From 0d539674223d3a8ff1bb264cd0402f3cf551d4e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tocmo0nlord Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 03:14:33 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Initial=20commit=20=E2=80=94=20Step=201=20compl?= =?UTF-8?q?ete:=20case=20spine,=20lifecycle,=20attorney=20gates?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Delivers the validated Step 1 slice of the Active Blue Family Law platform (Odoo 18 Community module `activeblue_familylaw`): - familylaw.case model: identity, team, representation flag, conflict_check_cleared gate - Full lifecycle state machine (intake→engaged→disclosure→discovery→mediation→hearing→closed) - Attorney-only guards enforced in Python + view groups= - Security groups (Family Law/Staff, Family Law/Attorney), model access rules - List, form, and search views (Odoo 18 syntax; no attrs=/states=) - Family Law app menu with Configuration placeholder - 10 tagged unit tests (familylaw_step1): transitions, conflict gate, attorney-only, audit - CLAUDE.md, BUILD_PLAN.md, START_HERE.md: full design brief and step contract Step 2 (parties, children, issues, proceeding model, conflict screening, intake questionnaire) is the next build target. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 --- .gitignore | 37 ++ CLAUDE.md | 598 ++++++++++++++++++ START_HERE.md | 60 ++ .../activeblue_familylaw_build/BUILD_PLAN.md | 113 ++++ .../activeblue_familylaw_build/CLAUDE.md | 598 ++++++++++++++++++ .../activeblue_familylaw_build/START_HERE.md | 60 ++ .../activeblue_familylaw/__init__.py | 1 + .../activeblue_familylaw/__manifest__.py | 35 + .../activeblue_familylaw/models/__init__.py | 1 + .../models/familylaw_case.py | 216 +++++++ .../security/familylaw_security.xml | 26 + .../security/ir.model.access.csv | 3 + .../activeblue_familylaw/tests/__init__.py | 1 + .../tests/test_case_lifecycle.py | 126 ++++ .../views/familylaw_case_views.xml | 131 ++++ .../views/familylaw_menus.xml | 23 + 16 files changed, 2029 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .gitignore create mode 100644 CLAUDE.md create mode 100644 START_HERE.md create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/BUILD_PLAN.md create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/CLAUDE.md create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/START_HERE.md create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/__init__.py create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/__manifest__.py create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/models/__init__.py create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/models/familylaw_case.py create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/security/familylaw_security.xml create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/security/ir.model.access.csv create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/tests/__init__.py create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/tests/test_case_lifecycle.py create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/views/familylaw_case_views.xml create mode 100644 activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/views/familylaw_menus.xml diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 0000000..39afb52 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +# Python +__pycache__/ +*.py[cod] +*.pyo +*.pyd +.Python +*.egg-info/ +dist/ +build/ +*.egg + +# Odoo +*.pot +*.mo +*.pyc + +# Editors +.idea/ +.vscode/ +*.swp +*.swo +*~ + +# OS +.DS_Store +Thumbs.db + +# Environment +.env +.env.* +*.local + +# Logs +*.log + +# Node (if any frontend tooling added later) +node_modules/ diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b836cef --- /dev/null +++ b/CLAUDE.md @@ -0,0 +1,598 @@ +# CLAUDE.md — Active Blue Family Law Platform + +> **Handoff document for Claude Code.** This is the single source of truth for the +> project: what it is, how it's architected, the decisions already made, what's been +> built, and what to build next. Read this fully before writing code. Companion +> design docs (`00`–`11`) live in the design package; this file is the operational +> brief that ties them together. + +--- + +## 1. What we're building (and the one rule that governs everything) + +A **case-management platform for a Florida family-law practice** in **Miami-Dade +(11th Judicial Circuit)**, built on **Odoo 18 Community**. A staff member with +**little legal knowledge** enters case data through guided intake; the software +**assembles the case** — manages it, attaches verified case law, tracks +statutory/procedural requirements and evidence, and flags what's needed for +success — and routes a **finished, draft case package to a licensed attorney who +reads it, verifies it, and signs it.** The attorney owns the output. + +**THE GOVERNING RULE — non-negotiable, enforced in code, not policy:** + +> The software **builds, verifies, organizes, and flags.** A **licensed attorney +> judges, decides, and signs.** Nothing reaches a client, a clerk, or a courtroom +> without attorney approval. The AI is the paralegal who never sleeps — **it is not +> the lawyer.** + +**Claude's specific role = the quality-elevation layer.** Claude exists to produce +*high-quality, verified, fully-assembled* work product — drafted documents, extracted +facts, completeness-checked files, and **verified** case-law research — and **move it +UP to the licensed attorney for sign-off**. The point of using a frontier model is the +quality of what gets elevated: the attorney receives something strong enough to approve +with minor edits, fast. Claude *intervenes* by supplying verified case law and the +available next steps/avenues — **not** by deciding strategy or rendering the legal +opinion. The intervention makes the attorney faster; it never replaces them. + +This exists because the platform must **not** practice law. Two structural gates +enforce it everywhere: +1. **The review gate** — AI-produced work is born in a draft state; only a licensed + attorney (group) can approve it; nothing can be filed/sent/signed unapproved. +2. **The citation gate** — every case-law citation is born `unverified` and must + pass verification (exists / on-point / good-law) against a real database before + it can enter a filing. (Lawyers have been sanctioned for AI-hallucinated cites; + this makes that mechanically impossible.) + +**The product goal is a high attorney-approval rate achieved by producing genuinely +good, complete, citation-verified work — NOT by making review shallow.** The win +condition is "approve with minor edits, fast," like a senior partner redlining a +strong associate draft. + +**How the software improves over time — the SAFE loop (read this carefully).** The +near-term improvement mechanism is **prompt and few-shot-example refinement plus the +regression eval suite** — NOT model fine-tuning on live matters. Family-law work +product is full of **confidential, privileged client data** (Bar Rule 4-1.6); feeding +attorney-corrected drafts into model training risks leaking one client's information +into another client's matter, which is far worse than any bad draft. Therefore: +- The default loop is: attorney edits → those edits inform **curated, hand-written + exemplars and prompt tweaks** + new regression test cases → output improves. No + client data enters any training process by default. +- **Fine-tuning is a FUTURE, GATED capability**, not part of this build, and only ever + on a **de-identified, attorney-approved, consented** corpus held separately that + **never auto-ingests live matters**. (See doc 09 §10 cautions.) +The attorney is the quality bar and the source of curated examples — never an +unwitting training-data faucet, and never a bottleneck to engineer around. + +--- + +## 2. Capabilities the platform must deliver + +Derived backward from the outcome: **a non-lawyer enters facts → a complete, +verified, attorney-signable case package comes out, fast enough that the attorney's +review is confirmatory, not corrective.