‹ Home
Exported

TOLOGIX - ISLG App Rebuild

Laura Mindorff, COO at IndustrialHarsh Parikh, Tech Lead at DevITMelissa Cowell, General Manager at IndustrialHiren PatelMonica Martinez, MonolabMarysia RaptisPaul MoonIrit WeinfeldPatrick Harris, Web Designer at IndustrialPiyush Kanpariya, DevITRob Wiesenberg, ContegraRadomir Mladenovic, ContegraKetan Sondarva, Technical Project Manager at DevITStephanie Ducasse, Web Developer at IndustrialAkash Buch +16 others
Added by Savannah Mitchell • Updated

Legal Analytics Discussion - 06/14/2019

Notes Summary 
  • Get rid of distinction between legal proceedings and document tagging
Separate Opinions
  • Separate opinions must be treated differently because they are treated as being influential
  • Must show how opinion potentially influences the decision
    • Create additional fields asking if there is a separate opinion and would prompt you to add that document (with opportunity to add multiple) and then add arbitrator who authored that opinion.
    • Need to show what decision that opinion is dissenting 
  • If document is a separate opinion, it will not have the first 3 fields. It will only ask what it is associated with.
    (note: If you want fields on some and not others, we have to understand what all the doc types are and what the fields are associated with.)
  • Should be an indication if the separate opinion disagreed with the document 
  • Possibility of a separate opinion with any type of document

Legal Analytics
  • keep to most basic of fields at the upload stage. Once in edit stage, other fields will be available
Disputes

- no need for doc type




Comments & Events

Morgan Maguire, CEO Morgan Maguire, CEO
Hi Melissa Cowell, General Manager at Industrial Melissa ,

Following-up on action item above concerning Separate Opinions, did we ever create the necessary user stories to deal with Separate Opinions for dispute documents. Note that I created the relevant fields in the ISLG Meta Field Maps, but I don't see anything on TargetProcess that appears to deal with this issue: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ho_yBR8gfCIqivmvkPy_hISkDGozdWsXxn46ImeQ-V4/edit#gid=0
image.png 204 KB • Download

Thanks,

Morgan
Notified 2 people
Melissa Cowell, General Manager at Industrial Melissa Cowell, General Manager
Morgan Maguire, CEO Morgan  

I had originally hoped that we could accommodate this with the logic we have designed for using values from existing fields. 

https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/11207-add-new-meta-field-greater-dropdownsearchable

1. For the Arbitrator Annulment committee member field + Author of separate opinion field:
"Pulls from the People associated with Dispute list under field sets Tribunal, Annulment Committee, Tribunal (Resubmission) and Annulment Committee (Resubmission) according to what proceeding stage is selected under Proceeding Stage."

With what we've designed for meta-field management, an admin could create a searchable dropdown field that:
  • Uses the selected dispute as the reference field (defines the record where the values are found)
  • Uses Tribunal, Annulment Committee, Tribunal (Resubmission) and Annulment Committee (Resubmission) fields on the dispute record to supply the values of the dropdown
However, the list of values would NOT be filtered by the Proceeding Stage. Is this a hard requirement? This introduces a level of complexity that I'm not sure is worthwhile. 

2. Associated Decision or Award
"Field only appears for documents with Document Type: Separate Opinion. Pulls from Dispute Documents all documents from the same Dispute that are from the same proceeding stage as selected under Proceeding Stage."

We can currently define fields by document type. However we cannot limit the dispute documents by dispute or proceeding stage. Is this a hard requirement? In other places throughout the application, searchable dropdowns pull from all available dispute documents. Is it important that this field behave differently?


I will join your call with Savannah today so we can discuss further.

Mel
Notified 2 people
Morgan Maguire, CEO Morgan Maguire, CEO
Hi Melissa Cowell, General Manager at Industrial Melissa ,

Let's discuss during the call this morning. However, further to the screenshots below, ideally the 'Separate Opinion' and 'Associate Decision or Award' fields would only pull dispute document entries from the same dispute. Similarly, ideally the 'Author of Separate' opinion would only pull people entries that have been associated with the same dispute as arbitrators/annulment committee members. Isolating it down to the same proceeding stage is not necessary.
image.png 199 KB • Download

image.png 203 KB • Download

Morgan
Notified 2 people
Morgan Maguire, CEO Morgan Maguire, CEO
Hi Melissa Cowell, General Manager at Industrial Melissa ,

Following up on our call, these are the action items related to the above: 
  1. Determine whether we can accommodate the requirements for separate opinions through the existing meta-field management systems, or whether we'll need to hard code some of the requirements.
  2. Create requirements for displaying separate opinion indicators for dispute document cards.
  3. Create/modify requirements for what information is displayed for dropdown fields for all master lists across all forms.
  4. Review/modify requirements for displaying annulment/judicial review indicators for dispute/dispute document cards.
Thanks,

Morgan
Notified 2 people