Skip to content
MatterGraph
How it works

One sentence from a client, followed all the way.

The clearest way to explain MatterGraph is to take a single line of a client’s account and show everything the system does with it.

Every fact keeps its source

Illustrative

SOURCESTHE FACT THEY SUPPORTClient statementPolice reportWitness statementCollision on I-10
  • Attributed
  • Editable
  • Attorney reviewed
Step one

It starts with how people actually talk.

Partway through a guided interview, a client types one sentence. It contains four people, a location, an implied date, a threat, and several possible evidence needs, none of them labelled.

A static form would file this as free text in a box called “Additional details.”

Client answer

“A debt collector came to my family home and threatened my brother and mother after I left.”

Step two

What the system takes from it.

Each of these becomes a record in the matter, linked to the answer it came from.

Event

Debt collector visited family home

Date type: unknown. Confidence: client stated. Awaiting review.

People

Four people identified

The client, their mother, their brother, and the collector, each with a role in the event.

Location

Family home

Recorded as a place that can be linked to other events in the matter.

Evidence

Five items needed

Brother’s affidavit, mother’s affidavit, call logs, photographs, messages.

Step three

Follow-ups tied to specific gaps.

The sentence is missing a date, the exact words used, whether anyone else saw it, and whether anything was put in writing. Each gap generates a specific question rather than a generic request for more detail.

Questions go back to the client in the same guided interview, so the answers land as structured records instead of arriving as a reply email someone has to re-read and re-key.

Generated follow-ups

  • What date did this happen?
  • Who was present?
  • What exactly did the collector say?
  • Was there any written notice?
  • Did anyone report this?
  • Can your brother provide a written statement?
Step four

It becomes work with an owner.

Gaps do not sit in a summary waiting to be noticed. They become tasks that trace back to the fact that created them.

  1. Step 01

    Ask whether the brother can provide a statement

    Suggested from the evidence gap on the event. The firm decides whether the statement is useful and what form it should take.

    Evidence gapwaiting_on_client
  2. Step 02

    Request the mother’s affidavit

    A second corroborating account for the same event, tracked separately so partial progress is visible.

    Evidence gaptodo
  3. Step 03

    Ask the client to pin down dates

    Raised because the event carries a date type of unknown, which will need resolving before the account can be relied on.

    Follow-upwaiting_on_client
  4. Step 04

    Verify the loan documentation

    Added manually by the paralegal after reading the account. Manual and suggested tasks use the same tracking model.

    Manualin_progress
Step five

The attorney opens a file that is already organized.

By the time an attorney looks at the matter, the account is in order, the supporting documents are attached to the facts they support, the gaps are named, and any inconsistencies have been flagged for a decision.

What the attorney does is the part that requires an attorney: assess it, note the theory it supports, decide what is weak, and approve or reject what the system proposed. Nothing has been concluded on their behalf.

  • Relevant to the harassment theory
  • Date currently uncertain; review what can be established
  • Needs a corroborating affidavit before it can be relied on
  • Compare against the client’s earlier statement for consistency

What the attorney can export

  • Case timeline

    The chronology with sources attached

  • Evidence checklist

    What is held, what is outstanding

  • Draft declaration

    A starting point, requiring review

  • Case memo

    Matter summary for the file

  • Task report

    Outstanding work across the matter

Every output is a draft

Extracted events, generated questions, contradiction flags, and draft declarations are all suggestions. They require attorney review and approval before they are used for anything. MatterGraph does not determine legal merit, recommend strategy, or produce filing-ready documents without a lawyer signing off.

Test the workflow on a representative matter.

Start with a synthetic or fully redacted matter. An initial evaluation does not require live client data.