** Every capability earns its place by serving +that outcome. **Grouped by RISK, not feature area** — the tier tells you what's safe +to build now vs. what needs attorney-validated legal content first. + +### Tier 1 — The spine (capture & manage) — *safe to build now; data + deterministic rules* +1. **Guided intake & fact capture** — the adaptive questionnaire (triage routes by + case type; branches collect exactly the facts each matter needs, in plain + language). **Highest-leverage capability in the system** — everything downstream + is only as good as the facts captured here; bad capture is the #1 cause of a draft + getting sent back. +2. **Case management & system of record** — matter, parties, children, issues, + **proceedings** (each modification/enforcement is a child `familylaw.proceeding` + under the case — see §4), lifecycle state, team. The Odoo spine; the container + everything fills. +3. **Automated conflict-of-interest screening** — when intake captures the opposing + party, the system **searches every party across every matter** and surfaces + potential conflicts (opposing party was a past client; is adverse to a current + client) **for the attorney to clear**. A human ticking a checkbox across hundreds + of matters *will* miss structural conflicts; an undetected conflict can disqualify + the firm and void work (Bar Rules 4-1.7/4-1.9). The software does the search a + human can't do reliably; the **attorney still decides** (the Step 1 + `conflict_check_cleared` gate stays). Belongs in Step 2 (needs the party model). +3. **Document & evidence repository** — every document on the matter, versioned, + checksummed, with legal metadata (type, privilege, retention). The case file as + one organized source of truth. +4. **Deadline & calendar engine** — statutory/procedural clocks (answer, disclosure, + discovery, objection windows) computed deterministically, surfaced on a layered, + filterable calendar. Pure rules + date math; a real differentiator (a missed + family-law deadline is malpractice). + +### Tier 2 — The assembly (build the case) — *safe to build now; assembly + deterministic scoring* +5. **Document drafting** — first drafts of pleadings/motions/forms from captured + facts, with placeholders for unknowns, born as drafts for attorney review. Where + the non-lawyer's facts become legal documents. +6. **Procedural avenue mapping + decision graph** — given case type + what changed, + surface the *available* procedural paths with their required elements and deadlines, + rendered as a **branching decision graph** the attorney can compare at a glance. The + menu, **not** the decision. Suggests; never strategizes. **Each path node shows a + STRENGTH-OF-SUPPORT comparison — NOT a success percentage:** + - procedural requirements (forms, elements, proof needed); + - **strength factors present / missing**, drawn factually from the case data (e.g. + "income change exceeds 15% threshold ✓; underemployment evidence not gathered ✗; + financial affidavit on file ✓"); + - effort + timeline (deterministic: deadlines, steps, typical duration); + - key risks / unknowns ("outcome depends on whether the court imputes income — a + judgment call for the attorney"); + - what would strengthen the path (the gaps to close). + **This deliberately does NOT output a win probability.** A "% chance of success" is + fabricated precision (no honest dataset of comparable sealed/settled Miami-Dade + outcomes exists), it is functionally the legal *opinion* only a licensed attorney may + give, it becomes Bar-complaint/malpractice evidence if the case loses, and it anchors + the attorney into shallow review. The graph compares **which path the facts on hand + best support**; the attorney converts that into a probability using their own + judgment and license. (See EXCLUDED, below.) +7. **Requirements & completeness scoring** — the readiness engine: score the file + against what a complete case of that type/stage needs (forms, proven facts, + evidentiary foundations, met deadlines) and surface gaps **before** the attorney + sees it. **The capability that most directly drives approval rate** — it catches + the omissions that cause rejections. (Feeds the "strength factors" in capability 6.) + +### Tier 3 — The legal support (high-risk, high-value core) — *NEEDS attorney-validated legal content before shipping* +8. **Case-law research & verified citations** — propose authority, draft argument, + and **verify every citation against a real reporter (CourtListener) before it can + enter a filing**; unverified = mechanically blocked. Most valuable *and* most + dangerous — the part that makes the software feel like it knows law, and the part + that gets people sanctioned if built wrong. +9. **Prior-judgment interpretation** — extract structured facts from an existing + order, summarize it plainly, and **flag** legal-interpretation questions **without + ruling** on them. Central to the modification/enforcement work this practice + focuses on. + +### Tier 4 — The output & the loop (close it safely) — *the machinery that makes all the above defensible* +10. **Attorney review & approval workflow** — the GATE made into a workflow: + assembled package → attorney reads, verifies, edits, signs → only then does + anything move. **Non-negotiable; the capability that makes every other one safe.** +11. **E-signature & filing preparation** — client-facing docs via DocuSeal; court + filings prepared for `/s/` + Portal upload (prepare-and-upload). The last mile + from approved draft to going out. +12. **Audit trail** — every fact, AI action, citation verification status, and + approval reconstructable. Protects the attorney and the practice when anyone asks + "who did what, and was it checked." +13. **Communications drafting** — plain-language, attorney-reviewed client updates; + never auto-sends. Keeps clients informed without the attorney writing every email. +14. **Nonlawyer supervision & access control** — the operator is a *low-legal-knowledge + staffer handling privileged client data*, which triggers the attorney's duty to + supervise nonlawyer assistants (Bar Rule 4-5.3). So: **matter-scoped access** + (staff see only their assigned matters, not the whole client base), a nonlawyer- + conduct acknowledgment, and the hard principle that **staff capture and assemble + but never communicate legal positions to a client** (extends "never advises" from + the AI to the human operator). This is a confidentiality + ethics requirement, not + a nicety. +15. **Data retention & destruction** — Florida imposes file-retention obligations, and + "keep everything forever in an audit log" is itself a liability (more data = more + breach surface; some data shouldn't be kept indefinitely). So: **attorney-configured + retention classes**, a defined **closed-matter lifecycle** (retain → eligible for + destruction → destroyed, with the action