Start review with the chronology and open questions visible.
MatterGraph proposes structure before attorney review begins. Counsel still decides what is accurate, relevant, sufficiently supported, and fit for use.
Where the factual work sits
Illustrative
Attorney review should not begin with reconstruction.
When facts live across email threads, call notes, messages, and a folder of PDFs, the first review often starts with rebuilding the sequence.
A shared matter record lets the attorney inspect the chronology, source support, unresolved conflicts, and follow-up status without treating an AI summary as authoritative.
- Client story not organized when you need it
- Missing support discovered during final review
- Conflicting statements found late
- Paralegal work not visible without asking
On the review dashboard
- ChronologyEvery event dated, with confidence
- EvidenceWhat supports each fact, what is missing
- ContradictionsConflicts raised for your decision
- Weak pointsFacts resting on one uncorroborated account
- Your notesInternal-only by default in the product model
- ExportsTimeline, memo, or draft declaration
Nothing proceeds without you.
Approve, edit, or reject
Every extracted event carries a review status. Rejecting one never destroys the client’s original answer.
Notes stay internal
Attorney notes default to internal only in the product model. Client-visible activity is kept separate.
Drafts remain drafts
Generated summaries and declarations are starting points that require your review before any use.
It does not practice law
MatterGraph organizes facts provided by the client. It does not assess legal merit, recommend strategy, advise the client, or remove the attorney’s duty to verify final work.
Test the workflow on a representative matter.
Start with a synthetic or fully redacted matter. An initial evaluation does not require live client data.