Workflow template for legal and contracts
Filing package check
Before a filing goes to the attorney for signature, the paralegal gets every item on the firm’s own checklist for that court and judge marked pass or open: caption against the docket, length and format, certificates, exhibits, signature blocks and service. The attorney decides and signs.
This workflow template prepares legal work for a lawyer to review. It gives no legal advice and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
The attorney picks up a filing package whose housekeeping has already been held up against the firm’s own checklist, item by item. The caption has been compared with the docket, party by party and digit by digit. The exhibits the brief refers to have been matched against the exhibits behind it, in both directions. The proof of service has been compared with the matter’s service list and with the counsel the docket shows. The defendant who dropped out of the caption, the exhibit referred to on page 2 that nobody attached, the bar number with two digits swapped, the co-defendant’s counsel left off the proof of service: each is found while there is still time to fix it, and each is a line for the attorney to confirm.
The check holds a firm line. It gives no legal advice and decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. A pass means only that the files show what the checklist item asks; whether the filing is sufficient is the attorney’s call. It ships no formatting defaults and uses no court rule from memory: the firm’s checklist is the only measure. It counts no date, writes nothing for the package, edits no file, and sends, files, serves, signs and calendars nothing. Everything it produces is a draft for the named attorney, with a line for each point the attorney must confirm.
Who starts the work, and when
The paralegal or legal assistant preparing the filing starts it once the package is assembled and before it goes to the responsible attorney for signature, and runs it again after each round of corrections. The responsible attorney decides and signs. In a company’s own legal team, that is the in-house lawyer who signs; where a company has no lawyer of its own, the check is addressed to outside counsel, never to the business as an answer.
It is not for deciding whether a filing is ready, working out when it is due, writing a missing certificate or proof of service, or filing and serving.
What they supply
- The filing package: every file, with readable text, in filing order: the main document, the exhibits, the certificates and the proof of service.
- The firm’s filing checklist for that court and judge, approved and dated by an attorney, with an ID, an area and the requirement written out for each item.
- The docket record as the court shows it, printed or saved that day: the court, the case number, the judge, every party, the counsel for each party and the hearings set.
- The matter’s service list, exported from the matter file as a spreadsheet.
- The signing attorney’s record from the firm’s attorney roster.
- The matter, the firm’s client in it, the case number, the document’s title, the attorney who signs, today’s date, which hearing on the docket the document is for when the docket sets more than one, and the word processor’s word count where the checklist sets a word limit.
The workflow template ships no court rules and no formatting defaults. Every requirement comes from the firm’s checklist, used exactly as written. If a column heading in the checklist or the service list does not match the one the template names, it stops and asks which column holds what. It never counts words itself, and what the text cannot show, such as type size, margins or where something sits on the page, is left open for a person to check by eye.
What comes out
One draft check, headed as a draft for the attorney:
- Package read: each file, what it holds and how many pages, counted by its own page numbers.
- Checklist items: every item in the checklist’s order, marked pass or open, with the requirement quoted and what the files show located by file, page and line. Each open item says why: a gap, something the text cannot show, an item that is unclear, an input not supplied, or a date that would have to be counted.
- Exhibits: each exhibit label, where it is referred to and where it is attached, so one referred to but missing and one attached but referred to nowhere both stand out.
- Service: each person on the service list against the proof of service, then anyone in the proof who is not on the list, then any counsel the docket shows who is not on the list.
- Attorney to confirm: a line for each open item, then lines for the attorney to confirm the passes, decide sufficiency and authorise filing and service.
- Check: the counts, the areas the checklist has no item for, and how pages and words were counted.
The paralegal corrects the files, checks by eye what the text cannot show, and runs it again. Then the package and the check go to the attorney, who answers every line, decides, signs and authorises filing and service. Only then do people file and serve.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Brindlemoor Quist LLP, its people, its client, the other parties and their counsel (Firm B LLP and Firm C LLP), the District Court of Eastmere, its judge, the docket, the filing checklist and every document below are all invented. The checklist is one invented firm’s requirements for an invented court. It is not any real court’s rule and must not be used for a real filing.
The paralegal’s inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares.
Input 1: the request
From: Kofi Marchetti, paralegal
Date: Tuesday 17 November 2026
Please check the filing package for the Quillfeather opposition before it
goes to Odile for signature. It has to be filed by Friday, so flag
anything urgent.