logged), and **client-file return at + matter close**. The audit trail (12) records *that* destruction happened without + retaining the destroyed content. + +### Deliberately EXCLUDED (these cross from *assist* into *judge* → UPL/liability) +- **Outcome / success-percentage prediction** — NO "% chance of winning" on any path, + graph, or report. There is no honest dataset of comparable Miami-Dade family-law + outcomes (cases are sealed, settlements private, "success" isn't binary), so any + percentage is **fabricated precision**; it is functionally the legal *opinion* only a + licensed attorney may give; it becomes evidence if a case loses; and it anchors the + attorney into shallow review. **What IS allowed (capability 6): a strength-of-support + decision graph** that compares which path the *facts on hand* best support — present/ + missing factors, requirements, effort, risks — leaving the probability judgment to the + attorney. The distinction is load-bearing: "72% likely to win" = excluded; + "threshold met, 4 of 5 supporting elements documented" = allowed. +- **Evidence admissibility rulings** — admissibility is a contextual legal ruling. + The software surfaces an evidence **completeness checklist** ("missing the + foundation for exhibit C"); it does **not** rule the exhibit admissible. + +**Build order implication:** Tiers 1, 2, and 4 are safe to build now (no legal +judgment — data, assembly, deterministic rules, safety machinery). **Tier 3 is gated +behind attorney validation of the underlying legal logic** (the requirements/ +elicitation content is the artifact to put in front of a Florida attorney). Build +Tiers 1/2/4 first and gate Tier 3 → genuinely useful product quickly, on the right +side of the line. This maps onto §7: capabilities 1–7 and 10–15 ride Steps 1–14 +(conflict screening 3 → Step 2; supervision/access 14 → Steps 2–3; retention 15 → +Step 12); capabilities 8–9 are the Tier-3 pieces (Steps 6, 7, 9) the attorney +questionnaire validates. + +--- + +## 3. Architecture (decided) + +- **Odoo 18 Community is the spine:** system of record, workflow/state machines, + RBAC, audit (`mail.thread`), deadlines (`ir.cron` + `base.automation`), documents, + calendar, UI. ~70% of needs are Odoo plumbing — **do not rebuild from scratch.** +- **AI = Odoo's own HTTPS call to the Claude API** at `api.anthropic.com/v1/messages`. + - **No Odoo "AI" feature is used** — Odoo Community has none; this is a plain + outbound HTTP call from our module. + - API key in `ir.config_parameter` (encrypted, attorney-group readable only). + - Model **pinned in config** (`familylaw.model`), recorded per task for audit. + - Calls run **async via `queue_job`** (OCA) so they never block the web worker. + - **Provider is pluggable.** Local **Ollama** is a *future* routing option, not + wired now. Build `_route_model()` so flipping high-confidentiality work to local + is a **config change, not a redesign**. + - **Trust/billing reconciliation NEVER reaches any model** — the routing layer + raises before any such call. (IOTA, Bar Rule 5-1.1 — human-only.) +- **One external service:** an optional **FastAPI orchestrator** for the multi-step + **research loop** (search → propose citations → verify each → synthesize). Mirrors + the owner's existing `odoo-ai` pattern. Single-shot AI tasks (drafting, summaries, + extraction) run **from Odoo directly**; only the agentic research chain goes + external. Running even that as sequenced `queue_job` steps inside Odoo is an + acceptable alternative — complexity-vs-consolidation call, not correctness. +- **Satellites:** + - **DocuSeal** — self-hosted e-signature for *client-facing* docs (court filings use + the `/s/` convention via the FL E-Filing Portal, **NOT** DocuSeal). **Two material + caveats (do not bury these):** (1) the **API/embedding needed for the Odoo + integration requires DocuSeal *Pro* (~$200/yr / ~$20-per-user-mo)** — the free tier + does core signing but not the programmatic integration; (2) the **DocuSeal signing + host must be internet-facing**, unlike the rest of the NetBird-internal, + privacy-first stack — so it must be **isolated and hardened** (its Postgres not + exposed, audit trail backed up). For a HIPAA-adjacent operator these are design + facts, not footnotes. + - **MinIO or Synology NAS** — file archive behind `ir.attachment`. + - **CourtListener** — citation verification. **It is a single point of failure for + the citation gate (capability 8 — the thing that prevents sanctions), so:** + (1) **fail CLOSED** — if CourtListener is down, rate-limited, or has no record for a + cite, the citation **stays `unverified` and remains blocked**; the system NEVER + "assumes good" or waves anything through on a verification failure; (2) define at + least **one fallback source** (e.g. Google Scholar / a secondary API) before relying + solely on it; (3) **confirm Florida appellate (DCA + Supreme Court) coverage is + adequate BEFORE building on it** — verify the tool actually works for FL family-law + authority, don't assume. +- **AI cost & latency (model this from day one):** a fully-assembled matter can mean + *many* calls (drafting + research + per-citation verification), so a research loop can + run minutes and cost real money per case. Set a **per-task token ceiling**, and + **record token cost + latency on each `ai.task`** so the economics are measurable and + capped, not discovered later. Budget the cost-per-assembled-case explicitly. +- **Court e-filing reality:** the FL Courts E-Filing Portal has **no public push + API**. The model is **prepare-and-upload**: software prepares, attorney signs + `/s/`, a human uploads through the Portal, confirmation recorded back in Odoo. + +### Tech/environment notes +- **Odoo 18 view syntax:** use `` (NOT `` — removed in 18). `attrs=` + and `states=` are **removed**; use direct attributes (`invisible="..."`, + `readonly="..."`, `required="..."`). Chatter: explicit `oe_chatter` div used for + cross-release safety (v18 also supports the `` shorthand). +- Owner runs Odoo 18 in production (Docker/Proxmox stack, Postgres, Traefik, + NetBird). The orchestrator/Ollama/GPU box already exist. +- **Verify volatile legal facts at build time.** Florida renumbers forms and amends + rules/statutes regularly (e.g., the 2023 alimony overhaul removed permanent + alimony; Rule 12.410 subpoena amendment effective Oct 1 2025). Never bake a + specific statute version into code as if permanent; keep "verify current rule" + in the flow. + +--- + +## 4. Decisions locked (apply these — do not re-litigate) + +| Decision | **Choice** | Consequence for the build | +|---|---|---| +| **Intake front door** | **Intake creates a draft case directly** | The intake questionnaire fills a `familylaw.case` that starts in `intake` state. No separate lead/convert step. | +| **Case creation strictness** | **Conditional: strict for standard intake, FAST-PATH for emergencies** | Standard intake = **strict** (require matter name, client, case type, county/court + triage essentials before the draft case commits — the friction is fine and keeps data clean). **Emergency intake = fast-path:** if the urgency screen trips (child withheld / removal threat / violence), creation requires only the bare minimum to act (who, which child, what's happening) and **defers** the rest. Rationale: in a genuine emergency the procedural clock and the child's safety beat data completeness; a bare "strict" rule would block opening the matter exactly when speed matters most. The urgency screen runs first, so it gates which creation path applies. | +| **Modification: how Case A is handled** | **One continuous case; each new proceeding is a child `familylaw.proceeding`** | A modification/enforcement **reopens the same `familylaw.case`** (continuity, full history in one place) **BUT** spawns a new **`familylaw.proceeding`** record under it. **Deadlines, documents, and proceeding-state attach to the PROCEEDING, not the case.