Gap | Follow-up email referenced, not produced. | Missing |
| Next step | Outline feeds the attorney's draft brief. | SOP 6.1 |
A team member assigns a deposition transcript and names the matter. The platform reads it with the matter context attached: the parties, the claims, the key exhibits, and the topics the attorney cares about.
It prepares a page-and-line summary in the firm's format, ties every entry to its location, and flags testimony that conflicts with earlier statements or points to a missing exhibit. The summary returns for review.
Each firm summarizes differently. Some want topical digests, others want chronological narratives, and others want issue-by-issue tables.
The platform is set up with your formats, coding instructions, naming conventions, and approval rules. Firm Intelligence carries those standards into every task, so the output looks like your firm's work.
Sorting, indexing, and extraction run as Automated work. Drafts and anything that leaves the firm are Review Required. Privilege calls, strategy, and filing decisions are Attorney-Controlled.
Your firm sets which tier each step belongs to, and every output leaves a review trail.
Real productions are untidy. Files open badly, dates are missing, and pages repeat. The platform does not guess quietly.
It lists unreadable files, undated documents, and near-duplicates as exceptions, so a person decides what happens next.
Around the core record work sits a layer of routine tasks that still takes real time. These fit the same oversight model.
The platform can read a scheduling order, list the dates it sets, and draft the tasks that usually come before each one. A paralegal or attorney confirms the dates and enters them in the firm's calendar.
Because deadline rules vary by court and by judge, a person always verifies the calendar.
Before a hearing, teams gather exhibits, testimony excerpts, and key documents. The platform can assemble excerpt sets by topic, prepare exhibit lists in your format, and build a short record brief for each witness.
Attorneys choose what to use.
Clients want regular updates in plain language. The platform can prepare draft status messages from the matter record, in the firm's approved tone and templates.
Each draft is Review Required. Nothing goes to a client until a person approves it.
Partners ask the same question each week: where do we stand? The platform can compile open tasks, pending productions, upcoming dates, and unresolved exceptions into one report per matter or per team.
It saves the time now spent collecting updates by message.
A new associate or paralegal has to learn a matter fast. The platform can prepare a starter brief with parties, key dates, major filings, and open issues, all linked to sources.
Procedures live in one place, so new hires follow the same steps as everyone else.
Illustrative figures for a team summarizing several transcripts a week. Not a client result.
Time spent summarizing is time not spent preparing the next witness.
Get a custom ROI analysisTestimonial slot (placeholder)
Published after the first pilot, with named approval.
Illustrative figures for a team receiving one production a week. Not a client result.
A pilot picks one litigation workflow, such as deposition summaries or production indexing. Before it starts, we record how long the task takes today.
During the 30 days we track hours saved, turnaround time, items processed, review time, exception rate, and output quality as your own reviewers rate it.
Good is a pattern, not a number we set for you. Turnaround gets shorter. Review time per item is lower than the time to do the work by hand.
Exceptions are real and well explained rather than noise. Reviewers trust the sourcing because they keep finding it correct. Your team judges each of these against its own baseline.
At day 30 you hold your own measurements. If the workflow earned its place, you can add another workflow or another case team. If it did not, you stop with a clear record of why.
Either way, the decision rests on your matters.
A short workflow assessment for your litigation group. We look at your matter volume, your discovery habits, and your review procedures, then rank the workflows best suited to delegation.
We will reply within one business day.
Something else on your mind? Ask us in a demo.
Yes. It sorts each production by category, custodian, and date range, builds a searchable index, and sets aside near-duplicates, unreadable files, and undated documents as exceptions. A paralegal reviews the index and the exception list before the team relies on it.