Matter: Quillfeather Ceramics Co. v. Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc.
Case no.: WC-26-CV-04417
Client: Quillfeather Ceramics Co., Plaintiff
Document: Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc.'s
Request to Continue the Case Management Conference
Signing attorney: Odile Prentiss, responsible attorney
Check run by: Kofi Marchetti, paralegal
Today: 17 November 2026
Hearing (docket entry): November 24, 2026
Files, in filing order:
01 Opposition.pdf (3 pages)
02 Exhibits.pdf (6 pages)
03 Proof of Service.pdf (1 page)
Attached: the Department 12 filing checklist, the docket as of this
morning, the service list, and Odile's entry from the attorney roster.
Input 2: the firm’s filing checklist
Brindlemoor Quist LLP · Filing checklist
Court: District Court of Eastmere, Wrexholt County
Judge: Department 12, Hon. Lucan Ferreira
Covers: oppositions and replies, with their exhibits and proof of service
Dated: 15 September 2026 Review by: 15 March 2027
Approved by: Selwyn Achterberg, litigation partner. Changes go through him.
Item ID | Area | Requirement
CAP-1 | Caption | The court's name on page 1 reads exactly as the
docket gives it.
CAP-2 | Caption | Every party is named on page 1 as the docket
names it, word for word, in the docket's order.
No 'et al.' on page 1.
CAP-3 | Caption | The case number on page 1 is exactly the docket's.
CAP-4 | Caption | The department and the judge's name appear under
the case number, as the docket gives them.
CAP-5 | Caption | The hearing date, time and department on page 1
are copied from the docket entry that sets the
hearing.
LEN-1 | Length | The main document is no more than 10 pages,
counted by its own page numbers, caption page and
signature page included.
FMT-1 | Format | Line numbers in the left margin of every page of
the main document.
FMT-2 | Format | Body text in 12-point type or larger.
FMT-3 | Format | Every page of the main document carries its page
number at the foot of the page.
CERT-1 | Certificates | A proof of service, titled 'Proof of Service', is
a separate file after the exhibits. It names the
document served by its full title as on page 1,
and has the server's name, a date line and a
signature line.
EXH-1 | Exhibits | Every exhibit the main document refers to is
attached, and every exhibit attached is referred
to in the main document.
EXH-2 | Exhibits | Each exhibit sits behind its own slip sheet
reading 'EXHIBIT' and its letter, in letter order.
SIG-1 | Signature | The attorney's name, bar number, firm, address,
telephone and email, at the top of page 1 and in
the signature block, match the firm's attorney
record. The signature line is left blank for the
attorney to sign.
SRV-1 | Service | The people listed in the proof of service match
the matter's service list: every person, with the
method and the address the list gives.
Input 3: the docket record
DISTRICT COURT OF EASTMERE, WREXHOLT COUNTY
Docket printed: November 17, 2026, 8:05 a.m.
Case No. WC-26-CV-04417
Department 12 · Hon. Lucan Ferreira
Parties
QUILLFEATHER CERAMICS CO., Plaintiff
DUNMARROW LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant
TARNWICK YARD SERVICES LLC, Defendant
Counsel
For Plaintiff Quillfeather Ceramics Co.: Odile Prentiss, Brindlemoor Quist LLP
For Defendant Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc.: Hollis Grange, Firm B LLP;
Wendell Ashby, Firm B LLP
For Defendant Tarnwick Yard Services LLC: Marisol Tenney, Firm C LLP
Hearings set
November 24, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department 12: Hearing on Defendant
Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc.'s Request to Continue Case Management
Conference
December 8, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Department 12: Case Management Conference
Input 4: the matter’s service list
Service list · Quillfeather v. Dunmarrow · WC-26-CV-04417
Updated November 12, 2026 · kept by Kofi Marchetti
Name,Represents,Firm,Service method,Address or email
Hollis Grange,"Defendant Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc.",Firm B LLP,Electronic service,hgrange@firmb.example
Wendell Ashby,"Defendant Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc.",Firm B LLP,Electronic service,w.ashby@firmb.example
Marisol Tenney,Defendant Tarnwick Yard Services LLC,Firm C LLP,Electronic service,mtenney@firmc.example
Input 5: the attorney record
Brindlemoor Quist LLP · Attorney roster
Odile Prentiss
Bar No.: 318824
Firm: Brindlemoor Quist LLP
Address: 410 Harrow Street, Suite 900, Wrexholt City, Eastmere 90412
Telephone: 555-0142
Email: oprentiss@brindlemoorquist.example
Input 6: the filing package
The three files as the AI assistant reads them. The main document carries its own line numbers and page numbers. The other two files have no page numbers, so their pages are shown as PDF pages.