** This resolves the flaw in a bare "reopen": without it, the deadline engine can't tell the 2024 dissolution's disclosure clock from a 2027 modification's, and documents/audit from distinct legal proceedings pile together. The case is the client-matter spine; the proceeding is the unit of legal action. (Reconciles with doc 03's parent/child structure — same idea, named `proceeding`.) | +| **"Interpret the prior judgment"** | **Extraction + plain summary + legal interpretation (flagged, not concluded)** | The AI extracts structured facts, writes a plain-language summary, **and** may surface legal interpretation of provisions — but interpretation is **flagged for the attorney, never stated as a conclusion/ruling.** Born as draft; attorney decides. | + +Other standing choices from design: **native Odoo models** for the questionnaire +(NOT the Survey app) — answers must land as typed case data the workflow can use, +with no survey→case mapping layer. Markdown for docs; module version-controlled in +Gitea by the owner. + +--- + +## 5. The build method — VERIFIABLE STEPS (follow strictly) + +Build in small, independently verifiable slices. **Do not start step N+1 until step +N's tests are green and its walkthrough passes.** Every step delivers, in order: + +1. **Installable code** — installs/upgrades cleanly (`-u activeblue_familylaw`). +2. **A walkthrough** — a UI click-path that shows the new behaviour end to end. +3. **Tagged unit tests** — under `tests/`, tagged `familylaw_step`, proving the + step's guarantees (especially the gates). +4. **Done-when** — explicit pass condition: green tests + clean walkthrough → ship, + then advance. + +### Test harness +- Tests subclass `TransactionCase` (savepoint rollback; DB stays clean). +- Tag: `@tagged("post_install", "-at_install", "familylaw", "familylaw_step")`. +- Group-gated actions: `new_test_user(..., groups="base.group_user,activeblue_familylaw.group_familylaw_attorney")`; call with `.with_user(attorney)` / `.with_user(paralegal)`. +- **External APIs are ALWAYS mocked** (`unittest.mock.patch`) — Claude, DocuSeal, + CourtListener. Tests must never hit the network. Assert on what got written to + Odoo (e.g. "document born `ai_draft`", "citation born `unverified`"). +- **Date math tested with fixed dates**, never `today()`, for determinism. + +Run all: `odoo -d -i activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --stop-after-init` +Run one step: `odoo -d -u activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --test-tags familylaw_step1 --stop-after-init` + +--- + +## 6. What's already built — STEP 1 ✅ (delivered, validated) + +Module: `activeblue_familylaw` (in the Step 1 zip; layout below). + +**`familylaw.case`** — the matter spine: +- Identity: `name`, `client_id` (res.partner), `case_type` (selection: dissolution + w/ & w/o children, paternity, support/parenting/alimony modification, enforcement, + DV injunction, other). +- Team: `attorney_id`, `paralegal_id` (res.users). +- **`representation`** (attorney / pro_se) — drives the Step 8 subpoena branch. +- **`conflict_check_cleared`** (attorney-only gate, readonly, tracked). +- **`state`** lifecycle: `intake → engaged → disclosure → discovery → mediation → + hearing → closed`, with **guarded transitions** (each checks current state, rejects + illegal jumps) and **attorney-only** actions (`action_mark_conflict_cleared`, + `action_close`, `action_reopen`) enforced in **Python AND** via `groups=` on buttons. +- `mail.thread` / `mail.activity.mixin` — every transition + clearance posts to the + chatter (the audit trail). + +**Security:** groups `group_familylaw_user` (Staff) and `group_familylaw_attorney` +(Attorney, implies Staff implies internal). Access rules: staff can't delete; attorney can. + +**Views:** list (``), form (statusbar + transition buttons + chatter), search +(filters: My Cases, Open, Awaiting Conflict Clearance; group-by: stage/attorney/type). +**Menu:** Family Law → Cases (+ Configuration placeholder). + +**Tests (`tests/test_case_lifecycle.py`, tag `familylaw_step1`):** 10 tests — initial +state, conflict-clearance gate (engage blocked until cleared; only attorney clears), +illegal-transition rejection, full forward path, attorney-only close/reopen, audit +logging. Statically validated: Python compiles, XML well-formed, manifest is a dict, +every button maps to a method, every view field exists on the model, zero +Odoo-18-forbidden constructs. + +### Module layout +``` +activeblue_familylaw/ + __init__.py + __manifest__.py # depends: base, mail + models/ + __init__.py + familylaw_case.py # the spine + state machine + gates + security/ + familylaw_security.xml # groups + module category + ir.model.access.csv # staff (no unlink) / attorney (full) + views/ + familylaw_case_views.xml # list, form, search, action + familylaw_menus.xml # app menu + tests/ + __init__.py + test_case_lifecycle.py # familylaw_step1 +``` + +--- + +## 7. The step sequence (roadmap) + +| Step | Slice | Key models / files | Proves (tests) | Doc | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| **1 ✅** | Case spine + lifecycle + attorney gates | `familylaw.case`, security, views | transitions, conflict gate, attorney-only, audit | 02,03 | +| **2 → NEXT** | **Parties, children, issues + `proceeding` + conflict screening + `case_number` + search + intake questionnaire** | `familylaw.party`, `.child`, `.issue`, **`familylaw.proceeding`**; indexed `case_number`; conflict-search method; intake wizard | relations, DOB constraints, **find by party/child/case number**, **conflict search surfaces a past-client opposing party**, questionnaire creates draft case (strict) / emergency fast-path, urgency flag raised, "good case?" captured not answered | 02,03 | +| 3 | **Documents + the review gate** | `familylaw.document` (`ai_draft→attorney_review→approved`), attached to a **proceeding** | only attorney approves; can't file/send unapproved (GATE 1) | 03,04 | +| 4 | Deadline engine | `familylaw.deadline` (**FK to `proceeding`, not case**) + `base.automation` + `ir.cron` + `calendar.event` mirror | 20/45/30-day math, weekend roll, overdue, **deadlines isolated per proceeding** | 02,11 | +| 5 | Mandatory disclosure (Rule 12.285) | `disclosure.item`, `financial.affidavit`, `fin.line` (per proceeding) | 12.902(b) vs (c) by income, 45-day due, can't-waive | 02,11 | +| 6 | **Claude client + `ai.task` ledger** (single-shot) | `familylaw.ai.client`, `ai.task` (**logs model + token cost + latency**), drafting agent, `queue_job` | (mocked) doc born `ai_draft`, task logged w/ cost, cites born `unverified` | 04,09 | +| 7 | **Citation ledger + filing gate** + research loop | `familylaw.citation`, `action_request_filing`, FastAPI orchestrator; **fail-closed verification + fallback source** | filing blocked on any unverified cite (GATE 2); verification failure keeps cite blocked | 06 | +| 8 | **Discovery + subpoena** (12.351 gate + pro-se/attorney branch) | `discovery.request`, objection-window gate | objection-window hard gate, same-day Notice of Issuance, clerk-vs-attorney routing | 11 A.6,C | +| 9 | **Child-support modification** workflow (end to end) | wires 1–8 for `support_modification`; **new `proceeding` under the reopened case** | 15%/$50 threshold, 20-day answer, DOR-case flag, retroactivity note, **prior-judgment extraction+summary+flagged interpretation** | 11 B.2 | +| 10 | **Emergency** workflow (12.941 pick-up/removal) | emergency motion records + required-attachment checks; **uses the intake fast-path** | have-order-vs-not fork; missing-attachment block; fast-path opens matter on minimum facts | 11 B.1 | +| 11 | DocuSeal e-signature | `action_send_for_signature`, webhook controller (**Pro tier; isolated internet-facing host**) | (mocked) only `approved` sends; webhook → `signed` | 05 | +| 12 | File archive + calendar layers + **retention lifecycle** | `ir.attachment` + `familylaw.archive` metadata; calendar categories; retention classes + closed-matter destruction | SHA-256 checksum, **retention class drives destruction-eligibility**, client-file-return at close, **per-layer filter toggles** | new | +| 13 | Miami-Dade auto-seed (AO 14-13) | Status Quo Order, parenting-course + mediation obligations on case open | obligations seed on open; course-before-judgment guard | 11 D | +| 14 | Comms agent + AI-assisted billing flag + hardening + **matter-scoped access** | `comms` drafts, `time.entry.ai_assisted`, record rules scoping staff to assigned matters, encryption/backup | (mocked) comms never auto-sends; AI ratio reportable; **staff can't see unassigned matters** | 04,08 | + +**Intake questionnaire** (native models; intake-creates-draft-case; **conditional +strictness — strict for standard, fast-path for emergencies**) is the high-leverage +elicitation layer. It belongs with **Step 2** (it needs the party/child fields) and is +built **triage section + ONE case-type branch (child-support modification first)**, +then more branches added incrementally. The triage **urgency screen runs FIRST** and +selects strict vs. fast-path creation. It captures facts only — it **never answers** +"do I have a good case?" (logs that as a question for the attorney). + +**MVP to run a solo practice:** Steps 1–6 + 8 + 11, then add 7. Steps 9/10 are the +headline workflows; 12–14 round it out. + +--- + +## 8. STEP 2 — the immediate task (build this next) + +**Goal:** the related records that make a matter real, the **proceeding** layer that +keeps modifications/enforcements cleanly separated, **automated conflict screening**, +search the way a practice actually searches (by people + court case number), and the +intake questionnaire front door (conditional strict / emergency fast-path). + +**Build:** +1. **`familylaw.party`** — a party to the matter (`res.partner` + role: client / + opposing party / opposing counsel / other). Opposing-party capture feeds conflict + screening (#6). +2. **`familylaw.child`** — a minor child (name, DOB **with validation: reject future + or implausible dates**, link to case); searchable. +3. **`familylaw.issue`** — a contested issue (time-sharing, support, equitable + distribution, alimony, etc.) — the spine for later requirements scoring. +4. **`familylaw.proceeding`** — **the unit of legal action under a case.** A case can + have many proceedings over time (original dissolution, later modification, later + enforcement). Fields: `case_id` (FK), `proceeding_type`, `state` (its own + lifecycle), open/close dates. **From here on, deadlines and documents attach to a + proceeding, not directly to the case** (Steps 3–5 build on this). On case creation, + open an initial proceeding for the originating matter. +5. **`case_number`** on `familylaw.case` — court-assigned (e.g. 2024-DR-001234), + **indexed + searchable**. (A proceeding may also carry its own number if the court + assigns one.) +6. **Automated conflict screening** — a method that, given the captured opposing + party, **searches `familylaw.party` across ALL cases** and returns potential + conflicts (opposing party matches a past/current client; or is already an opposing + party elsewhere). Surface the hits **on the case for the attorney to clear** — it + does **not** auto-clear or auto-block; the Step 1 `conflict_check_cleared` attorney + gate remains the decision point. (Name-match can be fuzzy; flag for human review, + never auto-resolve.) +7. **Search-by-person / by-number:** extend case search so a matter is findable by + party name, child name, and `case_number` — not just title/client. +8. **Intake questionnaire (native; creates draft case; conditional strictness):** a + guided multi-step flow that (a) runs **triage FIRST** (caller + contact, opposing + party, minor children y/n, county/court, existing case/order, **urgency screen: + child withheld / removal threat / violence**), (b) **branches on urgency**: + *standard* → strict (require name, client, case type, county + triage essentials + before commit); *emergency* → **fast-path** (commit on minimum facts: who, which + child, what's happening; defer the rest), (c) branches into the **child-support + modification** question set, and (d) on completion **creates a draft + `familylaw.case` in `intake` state** (and its initial proceeding). Runs conflict + screening (#6) as part of completion. Collects facts only. + +**Tests (`familylaw_step2`):** relation integrity (party/child/issue/proceeding ↔ +case); DOB constraint rejects future/implausible dates; **find case by party name / +child name / case_number** returns the right matter; **conflict screening surfaces a +past-client opposing party** and does NOT auto-clear; a case can hold **multiple +proceedings** and each carries its own state; questionnaire triage sets case type; +**standard path enforces strict creation** (rejects incomplete submission); +**emergency path commits on minimum facts** and raises the urgency flag; "do I have a +good case?" is **captured as an attorney question, never answered**. + +**Constraints:** Odoo 18 syntax (``, direct attributes — no ``, no +`attrs`/`states`). **No external/network calls in Step 2** (questionnaire is pure data +capture; AI extraction of an uploaded judgment is Step 6+; conflict screening is a +local DB search, not an AI call). Keep the gate philosophy intact — nothing here +advises, decides, or auto-clears a conflict. + +**Done-when:** `familylaw_step2` tests green + a walkthrough where you (a) complete a +*standard* modification intake and land on a new draft case with an initial +proceeding; (b) complete an *emergency* intake and get a matter opened on minimum +facts with the urgency flag set; (c) see a conflict flag when the opposing party +matches an existing client; and (d) find an existing case by opposing-party name, by +child name, and by case number. + +--- + +## 9. Working agreements for Claude Code + +- **Read the relevant design doc (`00`–`11`) before each step**; this file says + *what/next*, the docs say *why/detail*. +- **One verifiable step at a time.** Don't scaffold ahead. Deliver code + tests + + walkthrough, stop, confirm green, then continue. +- **The two gates are sacred.** Never add a code path that lets AI output be + filed/sent/signed without attorney approval, or lets an unverified citation into a + filing. If a request would breach this, flag it instead of building it. +- **Mock all external APIs in tests.