AI System for Checking Pleading Attachments Against the File List

The problem

In day-to-day operations, an attachment may be missing or the wrong version may be used. When the pleading draft, attachment list, folder, version and date are spread across different screens, documents or team records, the issue may not be noticed in time.

This fragmented data delays preparation of the attachment checklist and forces staff to search for supporting records again by hand. Before deciding, the matter lawyer must complete missing fields and verify each inconsistency individually.

A common exception is that draft, signed and translated versions may all be present. If this context is not checked, an incomplete or incorrect automation could lead to the wrong document being filed, so the output cannot be acted on directly.

What we set out to improve

• Number of verified attachment alerts
• Share of outputs corrected or rejected by the matter lawyer
• Time between the source record and the review output

How the system works

1. 01 Define the review scope and the authorised matter lawyer role
2. 02 Collect the inputs: pleading draft, attachment list, folder, version and date
3. 03 Check the source identifier, date, version and data freshness
4. 04 Extract attachment references
5. 05 Match references by version and date
6. 06 Check the exception: draft, signed and translated versions may all be present
7. 07 Place low-confidence or conflicting records in a separate human review queue
8. 08 Write the source identifier, rule, output and timestamp to the audit trail
9. 09 Have the matter lawyer approve, correct, defer or reject the output

Methods we used

• Document-reference and exact file-identifier checks
• Source, format, version and required-field checks for the pleading draft, attachment list, folder, version and date
• A missing-data alert instead of an estimate when inputs are absent or conflicting
• Separate handling of exceptions and the main rule
• Joint retention of the source identifier, rule result, attachment checklist and human decision

Where people stay involved

Data and security

Access to the pleading draft, attachment list, folder, version and date is limited to the minimum permissions needed for the task. Identifiers and sensitive fields are masked where possible, and only the necessary section is sent to the model rather than the full raw file. Access, output and the matter lawyer's decision are logged; production use does not begin until the organisation approves the retention period and data location.

Who this suits

Frequently asked questions