01 Opposition.pdf
1 Odile Prentiss (Bar No. 318842)
2 BRINDLEMOOR QUIST LLP
3 410 Harrow Street, Suite 900
4 Wrexholt City, Eastmere 90412
5 Telephone: 555-0142
6 Email: oprentiss@brindlemoorquist.example
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Quillfeather Ceramics Co.
8
9 DISTRICT COURT OF EASTMERE, WREXHOLT COUNTY
10
11 QUILLFEATHER CERAMICS CO., Case No. WC-26-CV-04417
12 Plaintiff, Department 12
13 v. Hon. Lucan Ferreira
14 DUNMARROW LOGISTICS, INC., et al.,
15 Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
16 DEFENDANT DUNMARROW LOGISTICS,
17 INC.'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE
18 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
19
20 Hearing: November 24, 2026
21 Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Department 12
23
24 Plaintiff Quillfeather Ceramics Co. opposes the request of defendant
25 Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc. to continue the case management conference
26 set for December 8, 2026.
27
28 1. The parties exchanged initial disclosures on October 2, 2026.
- 1 -
1 Plaintiff's cover letter enclosing its disclosures is Exhibit A.
2
3 2. Defendant has not said which witness is unavailable. Its email of
4 October 30, 2026 says only that "a key witness" is unavailable in
5 early December. That email is Exhibit B.
6
7 3. On November 2, 2026, plaintiff offered to hold the conference by
8 video. Defendant did not reply. Plaintiff's offer is Exhibit C.
9
10 4. Plaintiff asks the court to keep the case management conference on
11 December 8, 2026.
- 2 -
1 Dated: November ___, 2026 BRINDLEMOOR QUIST LLP
2
3 By: /s/ Odile Prentiss
4 Odile Prentiss (Bar No. 318842)
5 410 Harrow Street, Suite 900
6 Wrexholt City, Eastmere 90412
7 Telephone: 555-0142
8 Email: oprentiss@brindlemoorquist.example
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 Quillfeather Ceramics Co.
- 3 -
02 Exhibits.pdf
[PDF page 1]
EXHIBIT A
[PDF page 2]
BRINDLEMOOR QUIST LLP
October 2, 2026
Hollis Grange, Firm B LLP
Re: Quillfeather Ceramics Co. v. Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc.
Enclosed are plaintiff's initial disclosures.
Odile Prentiss
[PDF page 3]
EXHIBIT C
[PDF page 4]
From: Odile Prentiss
To: Hollis Grange
Date: November 2, 2026
Subject: Conference on December 8
We are content to hold the December 8 conference by video. Please let
us know.
[PDF page 5]
EXHIBIT D
[PDF page 6]
From: Hollis Grange
To: Odile Prentiss
Date: October 30, 2026
Subject: Conference
A key witness is unavailable in early December. We will ask to move the
conference.
03 Proof of Service.pdf
[PDF page 1]
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Kofi Marchetti, work at Brindlemoor Quist LLP, 410 Harrow Street,
Suite 900, Wrexholt City, Eastmere 90412.
On November ___, 2026, I served PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
REQUEST TO CONTINUE, with its exhibits, on:
Hollis Grange, Firm B LLP, for Defendant Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc., by
electronic service to hgrange@firmb.example
Wendell Ashby, Firm B LLP, for Defendant Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc., by
electronic service to washby@firmb.example
Date: ______________ Signature: ______________
Kofi Marchetti
What the workflow template prepares
A short note to the paralegal, then the draft check.
