Legal Analytics

Sure Melissa . I'm available anytime before 3pm today. Shoot me a Zoom invite whenever you're ready.

Morgan 

Morgan  

I'm making the updates based on our conversation but I have another question:

So far based on the spreadsheet it looks like the fields for legal analytics will be determined by proceeding stage and not document type. Will there be any unique fields based on the document type?

Mel

Hi Melissa ​,

Yes, the spreadsheet focuses on the proceedings stage, rather than the document type. However, I can see issues popping up that will require fields based on document type (e.g., for Separate Opinions we'll want to note which arbitrator drafted the opinion).

Morgan

Morgan  

I wanted to bring your comment from Target Process (#9271) here for more discussion:

"I'm not sure I agree with making the distinction between proceeding state and document type for legal analytics purposes. I think we should be able to capture all the data we need by including everything in proceedings stages, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the intention of these requirements."

We had discussed this in the comments above. If this is no longer relevant we can eliminate document types as a legal analytics field group.

Mel 

 

Hi Melissa ,

I've been thinking about this, and I'm going to change my response above.

We have organized Legal Analytics in a way where all the issues concerning various document types are captured within the same list of fields for a particular proceeding stage. Therefore, some fields will be filled in for some document types and left blank for others. For example, some documents will deal with jurisdictional issues, and will have those fields filled in. Whereas other documents will deal with issues on the merits, and will have those fields filled in. Fields that are filled in will be used to populate the applicable data on the front-end of Legal Analytics, and those that are left blank won't appear on the front-end or get associated with the document. Therefore, it makes more sense for us to add additional fields to the general Legal Analytics list, than to create special fields that only appear for the certain document types. As a result, every document type will have the same fields under Legal Analytics, and there will be no reason to differentiate between document types under the Dispute list.

Having said that, we'll need to make some further modifications to the Legal Analytics fields to accommodate certain documents types. For example, we will need to add fields for Separate Opinions to indicate when they are issued, and what documents and issues they are associated with. And there may be other fields necessary for other specialized documents. 

Would you be available for a call tomorrow to discuss integrating these document type specific fields? I have calls until 11:30am Vancouver time tomorrow, but I'm available anytime after that.

Thanks,

Morgan

Morgan  

Just a quick question re: our earlier discussion – for the auto-populated document in the relevant document fields in Legal Analytics, would you prefer to display the document UIN or short title?

Mel

To make it absolutely clear, I think we should include the following:

[Dispute Document: UIN] - [Dispute Document: Short Title] - [Dispute Document: Date]

e.g., IC/0016/02 - CMS Gas Transmission v. Argentina Award - 12 May 2005

Also, the same should apply for searchable dropdown fields when we're retrieving entries from the Disputes and Dispute Documents master list. For Disputes, it should include the following:

[Dispute: UIN] - [Dispute: Short Title]([Dispute: Case Number])

e.g., IC/0016 - CMS Gas Transmission v. Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8)

Thanks,

Morgan