Bye Bye Bartleby

February 16, 2011

Sea Changes

“It was on the third day, I think, of his being with me….being much hurried to complete a small affair I had in hand, I abruptly called to Bartleby.  … I called to him rapidly stating what it was I wanted him to do- namely to examine a small paper with me.  Imagine my surprise, nay, my consternation, when, without moving from his privacy, Bartleby, in a singularly mild, firm voice, replied, ‘I would prefer not to.'”

Herman Melville, Bartleby (the Scrivener) (Penguin Books 1995) at 11 [hereinafter cited as Bartleby].

Countless books and articles on modern law practice chronicle the  massive sea changes that have occurred in the past 35 years, profoundly disturbing changes that are transforming the future of our profession.  See e.g.,  Macklin Fleming, Lawyers, Money, and Success. The Consequences of Dollar Obsession (Quorum Books 1997) [hereinafter cited as M. Fleming]; Rachel Zahorsky, Majority Say Law Practice is Undergoing a Sweeping Evolution, Survey Says (ABA Journal, March 26, 2010) [hereinafter cited as R. Zahorsky]. I have been a practicing trial lawyer for 35 years, since I passed the bar in 1975 and hung out my own shingle.   I can testify.

Stephen M. Winnick, Esq. is the founder and senior partner of Winnick & Sullivan LLP (www.winnlaw.com); and the developer of Summary Judgment™(www.summjudg.com), a comprehensive case and practice management software tool built on Eastgate Systems’s Tinderbox data platform (www.eastgate.com/Tinderbox).  Additional information about Summary Judgment’s features and operation is available in his prior blog series entitledWinvictus’s Summary Judgment – the Romero Case (www.winvictus.wordpress.com).

Copyright © 2011 Stephen M. Winnick, Esq.  All rights reserved.


Advertisements

The Romero Case – Making Landfall

January 25, 2010

“I can’t change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination.”

In the prior post – Through The Looking Glass – Part Two – we considered the advice given to Alice in Wonderland: “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.” This advice is indisputably true. But of course it is not helpful, indeed it is dangerous, if reaching a specific destination – e.g., winning your case; saving a client from certain ruin – is important to you.

In this last post to my Romero blog series, we are going to take a different tack, the one offered up at the top  by Jimmy Dean, actor and sausagemaker.  This aphorism is also true and at the core of effective case management. The facts of a given case may be immutable, like the wind.  But by having a firm grasp of your ultimate destination, and the effects of the wind in reaching it, you can adjust your sails to always reach your destination.

Let’s see how Dan Hosmer uses Summary Judgment to do just that, in preparing for Carson Romero’s criminal trial for possession and sale of drugs within a school zone.  In the process we’ll review many of the key features of Summary Judgment, and explain how to use them in preparing for trial.

Before putting cursor to screen to draft his witness examinations, make exhibit lists, and complete the rest of his trial prep, Dan makes an updated Tinderbox Map showing the key actors and events, their relationships to one another, and the case for trial as a whole.  He follows these simple steps:

1. He creates “Agents” to retrieve all of the relevant Case File Notes concerning each actor (e.g., Carson Romero; Julie Chandler; Officer Woodson); and the important events (i.e., the house party located in a school zone where Carson is alleged to have been selling drugs); the first accident outside the house party where Carson is accused of ramming Julie’s car; the second car crash, a single car collision involving Julie , in whose possession the drugs attributed to Carson were found,  and which later tested positive at a crime lab).

2. He uses Tinderbox’s powerful “Find” feature, which can search and retrieve any text string (e.g., a word or even a few letters strung together) to search for a few key Notes that he will want to keep separated in his Map for easy reference.  In this case Dan has used the Find feature to locate and retrieve a Note called “Drug Testing Lab Report” into which he had “dropped” a PDF copy of the state police crime lab report of the drugs attributed to Carson.  He put that special Note in its own Adornment entitled “Forensic Evidence.”   See No.3 below.   He also uses the Find feature to locate  a Note called “Timeline” – which is a chronology and timeline of the case facts which he had prepared as the case unfolded; and also “Poss. w/Intent to Distribute”, which is a Note in which he has stored his legal research concerning the specific offense (e.g., the relevant statute and case law).  He puts those special Notes which he may want to refer to repeatedly, near the bottom of his Map where they are handy and can be easily popped open to see their contents.

3. Next he creates “Adornments”  (background boxes) to visually distinguish the important elements of his Map, and he gives each Adornment its own title and distinctive color.