Kofi, the check for the Quillfeather opposition is below. No stop applied. Of the 14 checklist items, 5 pass and 9 are open: 6 gaps and 3 the text cannot show. Line numbers in the left margin (FMT-1), type size (FMT-2) and page numbers at the foot of the page (FMT-3) need checking by eye, and so does one part of SIG-1: that the attorney block sits at the top of page 1. The gaps: Tarnwick Yard Services LLC is not named on page 1, which has “et al.” instead; page 1 gives the hearing time as 9:00 a.m. and the docket gives 8:30 a.m.; the proof of service does not give the document’s full title as on page 1; Exhibit B is referred to on page 2 and not attached, and Exhibit D is attached and not referred to; both attorney blocks give bar number 318842 where the roster gives 318824, and the signature line already reads “/s/ Odile Prentiss”; and the proof of service leaves out Marisol Tenney and gives a different email for Wendell Ashby. I matched exhibits by letter only and did not compare what they contain.
Your request says the opposition has to be filed by Friday. I did not check or count that date or any other; it is Odile Prentiss’s. Still to do, by people: correct the files, check by eye the line numbers’ margin, the type size, where the page numbers sit and where the attorney block sits, run the check again, then give the package and the check to Odile Prentiss. I have changed no file, written nothing for the package, and signed, filed, served and sent nothing.
DRAFT FILING PACKAGE CHECK · FOR THE ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM
Checked against the firm's filing checklist only. Not legal advice. Nothing
is decided about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or
deadlines.
PASS means the files show what the item asks, as the checklist words it.
It does not mean the filing is sufficient: the attorney decides that.
Nothing has been changed, written, signed, filed, served, sent or calendared.
Matter: Quillfeather Ceramics Co. v. Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc.
Case no.: WC-26-CV-04417
Document: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DUNMARROW LOGISTICS, INC.'S
REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Prepared for: Odile Prentiss, responsible attorney, to confirm and sign
Run by: Kofi Marchetti, paralegal
MEASURED AGAINST
- Checklist: Brindlemoor Quist LLP filing checklist, dated 15 September
2026, review by 15 March 2027, approved by Selwyn Achterberg.
Covers: District Court of Eastmere, Wrexholt County; Department 12,
Hon. Lucan Ferreira; oppositions and replies, with their exhibits and
proof of service.
In date on 17 November 2026.
- Docket record: taken November 17, 2026.
- Service list: updated November 12, 2026, kept by Kofi Marchetti, 3 people.
- Attorney record: Odile Prentiss, from the Brindlemoor Quist LLP attorney
roster.
PACKAGE READ
P1. 01 Opposition.pdf · PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DUNMARROW
LOGISTICS, INC.'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
· 3 pages (own page numbers)
P2. 02 Exhibits.pdf · slip sheets EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT C and EXHIBIT D, one
page behind each · 6 pages (PDF pages)
P3. 03 Proof of Service.pdf · PROOF OF SERVICE · 1 page (PDF pages)
A. CHECKLIST ITEMS
CAP-1 · Caption · PASS
Checklist: "The court's name on page 1 reads exactly as the docket gives
it."
- Measured against: docket: DISTRICT COURT OF EASTMERE, WREXHOLT COUNTY
- Found: DISTRICT COURT OF EASTMERE, WREXHOLT COUNTY (01 Opposition.pdf,
p. 1, l. 9)
CAP-2 · Caption · OPEN: gap
Checklist: "Every party is named on page 1 as the docket names it, word
for word, in the docket's order. No 'et al.' on page 1."
- Measured against: docket: QUILLFEATHER CERAMICS CO., Plaintiff;
DUNMARROW LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant; TARNWICK YARD SERVICES LLC,
Defendant
- Found: QUILLFEATHER CERAMICS CO., Plaintiff; DUNMARROW LOGISTICS,
INC., et al., Defendants (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1, ll. 11-15)
- Gap: TARNWICK YARD SERVICES LLC is not named on page 1.
- Found: "et al." (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1, l. 14)
- Gap: "et al." appears on page 1.
CAP-3 · Caption · PASS
Checklist: "The case number on page 1 is exactly the docket's."
- Measured against: docket: WC-26-CV-04417
- Found: Case No. WC-26-CV-04417 (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1, l. 11)
CAP-4 · Caption · PASS
Checklist: "The department and the judge's name appear under the case
number, as the docket gives them."
- Measured against: docket: Department 12; Hon. Lucan Ferreira
- Found: Department 12, under the case number (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1,
l. 12)
- Found: Hon. Lucan Ferreira, under the case number (01 Opposition.pdf,
p. 1, l. 13)
CAP-5 · Caption · OPEN: gap
Checklist: "The hearing date, time and department on page 1 are copied
from the docket entry that sets the hearing."
