A comprehensive AI agent skill for anyone navigating a legal case. Whether you are the plaintiff, the defendant, or somewhere in between — this skill helps y...
There is a before and an after.
Before: the contract was signed and the relationship was functional, or the accident had not yet happened, or the dispute was still just a disagreement that might resolve itself, or the charges had not yet been filed. Life had its ordinary texture. Legal proceedings were something that happened to other people.
After: a document arrived, or a call came, or a letter landed, and the category of things you had to think about expanded to include something you had not chosen and could not easily exit. A case had begun. Yours.
The people who navigate legal cases well are not always the ones with the most resources or the most aggressive attorneys. They are the ones who understood their situation clearly from early on — what they were actually facing, what the realistic range of outcomes looked like, what decisions were theirs to make and what decisions belonged to the process. They treated the case as something to be managed thoughtfully rather than endured anxiously. And they arrived at each decision point with enough information to make the decision rather than defer it.
This skill is built for those people. It is also built for the people who are not yet those people but want to be.
Legal cases are not a single thing. A criminal case, a civil dispute, a family law matter, an administrative proceeding, a regulatory investigation — each moves through different courts, under different rules, with different stakes, different timelines, and different decision points. The strategy appropriate to one is not appropriate to another. The attorney you need for one is not the attorney you need for another.
The first clarity a case requires is categorical. What kind of proceeding is this, and what does that mean for everything that follows?
Criminal cases involve the state as prosecutor and the potential for punishment that includes incarceration. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt — the highest standard in law — and the constitutional protections available to defendants are extensive and important. The decisions a criminal defendant makes, particularly in the early stages, carry consequences that persist regardless of how the case ultimately resolves.
Civil cases involve disputes between private parties — individuals, businesses, organizations — seeking money or injunctions rather than criminal punishment. The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not — and the proceedings are governed by rules that are different in important ways from criminal procedure. Most civil cases settle before trial. Understanding when and why is as important as understanding how to try them.
Family law cases involve matters that feel personal because they are — children, marriage, money, the domestic arrangements of a life — adjudicated in courts that apply standards and procedures designed specifically for these disputes. The stakes are often as high as any legal proceeding, measured in years of custody arrangements and decades of financial consequences.
Administrative and regulatory proceedings involve agencies rather than courts, with their own procedural rules, their own standards of proof, and their own remedies. They are often overlooked in legal planning and are among the more consequential proceedings a business or professional can face.
The skill identifies where your case sits in this landscape and what that means for the decisions ahead.
Courts do not decide what happened. They decide what can be proven. The gap between those two things is where many cases are won and lost — not on the underlying merits of the dispute, but on what evidence exists, what evidence survives, what evidence is organized well enough to be used, and what evidence is lost, destroyed, or simply never captured.
The people who understand this from the beginning of a case treat evidence differently from people who learn it later. They preserve everything immediately, before they know what will matter. They document the current state of affairs — with photographs, records, screenshots, written notes with dates — while the state of affairs is still current. They do not delete communications because those communications are uncomfortable. They do not alter records because the altered version looks better. They understand that evidence destroyed after a legal proceeding becomes possible is not just gone — it is potentially the basis for a spoliation finding that is worse than the underlying evidence would have been.
For each type of case, the skill identifies the specific evidence that tends to be dispositive — the categories of proof that courts weight most heavily — and helps you assess what you have, what you are missing, and what steps are available to fill the gaps before they become permanent.
A legal case moves on a schedule that is not yours. Statutes of limitations determine how long you have to file before the right expires entirely. Response deadlines determine how long you have to answer before a default is entered against you. Discovery cutoffs determine when the period for exchanging evidence ends. Motion deadlines determine when legal arguments must be made. Trial dates determine when everything must be ready.
These deadlines are not suggestions. They are the structure of the proceeding, enforced by a system that does not make exceptions for busy schedules, competing priorities, or the difficulty of finding an attorney on short notice. Missing a statute of limitations does not delay your case. It ends it. Missing a response deadline does not give the other party an advantage. It gives them a judgment.
The skill maintains a complete calendar for your case — every deadline, every required filing, every date by which a decision must be made — and surfaces them in advance rather than at the moment they arrive. It tracks the dependencies between deadlines so that the filing that enables the next filing is never forgotten. It distinguishes between hard deadlines that cannot move and soft deadlines that can be extended by stipulation or court order, and helps you understand which is which.
The most expensive misconception about legal representation is that hiring an attorney means delegating the case. It does not. It means engaging a professional with expertise in the legal dimensions of your situation while retaining full responsibility for the decisions that are yours to make — which, in any significant legal matter, are numerous and consequential.
Your attorney advises you on the law, the procedure, the likely behavior of the opposing party and the court, and the strategic options available at each stage. They do not decide whether to accept a settlement — you do, with their counsel. They do not decide what your priorities are — you do, and their strategy should reflect them. They do not decide how much risk you are willing to carry or what outcome is acceptable to you — those are decisions that belong to the person who will live with the consequences.
The client who participates actively in their own case — who understands what is happening at each stage, who asks questions that surface the reasoning behind recommendations, who provides information completely and promptly, who makes decisions with understanding rather than deference — gets better representation at lower cost than the client who does not. Not because attorneys withhold effort from passive clients, but because the attorney's expertise is most valuable when it is applied to a fully informed decision rather than to managing a client who has not yet understood the situation.