** Never hit Claude/DocuSeal/CourtListener from a + test. +- **Verify volatile legal facts** (forms, rules, statutes) against current sources at + build time; keep "verify current rule" in the flow rather than hardcoding a version + as permanent. +- **Owner profile:** experienced infra/dev (Proxmox, Docker, Postgres, Python, + Odoo 18 in prod). Be direct and technical; prefer CLI; the owner version-controls + in Gitea. Plan fully, validate each stage. +- **This is not legal advice** and the platform must not practice law; a licensed + attorney reviews, verifies, and signs all output. + +--- + +## 10. Design-revision changelog (audit fixes applied to this revision) + +Nine flaws were found in a critical design review and fixed in this document: + +1. **Training-data flywheel → safe improvement loop (§1).** The "attorney corrections + become training data" claim risked leaking privileged client data (Rule 4-1.6) and + assumed nonexistent fine-tuning infra. Replaced with prompt/example refinement + + regression evals as the default; fine-tuning is future/gated on a de-identified, + consented, separate corpus. +2. **Bare "reopen" → `familylaw.proceeding` model (§4, §7, §8).** Reopening one case + repeatedly would conflate deadlines/documents/audit across distinct legal + proceedings and contradicted doc 03. Now: one continuous case, each + modification/enforcement is a child proceeding that owns its own deadlines/docs/state. +3. **Conflict checkbox → automated conflict screening (capability 3, Step 2).** A human + ticking a box misses structural conflicts across many matters. Added a DB-wide + party search that surfaces conflicts for the attorney to clear (attorney still decides). +4. **Strict creation vs. emergencies → conditional strictness (§4, Step 2/10).** Strict + field requirements would block opening a genuine emergency matter. Now strict for + standard intake, fast-path (minimum facts) when the urgency screen trips. +5. **AI cost/latency unmodeled → budgeted (§3, Step 6).** Added per-task token ceiling + and cost+latency logging on `ai.task`; budget cost-per-assembled-case explicitly. +6. **CourtListener single point of failure → fail-closed + fallback + FL-coverage check + (§3, Step 7).** Verification failure now keeps a cite blocked (never "assume good"), + a fallback source is required, and Florida appellate coverage must be confirmed first. +7. **Non-lawyer operator confidentiality → supervision + matter-scoped access + (capability 14, Step 14).** Added Rule 4-5.3 supervision layer, matter-scoped record + rules, and the principle that staff never communicate legal positions to clients. +8. **DocuSeal caveats restored (§3, Step 11).** Surfaced the Pro-tier cost (~$200/yr for + the API) and the internet-facing/isolated-host requirement at the architecture level. +9. **No retention policy → retention & destruction capability (capability 15, Step 12).** + Added attorney-configured retention classes, a closed-matter destruction lifecycle, + and client-file return at close (audit logs *that* destruction occurred, not the content). + +**Note:** none of these were defects in the delivered Step 1 *code* — they were in the +surrounding design. Step 1 remains valid. The structural change that most affects +forthcoming work is the `familylaw.proceeding` model (fix 2), which Step 2 introduces +and Steps 3–5 build on. + +**Later additions (this revision):** +10. **Strength-of-support decision graph, NOT a success-percentage predictor + (capability 6, EXCLUDED).** A requested "% chance of success per path" was declined + as fabricated precision / functional legal opinion / liability, and replaced with a + factual path-comparison graph (present-missing factors, requirements, effort, risks) + that leaves the probability judgment to the attorney. +11. **Claude's role clarified as the quality-elevation layer (§1)** and a new **§11 + "Requirements for Success"** added — the non-code gaps (engaged licensed attorney, + practice-ownership model, malpractice insurance, engagement-letter AI clause, + security/breach plan, operator UPL guardrails, content-maintenance process, the + elicitation content, FL-proven citation source, eval/QA, cost model). #1 (attorney) + and #2 (ownership) gate the venture; both are non-coding and run parallel to Steps 2–5. + +--- + +## 11. Requirements for SUCCESS (non-code gaps that must be closed) + +The 15 capabilities make the software *function*. These items make the venture +*succeed and stay legal*. Several are **launch-blockers**, not enhancements. They are +not optional, and most cannot be solved by writing code. + +### Critical — blocks the whole model +1. **A named, engaged, licensed Florida family-law attorney — NOW, not at launch.** + The entire architecture routes assembled cases to a reviewing/signing attorney; with + no such attorney, there is no one to hand the case to and the product cannot legally + operate. This attorney must (a) **validate the legal logic** in docs 02/11 (forms, + deadlines, avenues, 11th-Circuit specifics), (b) be the **actual reviewing/signing + attorney**, and (c) **own the malpractice and Bar exposure**. *First concrete step: + the attorney-review questionnaire (below) — it turns the researched-but-unvalidated + legal logic into something a Florida attorney can confirm and sign off.* +2. **Settle "whose practice is this?" (ownership / business model).** Florida prohibits + nonlawyer ownership of law firms and fee-splitting with nonlawyers. Clean model: + **Active Blue builds/operates the software; a licensed firm uses it.** Problematic + model: **Active Blue runs the practice** — no code fixes that. Resolve before + building the Tier-3 legal-reasoning pieces, because the answer shapes how they're + built and who the "attorney" in the workflow legally is. + +### Launch-blockers — required before a single real client matter +3. **Malpractice insurance that contemplates AI-assisted work**, carried by the + responsible attorney/firm. +4. **Engagement-letter framework with an AI-disclosure clause** — the client is told AI + assists their matter and a licensed attorney reviews and is responsible. +5. **Security review + breach-response plan for privileged data.** The privacy-first + stack is a head start, but privileged legal data + a non-lawyer operator + an + internet-facing DocuSeal host needs an actual review, encryption-at-rest for case + data, and an incident plan — not just good instincts. +6. **UPL guardrails for the human operator** (pairs with capability 14): the non-lawyer + never communicates legal positions/opinions to clients; all legal questions route to + the attorney; this is trained and enforced, not assumed. + +### Ongoing — required to stay correct over time +7. **A legal-content maintenance process.** Florida changed alimony (2023) and subpoena + rules (2025); forms get renumbered. Someone must **watch for rule/form/statute + changes and update the logic** on a schedule. A case built on a repealed form is a + malpractice event. "Verify current rule" handles point-in-time; this handles drift. +8. **The requirements/elicitation content itself** (unblocks capabilities 7 & 8). The + per-case-type definition of "what a complete, winnable file requires" — elements, + proof, forms, the strength factors the decision graph reads — **does not exist yet**. + This is the artifact the attorney validates and the engine consumes; without it, + completeness-scoring and research have nothing authoritative to check against. +9. **A citation-verification source proven for Florida** (pairs with §3 architecture): + confirm CourtListener (+ fallback) actually covers FL DCA + Supreme Court family-law + authority adequately before relying on the citation gate in production. +10. **A real evaluation/QA process before anything is client-facing.