- Measured against: docket: November 24, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department 12
(the entry the request names)
- Found: Hearing: November 24, 2026 (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1, l. 20)
- Found: Time: 9:00 a.m. (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1, l. 21)
- Gap: page 1 gives the time as 9:00 a.m.; the docket entry gives
8:30 a.m.
- Found: Department 12 (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1, l. 22)
LEN-1 · Length · PASS
Checklist: "The main document is no more than 10 pages, counted by its
own page numbers, caption page and signature page included."
- Found: pages numbered - 1 - to - 3 -, 3 pages, caption page and
signature page included (01 Opposition.pdf, pp. 1-3)
FMT-1 · Format · OPEN: not checkable from the files
Checklist: "Line numbers in the left margin of every page of the main
document."
- Found: line numbers 1 to 28 on page 1, 1 to 11 on page 2 and 1 to 10
on page 3, at the start of each line of the text read (01
Opposition.pdf, pp. 1-3)
- Not checkable: that they sit in the left margin. The text read
carries no margin. A person checks it by eye.
FMT-2 · Format · OPEN: not checkable from the files
Checklist: "Body text in 12-point type or larger."
- Found: nothing in the text read (01 Opposition.pdf, pp. 1-3)
- Not checkable: the type size of the body text. A person checks it by
eye.
FMT-3 · Format · OPEN: not checkable from the files
Checklist: "Every page of the main document carries its page number at
the foot of the page."
- Found: - 1 -, - 2 - and - 3 -, each the last line of text on pages 1,
2 and 3 (01 Opposition.pdf, pp. 1-3)
- Not checkable: that they sit at the foot of the page. The text read
carries no place on the page. A person checks it by eye.
CERT-1 · Certificates · OPEN: gap
Checklist: "A proof of service, titled 'Proof of Service', is a separate
file after the exhibits. It names the document served by its full title
as on page 1, and has the server's name, a date line and a signature
line."
- Found: titled PROOF OF SERVICE (03 Proof of Service.pdf, p. 1,
para. 1)
- Found: a separate file, P3, after the exhibits file, P2 (request:
"Files, in filing order")
- Found: document served: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST
TO CONTINUE (03 Proof of Service.pdf, p. 1, para. 3)
- Gap: the full title on page 1 is PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
DUNMARROW LOGISTICS, INC.'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1, ll. 15-18).
- Found: server's name, Kofi Marchetti (03 Proof of Service.pdf, p. 1,
paras. 2 and 6)
- Found: a date line and a signature line, both blank (03 Proof of
Service.pdf, p. 1, para. 6)
EXH-1 · Exhibits · OPEN: gap
Checklist: "Every exhibit the main document refers to is attached, and
every exhibit attached is referred to in the main document."
- Found: the main document refers to Exhibits A, B and C (01
Opposition.pdf, p. 2, ll. 1, 5 and 8)
- Gap: Exhibit B is referred to and not attached.
- Found: Exhibits A, C and D are attached (02 Exhibits.pdf, pp. 1-6)
- Gap: Exhibit D is attached and not referred to.
- See B2, B4.
EXH-2 · Exhibits · PASS
Checklist: "Each exhibit sits behind its own slip sheet reading 'EXHIBIT'
and its letter, in letter order."
- Found: slip sheets EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT C and EXHIBIT D, each with its
exhibit behind it (02 Exhibits.pdf, pp. 1, 3 and 5)
- Found: in letter order: A, C, D (02 Exhibits.pdf, pp. 1-6)
SIG-1 · Signature · OPEN: gap
Checklist: "The attorney's name, bar number, firm, address, telephone and
email, at the top of page 1 and in the signature block, match the firm's
attorney record. The signature line is left blank for the attorney to
sign."
- Measured against: attorney record: Odile Prentiss; Bar No. 318824;
Brindlemoor Quist LLP; 410 Harrow Street, Suite 900, Wrexholt City,
Eastmere 90412; 555-0142; oprentiss@brindlemoorquist.example
- Found: attorney block, the first lines of text on page 1: Odile
Prentiss and Bar No. 318842 (l. 1); BRINDLEMOOR QUIST LLP (l. 2); 410
Harrow Street, Suite 900 (l. 3); Wrexholt City, Eastmere 90412
(l. 4); Telephone: 555-0142 (l. 5); Email:
oprentiss@brindlemoorquist.example (l. 6) (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 1)
- Gap: bar number 318842 on page 1; the record gives 318824.