The skill helps you be the first kind of client. It translates legal proceedings into terms that support genuine participation. It generates the questions worth asking at each stage. It helps you evaluate recommendations against the framework of your own priorities rather than accepting them as technical conclusions outside your competence to assess.
Every legal case is a sequence of decisions. Some are obvious — whether to file, whether to settle, whether to testify. Many are less obvious — which claims to include and which to omit, which discovery to pursue and which to forgo, which motions to file and which to reserve. Each decision closes some doors and opens others. The decisions made early constrain the decisions available later.
Understanding this architecture — seeing the case as a sequence of choices rather than a process that happens to you — is the foundation of active case management. It allows you to think about where you want to be at each subsequent stage before you make the decisions that will take you there or somewhere else.
The filing decision is where many cases are won or lost before they begin. The claims included, the court selected, the timing chosen, the relief requested — each of these shapes the terrain on which everything else will happen. A complaint that includes too many weak claims dilutes the strong ones and creates vulnerabilities that a skilled opposing counsel will exploit. A complaint filed in the wrong court may be dismissed or transferred at significant cost. A complaint filed too aggressively may provoke a response that makes settlement harder to reach.
The discovery decision is where cases are built or exposed. Discovery is the period during which each party can compel the other to produce documents, answer written questions under oath, and submit to depositions. It is the most expensive phase of litigation and the most consequential. What you ask for, and how you ask for it, determines what you learn. What you are required to produce, and how you produce it, determines what the other side learns about your case. The party that uses discovery strategically — that identifies the specific evidence most likely to establish or undermine the key contested issues — has a structural advantage over the party that uses discovery as a fishing expedition or responds to it with reflexive obstruction.
The settlement decision is where most cases actually end, and it is the decision that most clients are least prepared to make well. A settlement offer arrives at a moment in the litigation when the costs incurred, the costs remaining, the strength of the evidence developed, and the risk of trial can all be assessed with more precision than was possible at the outset. The question is not whether the offer is fair in some abstract sense. The question is whether it is better than the expected value of continuing — the probability-weighted outcome at trial, discounted for the time and cost of getting there, adjusted for the risk that the trial outcome is worse than the settlement on offer.
This calculation requires honest inputs. An optimistic assessment of trial probability that does not account for the ways cases fall apart — witnesses who perform poorly, evidence that is excluded, juries that see things differently than anticipated — produces a calculation that overstates the value of continuing. The skill helps you build this calculation with the honesty that produces good decisions rather than the optimism that produces regret.
The trial decision is the decision to let a neutral third party — a judge, a jury — resolve a dispute that the parties could not resolve themselves. It is sometimes the right decision: when the settlement offers available do not reflect the realistic value of the claim, when the principle at stake justifies the cost, when the other party is acting in bad faith, when the precedent that a trial establishes has value beyond the immediate case. It is sometimes the wrong decision: when the evidence is genuinely uncertain, when the costs of trial would consume the potential recovery, when the emotional and time cost of continued litigation exceeds the incremental value of winning rather than settling.
The skill helps you make this decision with clear eyes rather than the momentum that carries cases to trial when settlement would have been better, or the exhaustion that produces premature settlement when trial would have been worth it.
Cases do not always go according to plan. Evidence that seemed strong is excluded. A key witness recants or becomes unavailable. The court rules against you on a motion that was central to your strategy. The opposing party produces documents in discovery that change the picture. An unexpected development in the underlying facts alters the strength of your position.
These moments require recalibration — an honest reassessment of where the case stands given new information, followed by a revised strategy that reflects the new reality rather than the plan that was built on assumptions that no longer hold. The most common error at these moments is doubling down on the original strategy without acknowledging that the circumstances that justified it have changed.
The skill helps you recalibrate. It frames the new information honestly, identifies what it changes and what it does not, and helps you build a revised view of the case that is grounded in current reality rather than prior expectation.
A case that ends is not always a matter that ends. A judgment must be collected if the judgment debtor does not pay voluntarily. A settlement agreement has terms that must be complied with over time. A custody order governs an ongoing relationship that will produce future disputes. A criminal sentence has conditions that must be met. A regulatory settlement has compliance obligations that run for years.
The skill helps you understand the post-resolution landscape — what the outcome requires, what it enables, what rights remain, and what obligations have been created. It covers the enforcement mechanisms available when the other side does not comply, the modification procedures available when circumstances change, and the appeal options available when the resolution was wrong in ways that a reviewing court has authority to correct.
This skill is educational. It is a thinking partner that helps you understand your situation, navigate the process, work with your professional representation, and make decisions with genuine comprehension of what you are choosing between.
It is not a law firm. It is not a substitute for licensed legal counsel in any matter with significant stakes. The law is jurisdiction-specific, fact-specific, and changes. The specific application of legal principles to your specific facts requires the professional judgment of an attorney who knows your complete situation and is accountable to you under the ethical rules that govern the practice of law.
What this skill provides — the map of the territory, the vocabulary of the process, the framework for the decisions, the questions worth asking, the patterns that recur across cases — makes the professional representation you engage more effective, because an informed client and a skilled attorney working together is a qualitatively different thing from either one working alone.
ZIP package — ready to use