** The regression + eval suite (doc 09 §9) wired to run before every prompt/model change; a defined bar + the assembled output must clear; attorney spot-audits of approved work. + +### Strongly recommended — for the product to actually deliver its promise +11. **Cost-per-assembled-case model** (pairs with §3 / Step 6): know the token cost and + latency of a full matter so pricing and the economics hold; cap per-task spend. +12. **Client intake/consent for AI involvement** captured in the record (distinct from + the engagement letter): the client's informed acknowledgment, logged. +13. **A "human-in-the-loop won't be skipped" enforcement audit**: periodic proof that no + code path and no operator habit lets unreviewed/unsigned work reach a client, clerk, + or court — the two gates verified in practice, not just in tests. + +**Bottom line:** of everything above, **#1 (the attorney) and #2 (the ownership model) +gate the venture** — neither is a coding task, both should be moving in parallel with +Steps 2–5, and #1 starts with the attorney-review questionnaire. The software can be +~80–90% built and validated and still cannot run a real matter until #1–#6 are closed. diff --git a/START_HERE.md b/START_HERE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d924a49 --- /dev/null +++ b/START_HERE.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +# START HERE — Claude Code kickoff + +You are picking up an in-progress build. Read in this order, then start the task at +the bottom. Do **not** re-derive the design — it exists; follow it. + +## Read order (do this first) +1. **`CLAUDE.md`** — the operational brief and single source of truth. Read it fully. + Pay special attention to: + - §1 — the governing rule + the two gates + Claude's role as the quality-elevation layer. + - §2 — the 15 capabilities, grouped by RISK (what's safe now vs. attorney-gated). + - §4 — locked decisions (apply them; do not re-litigate). + - §5 — the verifiable-step method + the test harness rules. + - §8 — **STEP 2, your immediate task.** + - §10 — the audit fixes already applied (esp. fix 2, the `familylaw.proceeding` model). + - §11 — the non-code success gaps (context for why some steps are gated). +2. **`BUILD_PLAN.md`** — the step contract and the run/test commands. +3. **The design docs `00`–`11`** (in the separate design package) — *why/detail* behind + each step. Read the relevant doc(s) before each step, not all at once. For Step 2: + docs 02 (domain) and 03 (data model). + +## Current state +- **Step 1 is DONE and validated** — `activeblue_familylaw` module: the `familylaw.case` + spine, the lifecycle state machine, attorney-only gates, security groups, views, + and 10 passing tests (tag `familylaw_step1`). Module layout is in `CLAUDE.md §6`. +- The code is Odoo 18 (uses `` not ``; direct attributes, no `attrs`/`states`). +- Nothing else is built yet. Steps 2–14 are designed, not implemented. + +## Hard rules (from CLAUDE.md — do not violate) +- **One verifiable step at a time.** Don't scaffold ahead. Each step = installable code + + a UI walkthrough + tagged unit tests + a done-when. Get green before advancing. +- **The two gates are sacred:** no code path lets AI output be filed/sent/signed without + attorney approval, or lets an unverified citation into a filing. If a request would + breach this, flag it — don't build it. +- **Mock all external APIs in tests** (Claude, DocuSeal, CourtListener). Never hit the + network from a test. Test date math with fixed dates. +- **No outcome/success-percentage prediction.** The decision graph compares strength of + support, never a "% chance of winning" (CLAUDE.md §2 EXCLUDED). +- **Tier 3 (capabilities 8–9, Steps 6–7–9) is gated** behind licensed-attorney + validation of the legal logic. You may build the *structure/scaffolding* but flag that + the legal content is unvalidated; do not present legal reasoning as authoritative. + +## Your first task: STEP 2 +Build exactly what `CLAUDE.md §8` specifies: +- Models: `familylaw.party`, `familylaw.child`, `familylaw.issue`, **`familylaw.proceeding`**. +- Add indexed, searchable `case_number` to `familylaw.case`; open an initial proceeding + on case creation. +- **Automated conflict screening** — a local DB search over `familylaw.party` across all + cases that surfaces potential conflicts for the attorney to clear (never auto-clears, + never auto-blocks; the Step 1 `conflict_check_cleared` attorney gate remains). +- Extend case search to find by party name, child name, and `case_number`. +- **Intake questionnaire** (native models; creates a draft case): triage-first with the + urgency screen, **conditional strictness** (standard = strict; emergency = fast-path on + minimum facts), branching into the **child-support modification** question set, runs + conflict screening on completion. Captures facts only — never answers "do I have a good + case?" (logs it as an attorney question). +- Tests tagged `familylaw_step2` covering everything in §8's test list. +- **Done-when:** `familylaw_step2` green + the four-part walkthrough in §8. + +Work in the module, keep Step 1's tests green, and deliver Step 2 as one reviewable, +tested slice. Then stop and report before starting Step 3. diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/BUILD_PLAN.md b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/BUILD_PLAN.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ce0699b --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/BUILD_PLAN.md @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +# Active Blue Family Law — Build Plan + +**Module:** `activeblue_familylaw` (Odoo 18 Community) +**Method:** build in small, independently **verifiable steps**. We do not start step *N+1* until step *N*'s tests are green and its walkthrough passes. +**Companion design docs:** `00`–`11` (architecture → forms & litigation playbook). + +--- + +## The verifiable-step contract + +Every step delivers four things, in this order: + +1. **Installable code** — the module installs/upgrades cleanly (`-u activeblue_familylaw`) with the step's new models, security, and views. +2. **A walkthrough** — a short click-path you can follow in the UI to *see* the new behaviour end to end. +3. **Tagged unit tests** — automated tests under `tests/`, tagged `familylaw_step`, that prove the step's guarantees (especially the gates). +4. **Done-when** — an explicit pass condition. Green tests + a clean walkthrough = ship; then advance. + +Nothing that touches a real client matter ships until the two ethics gates (attorney review; verified citations) are implemented and tested — Steps 3 and 7. + +--- + +## Test harness (how testing works here) + +Odoo ships a `unittest`-based runner. Tests live in `activeblue_familylaw/tests/`, subclass `TransactionCase` (each test rolls back in a savepoint, so the DB stays clean), and carry tags so we can run one step at a time. + +**Run all tests for the module (install + test):** +```bash +odoo -d -i activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --stop-after-init +``` + +**Run only one step's tests (against an already-installed module):** +```bash +odoo -d -u activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --test-tags