- Not checkable: that this block sits at the top of page 1. A person
checks it by eye.
- Found: signature block: BRINDLEMOOR QUIST LLP (l. 1); Odile Prentiss
and Bar No. 318842 (l. 4); 410 Harrow Street, Suite 900 (l. 5);
Wrexholt City, Eastmere 90412 (l. 6); Telephone: 555-0142 (l. 7);
Email: oprentiss@brindlemoorquist.example (l. 8) (01 Opposition.pdf,
p. 3)
- Gap: bar number 318842 in the signature block; the record gives
318824.
- Found: By: /s/ Odile Prentiss (01 Opposition.pdf, p. 3, l. 3)
- Gap: the signature line is not blank.
SRV-1 · Service · OPEN: gap
Checklist: "The people listed in the proof of service match the matter's
service list: every person, with the method and the address the list
gives."
- Measured against: service list: Hollis Grange; Wendell Ashby; Marisol
Tenney
- Found: Hollis Grange and Wendell Ashby (03 Proof of Service.pdf, p. 1,
paras. 4 and 5)
- Gap: Marisol Tenney is on the service list and not in the proof of
service.
- Gap: Wendell Ashby's email in the proof of service differs from the
service list's.
- See C2, C3.
B. EXHIBITS: REFERRED TO AND ATTACHED
B1. Exhibit A · referred to at 01 Opposition.pdf, p. 2, l. 1 · attached at
02 Exhibits.pdf, pp. 1-2
B2. Exhibit B · referred to at 01 Opposition.pdf, p. 2, l. 5 · not
attached
B3. Exhibit C · referred to at 01 Opposition.pdf, p. 2, l. 8 · attached at
02 Exhibits.pdf, pp. 3-4
B4. Exhibit D · attached at 02 Exhibits.pdf, pp. 5-6 · not referred to in
any file read
C. SERVICE: LIST, PROOF AND DOCKET
C1. Hollis Grange · Defendant Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc., Firm B LLP ·
service list: Electronic service, hgrange@firmb.example · proof of
service: same
C2. Wendell Ashby · Defendant Dunmarrow Logistics, Inc., Firm B LLP ·
service list: Electronic service, w.ashby@firmb.example · proof of
service: electronic service, washby@firmb.example
C3. Marisol Tenney · Defendant Tarnwick Yard Services LLC, Firm C LLP ·
service list: Electronic service, mtenney@firmc.example · proof of
service: not listed
ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM
[ ] CAP-2: Tarnwick Yard Services LLC not named; "et al." on page 1.
Confirm or correct: ____
[ ] CAP-5: hearing time 9:00 a.m. on page 1; docket gives 8:30 a.m.
Confirm or correct: ____
[ ] FMT-1: line numbers in the left margin. Checked by eye by: ____
[ ] FMT-2: type size of the body text. Checked by eye by: ____
[ ] FMT-3: page numbers at the foot of the page. Checked by eye by: ____
[ ] CERT-1: proof of service names "PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
REQUEST TO CONTINUE", not the full title. Confirm or correct: ____
[ ] EXH-1: Exhibit B not attached (B2); Exhibit D not referred to (B4).
Confirm or correct: ____
[ ] SIG-1: bar number 318842 on pages 1 and 3, record gives 318824;
"/s/" on the signature line. Confirm or correct: ____
[ ] SIG-1: attorney block at the top of page 1. Checked by eye by: ____
[ ] SRV-1: Marisol Tenney not in the proof of service (C3); Wendell
Ashby's email differs (C2). Confirm or correct: ____
[ ] Each PASS above was checked against the files and the checklist only.
Confirm: ____
[ ] The package is sufficient to sign and file. Decided by: ____
[ ] Filing and service authorised. Authorised by: ____ Date: ____
CHECK
- Checklist items: 14 read. 5 PASS, 9 OPEN (6 gap, 3 not
checkable, 0 unclear, 0 not supplied, 0 not computed).
5 + 9 = 14.
- Exhibits: 3 labels referred to, 3 attached. Referred to and not
attached: 1. Attached and not referred to: 1.
