It began with a presentation by the senior Mr. Critelli to the Iowa Academy of Trial Lawyers entitled "Litigation: A Systems Approach." With over a quarter-century of experience, assisted by ever-changing advancements in technology, and aided by the creative genius of the next generation of lawyers, the litigation algorithm of old has evolved into today's Computer Assisted Litigation, or "CAL" allows lawyers to leverage the power of technology to provide the competitive edge that is necessary in major domestic and international litigation.
As initially described to the Academy, litigation is a science, whereas advocacy is an art. As a science litigation is subject to the scientific process: The hypothothese are set, controls devised, data are acquired and the results determined usually by summary judgment. . Theoretically, and but for the human element, the results should be subject to replication. As art, Advocacy works on the human element and against replication. With today's technology we can set more accurate controls, catalogue all evidence and the applicable law and analyze the product of the two. This frees us to do what trial lawyers and barristers do best—apply the art of advocacy to the human element.
CAL uses a variety of proprietary and commercial software. Because we must work as a team and synchronize our preparation it is necessary that we use compatible case processing. After reviewing all of the available case processing software in the legal marketplace, we have chosen CaseMap™ as the processing core of CAL. We are experienced and knowledgeable in all of the CaseSoft™ software applications, including CaseMap™, TimeMap™, NoteMap™ and TextMap™ and will train you in their use. The product requires no additional computer power beyond a desktop pc, is not expensive and with some initial training you can be operational in a short period of time.
As defined above, litigation processing is composed of several discrete steps: Initially controls are developed for the specific type of case under consideration. This is a product of initial fact determination and issue identification. To assist us in processing, we have developed a series of templates particularized to most common tort, commercial and business litigation along with business criminal litigation. The output from the process allows us to identity legal and factual "hot spots" and attempt to quantify both the litigation and advocacy risks associated therewith. For example, facts revolve around constants and variables. The more variables that can be converted to constants the lower the litigation risks. Naturally not all facts can be so converted and those variables that remain are uniquely the province of advocacy. As such, we can facilitate the advocacy piece by targeting credibility evidence or mounting an impeachment attach.
As data are acquired through investigation, research or discovery process, it is digitalized, burned to CDRom and catalogued in the database by its nature and type. Factual data is catalogued in chronological fashion and computer linked to the object that forms the source for the data as well as an Adobe™ file containing the scanned copy of the evidentiary source.
Lastly, all cases are build on a foundation of the law. After legal issues have been identified, a legal database of all relevant legal authority is generated, the "elements" of the cause of action or defense are defined and legally supported and the facts and objects computer linked thereto.
After all law, facts and evidence has been identified, catalogued and linked, the true analytical process can begin.
Throughout the life of the litigation, important decisions must be made. The quality of the decision is a product of one's research, analysis, and judgment. Rather than leave the process to touch and feel, we have found that a qualitative analytical approach to decision-making lessens the risk of failure. In this regard, on important matters, we employ a four step decision matrix process. Initially the exact parameters of the decision is defined. Next the various criteria inherent in the analysis are identified. Then the available options are identified. Lastly the criteria and options are both individually and collectively weighted.
Litigation is but preparation for dispute resolution. Be it in the courtroom, through negotiation or via a form of alternative dispute resolution, your client's matter will ultimately be resolved. Be it Indata's Trial Director software or other presentation program, we are familiar with and comfortable in using the latest courtroom technology. Our technology can be a powerful tool for you and your client. but we can't do it alone and we can't be successful without you. You provide the invaluable link between the client and the system, between the theory of litigation and the art of advocacy and the reality of what is best for the client. Simply stated, to be successful, we must be a team.
(c)2004 Law Chambers of Nicholas
Critelli