4. Then he moves the Agents  inside of their applicable Adornments (e.g., House Party; Carson Romero; Julie Chandler, etc.).   Because each Agent contains an “Alias” copy of each Note it has retrieved, if while analyzing the case  for trial using his Map  Dan decides to make changes to any of the Aliases stored inside an Agent, then the original Note in his SJ outline will likewise be changed simultaneously.

5. Finally, when he has all of the Notes inside their Adornments logically structured, he creates visual Links between them, which will help him in developing a coherent trial strategy and effective tactics.

This is what Dan’s Trial Map looks like:

Having thought through the issues and obstacles in trying his case, Dan next opens up the Trial Preparation section of the SJ Outline and gets down to business.  In it he finds everything he needs to get the case quickly organized and himself prepared for trial, including subfiles for Witnesses  and Witness Exam forms for drafting direct and cross examinations of each witness;  and Evidence broken down by subcategories (e.g. Contracts/Agreements; Medical Records; Medical Bills; Business &/or Financial Records; Tangible Evidence; Chalks/Charts, etc.).   He can easily create and tailor additional subfiles to fit the case proof, and/or remove those that are not relevant.  Witness and Exhibit List forms are provided into which the well-organized witness testimony, and evidence, can be easily inserted (e.g., by cutting and pasting).

With the Trial Preparation section completed Dan can focus on the Trial itself.  He opens the Trial section of SJ which includes the “Order of Battle” – a handy outline of the anticipated trial elements from pretrial housekeeping matters through verdict/finding; and subfiles covering Impanelment; Opening Statement; Witness Examinations; Motions for Directed Verdict/Finding; Jury Instructions; Closing; and Verdict.

Given the outstanding quality of his trial preparation, there is little likelihood that Dan will lose his case.  But if worst comes to worst and the outcome is disappointing, Dan will be able to challenge it effectively in the Post Judgment and Appeal sections of SJ which cover everything required to preserve the record and successfully appeal an adverse judgment.

Last, but certainly not least, as this week the rent  is due on Dan’s apartment, and it’s a payroll week at the office, in the Time & Billing section of Summary Judgment Dan makes a time slip for the hours he spent in preparing for trial.

And he prepares an Invoice to send out to Joe Romero, Carson’s father, using SJ’s simple Invoicing subsection, which allows rapid collection of all of the relevant time and billing data which Dan has entered himself as the work progressed (e.g., time slips, expense slips, payments and credits, prior balance owed, etc.), makes the necessary financial calculations, and produces an invoice which his client will be more likely to pay because of its simplicity and clarity.

[N.B. I  recommend to my readers that they follow the parallel Romero case blog of Mark Bernstein (Eastgate Systems, Inc.), the developer of Tinderbox. The focus of Mark’s blog is on the mapping features and uses of Tinderbox (which are  incorporated in Summary Judgment™) for analyzing complex fact patterns that are unfolding over time.]

This concludes my Romero blog series.  Dan Hosmer may return with other cases he uses Summary Judgment to manage.  In the meantime I encourage all of my readers to consider attending the upcoming Tinderbox Weekend in Boston, March 13-14.  The focus will be on Law, Journalism and Policy, and will feature several  speakers, including myself, who will offer  insights into the use of Tinderbox for legal applications, among other topics.  I will be speaking on case management using Summary Judgment.   For further information and to register go to: http://www.eastgate.com/Tinderbox/TbxWeekend.html.  I hope to get to meet you there in person.

Stephen M. Winnick, Esq.
Winnick & Sullivan LLP
134 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
(617)926-9200
FAX: (617)923-4575
Email: winvictus@winnlaw.com

Copyright © 2009 Stephen M. Winnick, Esq. All rights reserved.


The Romero Case – Through the Looking Glass – Part Two

January 3, 2010

“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.”          Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.

I’ve saved to this point in the Romero series my concepts of how to use Tinderbox’s™ and Summary Judgment’s™ mapping features.  That is because the mapping features are perhaps the most powerful, but also the most esoteric and technically challenging to employ effectively; and, it has taken me a number of months to understand them myself.

For lawyers, the Summary Judgment outline is designed to ensure that the tasks required to arrive at your destination, are performed automatically and effectively as the case progresses. SJ accomplishes this by digitally tracking the gathering, filing, retrieval, analysis and presentation of information a lawyer must logically follow to manage a case from inception to successful conclusion.

For Tinderbox users generally, for whom there is not a ready-made roadmap leading to your destination, I recommend that serious thought be given at the outset of your problem or project to defining key elements for which notes and text are going to be gathered, organized, analyzed and eventually presented.

For example, for a research and writing project  — as in writing a novel, a play, an academic paper, a documentary work – to define preliminarily the key people; events; transactions; issues, etc. – that will form the skeleton of the research and writing.  As alluded to in my prior Getting a Grip post, Tinderbox is extremely flexible in allowing revision and customization of these outline elements down the road, as the problem or project becomes better understood.  But in my view, having a clear destination in conjunction with an initial structure for the note-taking itself,  is indispensable to getting on the right road from the start.

Once these fundamental elements are preliminarily defined the following steps in organizing a Tinderbox outline will lend themselves naturally, as Summary Judgment does for lawyers, to performance of the underlying tasks necessary for successful completion of the project:

1.    Create a separate “container” or subfile for each key element by opening a TB “Note” for each. Click on the Note menu at the top of the TB screen.  Choose “Create Note”.  In the Create Note dialog box that appears, give the container/subfile an appropriate title (e.g., “People”).

2.    Consider giving the container/subfile (and all notes that are to be filed within it) an identifiable color by using the pull down menu of colors in the Create Note dialog box.

3.    Consider adding other distinguishing features from the Note menu such as a distinct “Shape”, “Border”, “Pattern” or adding a “Badge” (i.e., visual symbol/icon, e.g., a “red flag”).

4.     In the Create Note dialog box there is a section called “On/Add Action.”  This section will allow you to create a “Prototype” form for the container, on which all other notes of the same type will be modeled (e.g., all notes relating to “People” will have the same characteristics such as shape, color, badge, etc.). As a result all notes filed in the  container will have the same recognizable characteristics.  In the “On/Add Action section of the container type: Prototype=”[Name of Prototype – e.g., “People Prototype”]”.

5.    Next create the Prototype form itself (e.g., “People Prototype”) as follows:

a.    Open another TB Note using the Note menu at the top of the TB screen;

b.    In the Create Note dialog box give the Prototype the same name as the container designation for the Prototype (e..g. “People Prototype”).

c.     Importantly, check off the box marked “Can be a Prototype”.

d.    Create “key attributes” for the Prototype (i.e., elements that you will want to fill in and have appear at the top of each note created from that Prototype, which can later be used for sorting and retrieving notes based on the Prototype).  For example, for the People Prototype, key attributes might include the Name of the person; the Date of the note entered concerning that person; the Source of the text concerning that person; the Citation (e.g., to the book, research work, etc. from which it is drawn).

e.    Then add the same visual elements for the Prototype as you used for the container itself (e.g., color, shape, border, pattern, badge).

f.      Move the Prototype inside of its container by pressing the tab key so the Prototype becomes a subnote within its designated container.

6.    Using the Prototype.

a.    Open the container by clicking on the arrow alongside the left side of it to expose the Prototype stored or “nested” inside of the container.

b.    Click on the Prototype to highlight it.

c.     Hit return.

d.    A new form of the Prototype will open and permit you to edit it by filling in the key attribute elements at the top and then inserting the text of the new note in the body of the note form.

e.    As discussed above, the new note will have the same characteristics as the Prototype itself (e.g., shape, color, badge, etc.), and be properly stored where it logically belongs as a subnote inside of the container.

7. By following the same procedures for creation and use of Prototypes for the other key elements of your project, all of your project notes will be logically stored where they belong, easily distinguishable by topic, able to be searched and retrieved quickly, and in a form which lends itself to effective use of TB’s powerful mind-mapping features for analysis and understanding.

The effectiveness of this approach to Tinderbox note-taking is demonstrated by the mind map shown below for “A Christmas Carol” by Dickens.   Distinctive prototypes for notes relating to the People and Locales were created at the outset, allowing an effective mind map to be made using a Tinderbox map view.  The mind map utilizes colored “Adornments” (boxes) to group text notes by category (i.e., for People and Locales).  Because the notes are modeled after distinctive “People” and “Locales” prototypes, they are readily distinguishable by, for example, color and shape.  Visual links created between the key persons and locales exposes their logical relationships to one another and the overall story.

[N.B. I  recommend to my readers that they follow the parallel Romero case blog of Mark Bernstein (Eastgate Systems, Inc.), the developer of Tinderbox. The focus of Mark’s blog is on the mapping features and uses of Tinderbox (which are  incorporated in Summary Judgment™) for analyzing complex fact patterns that are unfolding over time.]

Stephen M. Winnick, Esq.
Winnick & Sullivan LLP
134 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
(617)926-9200
FAX: (617)923-4575
Email: winvictus@winnlaw.com

Copyright © 2009 Stephen M. Winnick, Esq. All rights reserved.


The Romero Case – Through the Looking Glass

December 25, 2009

“Now if you’ll only attend, Kitty, and not talk so much, I’ll tell you all my ideas about Looking-glass House.  First, there’s the room you can see through the glass – that’s just the same as our drawing room, only the things go the other way.  I can see all of it when I get upon a chair — all but the bit behind the fireplace.  Oh, I do so wish I could see THAT bit!” Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 1: Looking Glass House.


“Tommy, get in here, I have to show you something.”

“What is it? I’m trying to get a closing package out to Cindy Donofrio for recording this morning, so we can get paid and I can get a pay check this week, it being Christmas and all.”

“You know that new case management software we bought, ‘Summary Judgment’, you have to see what you can do with it when it’s up and running with all of the facts of a real case loaded in.  They call it ‘mind-mapping’.  You can actually see and think through the case by setting up map views and screens showing the key people, places, transactions – the timeline and so on.  It works like a white board for brainstorming, but better, because you can put in these crazy links that keep related things tied together, even when you move them around on the screen.”

“You mean the software you bought.  That’s your shtick.  For a Luddite like me it’s just going to mean another pain in my ass to learn and change my work routines, before you replace it with another whizbang gizmo that is supposed to make my life easier. You know, Danny, I wish you wouldn’t be so good to me that way.  You might think about donating the money you spent on this new tech toy to what you put in my Christmas stocking this year, if you catch my drift.”

“Well, get with the new tech toy program or you’ll be getting coal in your stocking this year.”

“Why should this year be any different, Ebenezer?”

“And I suppose you’ll be wanting to take Christmas off again, Crachit?”

“That’s right.  And it sure is a shame you don’t get paid by the word like Dickens.  We both might be able to have a White Christmas for a change.”

“This is the future of case management, Man.  Come on, take a look at this.”

Dan showed Tommy a simple Mind Map of the first accident which looked something like this:

“For the first accident, you see we’ve got the argument between Carson and Julie at the house party which triggered everything, and the police investigation by Woodson which ties Carson to the A&B dw and the civil personal injury and property damage  claims through Julie.  So you see the visual links I made between them.  Inside those colored boxes — they’re called ‘adornments’- I put the text notes from the Case File that relate to those people and events in the map.  And when I want to see all of the case info stored inside these boxes I can just pop open the notes inside each of them and review what we have and what we may be missing and so on.”

“And running down the left side I put a few key notes that have info I want to be able to refer to straightaway, like the timeline,  just by clicking on them and popping them open.”

“Now take a look at this Bad Boy.”  Dan showed Tommy a second Mind Map, more complicated than the first, regarding the drug distribution case:

“You see how we’ve got the alleged drug sales to other kids at the house party and alleged distribution to Julie who didn’t pay anything for the pills, assuming any of these allegations by her are true.”

“Yeah, so what? Another pretty picture Carson can put up ‘to adorn’ his jail cell.”

“So here’s what. Watch what happens when I move this box with all of the stuff about Carson to the other side of the map.”

“Yeah, I see.  Carson is tied to the house party.  And the stuff about the house party and the drug sales moves with him.  You’re right.  That is cool.  We can’t separate Carson out from the house party in the school zone where the drugs were sold.  So we have to look for a different angle on getting him off, like maybe the weaker link between Carson and the girl Julie who was drunk or drugged up herself and whose credibility can be attacked.”

In Through the Looking Glass – Part Two we will see what Dan was thinking in setting up the Romero case Mind Maps and exactly how he used the features of Tinderbox and Summary Judgment to create them.

[N.B. I  recommend to my readers that they follow the parallel Romero case blog of Mark Bernstein (Eastgate Systems, Inc.), the developer of Tinderbox. The focus of Mark’s blog is on the mapping features and uses of Tinderbox (which are  incorporated in Summary Judgment™) for analyzing complex fact patterns that are unfolding over time.]

Stephen M. Winnick, Esq.
Winnick & Sullivan LLP
134 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
(617)926-9200
FAX: (617)923-4575
Email: winvictus@winnlaw.com

Copyright © 2009 Stephen M. Winnick, Esq. All rights reserved.


The Romero Case – Repeat After Me

December 17, 2009

Joe Romero called in yesterday to say that Carson and Joe have both been served in a civil lawsuit filed by Birgitta Cline on behalf of her minor daugher, Julie Chandler. The plaintiff is represented by the local “King of Torts”, I. Ken Fleecem, Esq. of the firm of Dollars and Cents, LLP. The complaint alleges serious personal injuries sustained by Julie in both auto accidents, on the theory that there is a causal connection between Carson’s involvement in the first accident and the second, which makes Carson (as operator) and Joe (vicariously, as owner) liable for the injuries she allegedly sustained in both.   Approximately two weeks ago Joe sent a letter to his auto insurer, the Soulless Insurance Company, notifying Soulless of the lawsuit and asking it to defend the lawsuits against Carson and Joe. Yesterday Joe was advised that, based on its preliminary accident investigation Soulless has determined that Carson’s conduct in causing the first accident was intentional and probably criminal; and, on that basis, Soulless was denying coverage “until further notice”, not only to pay any money judgments that might result against the Romeros, but also to “defend” (e.g., to provide an attorney to represent the Romeros in the lawsuits).  Dan was compelled to advise Joe, that Dan would have to defend the civil lawsuit on an hourly basis, which means that the Romeros would be paying substantial amounts out of pocket for the legal defense which they had expected to be provided by their insurance company.  Moreover, at the end of the day, if Julie prevailed in her lawsuit, there might be money judgments against Carson and Joe for which there is no insurance coverage, and which might be collectible against the Romero family assets.

As indicated in the suit papers, an Answer on behalf of the Romeros is due within 20 days from the time of service.  But because much of that time was eaten up before Soulless’s denial of coverage, there are only 3 days left now for Dan to file a timely Answer.  So the first thing Dan does is enter a Task To Do in Summary Judgment with a DueDate of 3 days from today, and a priority of “Urgent”, to make sure that it doesn’t fall through the cracks in the bustle of Dan’s busy law practice.

Next Dan enters “boilerplate” text in the Case File Development section of the SJ Outline with the lawsuit Case Caption; Signature Block (signature line with Dan’s name, firm, telephone, fax, email, Bar Registration No., etc.); and Certificate of Service (with opposing counsel’s name and address, etc.).


Then he quickly drafts an Answer to the complaint, and a transmittal cover letter to the civil clerk for filing the Answer and serving it on opposing counsel, using the editable forms and templates for standard pleadings, correspondence and other Case File documents furnished in the Summary Judgment outline.

The distinction between a SJ “template” and a SJ “form”, is that a template (e.g., Pleading Template) is designed to automatically import and assemble portions of the document from pre-entered boilerplate text  (e.g., for a pleading, the boilerplate sections for the Case Caption, Signature Block and Certificate of Service).  “Forms” contemplate that the user will “copy and paste” the boilerplate text sections into the form.  In either case the user will draft and/or edit the body of the Case File document to produce a finished edition (e.g., for filing with the court and service on opposing counsel).

Since the forms and templates are located where they logically belong (e.g., under Case File Development/Pretrial Proceedings/Pleadings/Answer), the finished Case File document is also stored where it logically belongs in the case.   And most importantly, in terms of the lawyer’s time and efficiency, the forms’ and templates’ mantra, “Repeat after me”, ensures that the the lawyer does not have to “reinvent the wheel.”

In the next post we will see how Dan uses the mind-mapping features of Summary Judgment’s underlying Tinderbox platform to travel “Through the Looking Glass,” in analyzing and understanding the complex facts and issues posed by the Romero case.

[N.B. I  recommend to my readers that they follow the parallel Romero case blog of Mark Bernstein (Eastgate Systems, Inc.), the developer of Tinderbox. The focus of Mark’s blog is on the mapping features and uses of Tinderbox (which are  incorporated in Summary Judgment™) for analyzing complex fact patterns that are unfolding over time.]

Stephen M. Winnick, Esq.
Winnick & Sullivan LLP
134 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
(617)926-9200
FAX: (617)923-4575
Email: winvictus@winnlaw.com

Copyright © 2009 Stephen M. Winnick, Esq. All rights reserved.


The Romero Case – Reap What You Sow

December 10, 2009

Dan is a smart lawyer.  So he knows that cases turn on facts.  And you reap what you sow in gathering and organizing them, in being able to retrieve and employ them quickly when needed  (e.g, for pleadings, hearings, trial preparation, etc.).