- Service: 3 people on the service list; 1 the same in the proof of
service; 2 different or not listed. In the proof and not on the list:
0. Counsel on the docket not on the list: 0.
- Areas with no checklist item: none. No requirement was added
for them.
- Pages counted by the documents' own page numbers for 01 Opposition.pdf,
and by PDF pages for 02 Exhibits.pdf and 03 Proof of Service.pdf, which
have none. Words: not counted: no word limit in the checklist.
- No court rule, deadline or authority from memory was used. No date was
counted. No file was changed and nothing was written for the package.
Reviewed by: ____________ Date: ________
Until the attorney signs, this is a draft and nothing in it is final.
Two things are worth noticing. The request’s “filed by Friday” is left alone: the check counts no date. And none of the three format items passes, although the line numbers and page numbers are found and located: the text read shows that the numbers are there, not where they sit on the page, and it carries no type size, so those are left for a person’s eye.
Kofi Marchetti corrects the files, checks by eye the margin, the type size, where the page numbers sit and where the attorney block sits, and runs the check again. Odile Prentiss then answers each line, decides whether the package is sufficient, signs, and authorises filing and service. Only then is anything filed or served.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts: a filing is something an attorney signs, and this check holds its housekeeping against the firm’s own checklist before the attorney sees it.
- Law firms, in litigation groups where filings go out every week and each judge’s requirements live on a checklist the paralegals keep.
- Established businesses, where one senior paralegal’s knowledge of each judge is turned into a written checklist first.
- Growth & scaling, when filings multiply faster than the people who check them.
It sits beside outgoing work sign-off log, which tracks the attorney’s sign-off on everything leaving the firm without opening the drafts, and court-order deadline notice preparation, which turns an entered order into a draft notice for the attorney. Citation and quotation check checks the citations inside the brief, which this check leaves alone.
What has to change for your company
The checklist is yours, and it is the whole measure. An attorney decides what goes on it for each court and judge: the caption rules, the length and format limits, the certificates, how exhibits are labelled, what the signature block holds, how service is recorded. Write each requirement so a person could check it against a file, give it an ID, and give the checklist a date, a review date and an owner. Put the requirements the text can show apart from the ones only a person can see, such as type size, margins and where something sits on the page.
Decide where the docket copy comes from and how fresh it must be, who keeps the service list and the attorney roster, and whether the paralegal corrects the files before or after the attorney sees the check. We sit with the paralegals who assemble your filings and the attorney who owns the checklist, write down how a package is really checked, and set it up in the AI product the firm has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. Confirm with your own policies, and with counsel on any protective order, that the package may be used there.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template in its own words, drawing on one published method credited in its sources, and it was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It was tried on its invented example in Claude, in a clean chat given only the instructions and the example’s inputs, on 11 November 2026, and the record of that run, which replaced two earlier ones from the same day, is published with the template. It has not yet been tested in a client environment, and it has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing at your firm means running it on past packages your attorneys already signed, with problems planted in advance: a party dropped from the caption, a transposed case number, a missing exhibit, an exhibit nobody refers to, a wrong bar number, a person left off the proof of service, a checklist item on type size, a request that asks when the filing is due. The attorney checks every line before anyone relies on it. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- Whether the filing is sufficient
- Signing the filing
- Authorising filing and service
- What goes on the firm's checklist
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, serves, signs and calendars nothing
- Uses no court rule from memory
- Ships no formatting defaults
- Counts no date
- Writes nothing for the package
- Edits no file
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
Paralegals and legal assistants who prepare filings start it. The responsible attorney decides and signs.
What do I need to supply?
The filing package, the firm's filing checklist for that court and judge, the docket record, the matter's service list, the signing attorney's record, and the matter, the firm's client, the case number, the document's title and the attorney who signs.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice and decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. It counts no date. It writes nothing for the package. It sends, files, serves, signs and calendars nothing.
What do I get?
One draft check for the attorney. Every checklist item is marked pass or open, and each finding is located by file, page and line. Exhibits referred to and attached are matched, the service list is held against the proof of service, and every open item gets a line to confirm.
What has been checked?
It was editorially reviewed and tried on its invented example in Claude, in a clean chat, and the record of that run is published with it. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer, and it has not yet been tested in a client environment.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: