LITIG8 Attorney LOI Information Page

Slide Deck

LITIG8 MTD Analysis MVP

MVP Architecture

Overview

Firstly, plaintiffs attorneys generally don’t really stress test a complaint before filing it. Instead, they take a wait-and-see approach to what reasons for dismissal the defense will bring and then answer. This costs the client time and money. LITIG8 solves for this out by providing lawyers advance guidance on the complaint’s vulnerabilities with respect to dismissal, along with suggestions for how to cure those potential defects.

As for the defense attorney, whereas they would necessarily take a heuristic and somewhat ad-hoc approach to analyzing the complaint to identify its procedural defects, LITIG8 takes a systematic, procedural, and exhaustive approach which, by definition, is not how a human would–or could–approach such a task. This approach can substantially lessen the time it will take defense attorneys to craft their Motion to Dismiss

This brute-force approach has the benefit of being a substantially more thorough and robust approach than the human heuristic approach, from which both the plaintiff (before filing) and defense attorneys can benefit.

MVP Steps

  1. The uploaded complaint is parsed by the LLM and each paragraph stored in a data object, allowing reference and re-incorporation thereof.

  2. Each count is stored in a data object, along with the re-incorporated allegations.

  3. There is a separate data object that has at present the 29 most frequent causes for dismissals of complaints.

    1. Each object in the array contains a detailed textbook-like analysis of that dismissal clause, including examples and relevant case law from Federal and Delaware courts (the MVP is focused specifically on Federal cases using Delaware law).

    2. The total data in this file is 208 pages, making it effectively a law school textbook on reasons for dismissal of a complaint in Federal and Delaware courts.

      1. View the source file for this data object here.

  4. The MVP next iterates through each dismissal reason, analyzing its potential applicability to each count, iterating through the respective data objects to conduct an exhaustive analysis of potential reasons for dismissal for each count.

  5. Each reason for dismissal is scored on a 100-point scale on each count, along with a brief analysis and citations to specific paragraphs that reflect the potential procedural defect.

  6. The final step, not yet implemented, is to synthesize the output into a report for the attorney, with the report either focusing on way to cure (for plaintiffs attorneys) or attack the observed defects based on their dismissal likelihood scores.

Request for LOI

If you believe this approach, once more robustly implemented in a Beta-ready form, has value to you and your clients for a $500 flat fee, which would be client-billable, LITIG8 and its founder Eli M. Blatt would greatly appreciate an LOI to that effect.