Although the Romero case is in its infancy, Dan has already gathered a treasure trove of investigation and research materials which he has stored and organized in SJ’s outline (e.g., accident reports and police reports for both accidents; Julie Chandler’s medical records; the Police Lab report with respect to the pills found in Julie’s car).  Dan has scanned these documents as PDF files and “dropped” the PDF files into their designated subfolders in the Case File Development – Investigation subsection of the SJ outline.

He has downloaded the relevant statutes and pertinent case law and commentary relating to each offense from his online research system, and he drops those research materials into the Case File Development – Legal Research subsection of the outline in custom subfolders created for Assault and Battery Dangerous Weapon; and Poss./Distribution of Class A  Drugs – School Zone.  

Now it’s time to make heads or tails from it all.  Here’s where Summary Judgment earns its keep.

The first thing Dan does is break down the legal issues into their natural compartments.  For example, in the Legal Issues subsection under “Substantive Issues”-“Liability/Breach”- he creates two customized subfolders, one  for “A&B dangerous weapon” and the other for  “Poss./Distribution Class A Drugs – School Zone.”  Each subfolder operates as a separate “Note” in Tinderbox, which means that it can store large amounts of materials pertinent to it, including attaching PDF files in the “drop file” area of the Note.  Dan “drops”  the pertinent statute of each offense into the “drop file” section of each subfolder.    In the text section of the relevant subfolders he begins to summarize the case file information relevant to each offense.



As the case unfolds and more investigation and discovery information is furnished, he will update these sections of the SJ outline so they represent the current state of his knowledge.

[N.B. I  recommend to my readers that they follow the parallel Romero case blog of Mark Bernstein (Eastgate Systems, Inc.), the developer of Tinderbox. The focus of Mark’s blog is on the mapping features and uses of Tinderbox (which are  incorporated in Summary Judgment™) for analyzing complex fact patterns that are unfolding over time.]

Stephen M. Winnick, Esq.
Winnick & Sullivan LLP
134 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
(617)926-9200
FAX: (617)923-4575
Email: winvictus@winnlaw.com
Copyright © 2009 Stephen M. Winnick, Esq. All rights reserved.



The Romero Case – Dead Reckoning

November 28, 2009

The arraignment was routine.  In a ritual as familiar to him as the catechism, Dan introduced himself as counsel for the defendant, waived reading of  the complaint, and entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of his esteemed client, Carson Romero. Carson, for his part,  seemed genuinely chastened from the Riot Act Dan had read him last night. Whether Carson’s  performance is worthy of an Oscar remains to be seen.  Given the seriousness of the charges and the client’s ability to make bail, there was no point trying to suggest to the Hon. ‘Hang-Em High’ Hanrahan less bail than the $2500 already set.  Discretion being the better part of valor, Dan let that stand without a fuss; and he set a pretrial conference date of Jan. 6 so that the Romeros could mercifully get through the holidays before having to deal with their son’s mess again.

When Joe Romero’s first call came in Dan thought this file would have all the excitement and glamor of a run-of-the-mill auto wreck case. Now he finds himself wading knee-deep into a complex web of criminal and civil actions.   His file opened,  fee agreements in place, and his most trusted associate, Mr. Green, now on the case,  Dan needs to quickly get his bearings and start plotting a course for straightening out this skein of legal trouble  for his clients.

With its powerful organizing, searching, sorting and mind-mapping capabilities, Summary Judgment is the right navigational tool for the dead reckoning Dan must do. He puts it right to work in taking down the background facts and occurrence facts using the comprehensive intake forms provided in the Case Intake section of the SJ outline.

In the next post we’ll see how Dan uses all of the investigation information he has gathered and organized in SJ to get a fix on where he is, and proper course headings to the next waypoints.

[N.B. I  recommend to my readers that they follow the parallel Romero case blog of Mark Bernstein (Eastgate Systems, Inc.), the developer of Tinderbox. The focus of Mark’s blog is on the mapping features and uses of Tinderbox (which are  incorporated in Summary Judgment™) for analyzing complex fact patterns that are unfolding over time.]

Stephen M. Winnick, Esq.
Winnick & Sullivan LLP
134 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
(617)926-9200
FAX: (617)923-4575
Email: winvictus@winnlaw.com

Copyright © 2009 Stephen M. Winnick, Esq. All rights reserved.