familylaw_step1 --stop-after-init +``` + +**Conventions:** +- Tag classes `@tagged("post_install", "-at_install", "familylaw", "familylaw_step")`. +- Use `new_test_user(..., groups="base.group_user,activeblue_familylaw.group_familylaw_attorney")` to test group-gated actions; call gated methods with `.with_user(attorney)` / `.with_user(paralegal)`. +- **External APIs are always mocked** in unit tests — Claude (`/v1/messages`), DocuSeal, CourtListener. Tests must never hit a live network. From Step 6 we use `unittest.mock.patch` on the HTTP client method and assert on what got written to Odoo (e.g. "document born in `ai_draft`", "citation born `unverified`"). +- Date math (Step 4+) is tested with fixed dates, not `today()`, so results are deterministic. + +--- + +## Architecture recap (so each step lands in the right place) + +- **Odoo is the spine:** system of record, workflow/state machines, RBAC, audit (`mail.thread`), deadlines (`ir.cron` + `base.automation`), documents, calendar, UI. +- **AI = Odoo's own HTTPS call to the Claude API** (`api.anthropic.com/v1/messages`), key in `ir.config_parameter`, model pinned in config, wrapped in `queue_job` so it runs async. *No Odoo-AI feature is used.* +- **The one external service** is the optional FastAPI orchestrator for the multi-step **research** loop (Step 7); single-shot AI calls (drafting, summaries) run from Odoo directly. +- **Satellites:** DocuSeal (e-signature, Step 11), MinIO/Synology (file archive, Step 12), CourtListener (citation verification, Step 7). +- **Local Ollama** is a *later* routing option; `_route_model()` is built so flipping high-confidentiality work to local is a config change, not a redesign. Trust/billing reconciliation never reaches any model. + +--- + +## The step sequence + +| Step | Goal (vertical slice) | Key models / files | Proves (tests) | Design doc | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| **1 ✅** | **Case spine + lifecycle state machine + attorney gates** | `familylaw.case`, security groups, case views | state transitions, conflict-clearance gate, attorney-only actions, illegal-transition rejection, audit logging | 02, 03 | +| 2 | Parties, children, issues | `familylaw.party`, `.child`, `.issue` | relations, DOB/constraint validation | 02, 03 | +| 3 | **Documents + the review gate** | `familylaw.document` (`ai_draft→attorney_review→approved`) | only attorney approves; can't file/send unapproved (THE gate) | 03, 04 | +| 4 | Deadline engine | `familylaw.deadline`, `base.automation`, `ir.cron`, `calendar.event` mirror | 20/45/30-day math, weekend roll, overdue detection | 02, 11 | +| 5 | Mandatory disclosure (Rule 12.285) | `disclosure.item`, `financial.affidavit`, `fin.line` | 12.902(b) vs (c) by income, 45-day due date, can't-waive flags | 02, 11 | +| 6 | **Claude client + `ai.task` ledger** (single-shot) | `familylaw.ai.client`, `ai.task`, drafting agent, `queue_job` | (mocked API) doc born `ai_draft`, task logged, citations born `unverified` | 04, 09 | +| 7 | **Citation ledger + filing gate** + research loop | `familylaw.citation`, `action_request_filing`, FastAPI orchestrator | filing blocked on any unverified citation; allowed when all verified | 06 | +| 8 | **Discovery + subpoena workflow** (12.351 gate + pro-se/attorney branch) | `discovery.request`, subpoena objection-window gate | objection-window hard gate, same-day Notice of Issuance, clerk-vs-attorney routing | 11 (A.6, C) | +| 9 | Child-support **modification** workflow (Playbook Scenario 2, end to end) | wires Steps 1–8 for `support_modification` | 15%/$50 threshold, 20-day answer clock, DOR-case flag, retroactivity note | 11 (B.2) | +| 10 | **Emergency** workflow (12.941 pick-up / removal — Scenario 1) | emergency motion records + required-attachment checks | the have-order-vs-not fork; missing-attachment block | 11 (B.1) | +| 11 | DocuSeal e-signature | `action_send_for_signature`, webhook controller | (mocked) only `approved` can send; webhook flips to `signed` | 05 | +| 12 | File archive + calendar layers | `ir.attachment` + `familylaw.archive` metadata; calendar categories | SHA-256 checksum, retention class, per-layer filtering | (new) | +| 13 | Miami-Dade auto-seed (AO 14-13) | Status Quo Order, parenting-course + mediation obligations on case open | obligations seed on open; course-before-judgment guard | 11 (D) | +| 14 | Comms agent + AI-assisted billing flag + hardening | `comms` drafts, `time.entry.ai_assisted`, encryption/backup pass | (mocked) comms never auto-sends; AI ratio reportable | 04, 08 | + +**Suggested MVP to run a real solo practice:** Steps 1–6 + 8 + 11. Add 7 (research/verification) next. 9/10 are the headline workflows; 12–14 round it out. + +--- + +## STEP 1 — delivered ✅ + +**What's in it** +- `familylaw.case` — the matter record: identity (`name`, `client_id`, `case_type`), team (`attorney_id`, `paralegal_id`), the **`representation`** flag (attorney / pro_se — drives the Step 8 subpoena branch), the **`conflict_check_cleared`** gate, and the **`state`** lifecycle: `intake → engaged → disclosure → discovery → mediation → hearing → closed`. +- A **guarded state machine**: each transition checks the current stage and refuses illegal jumps; `action_mark_conflict_cleared` and `action_close`/`action_reopen` are **attorney-only** (enforced in Python *and* hidden via `groups=` on the buttons). +- Security groups **Family Law / Staff** and **Family Law / Attorney** (attorney implies staff implies internal user) + model access rules (staff can't delete; attorney can). +- List, form (statusbar + transition buttons + audit chatter), and search views; a **Family Law** app menu. +- `mail.thread` audit trail — every stage change and the conflict clearance post to the chatter. + +**Install** +```bash +# copy the module into your addons path, then: +odoo -d -i activeblue_familylaw --stop-after-init +# (or install "Active Blue Family Law" from the Apps menu) +``` + +**Run Step 1 tests** +```bash +odoo -d -i activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --test-tags familylaw_step1 --stop-after-init +``` +Ten tests cover: initial state, the conflict-clearance gate (engage blocked until cleared; only an attorney can clear), illegal-transition rejection, the full forward path, attorney-only close/reopen, and audit logging. + +**Walkthrough (click-path)** +1. Family Law → Cases → **New**. Enter a matter name, pick Client A, set Case Type = *Child Support Modification*, assign yourself as attorney. Save. → it's in **Intake**. +2. As a **staff** user, the *Clear Conflict Check* and *Close* buttons are hidden; try the flow and you can't engage yet. +3. As an **attorney**, click **Clear Conflict Check** → the boolean ticks and a chatter note appears. Now **Engage** → stage moves to *Engaged*. +4. Walk **Start Disclosure → Start Discovery → Start Mediation → Set for Hearing**; the statusbar advances and each change is logged. +5. **Close Case** (attorney only) → *Closed*; **Reopen** sends it back to *Engaged*. + +**Done-when:** the 10 tests pass and the walkthrough behaves as above. ✅ → ready for Step 2 (parties, children, issues). + +--- + +## Notes / known-small-things +- The form uses the explicit `oe_chatter` div for cross-release safety. Odoo 18 also supports the shorthand `` tag; swap if preferred. +- An app icon can be added later at `static/description/icon.png` and referenced via `web_icon` on the root menu (left off now to keep install dependency-free). +- Record-level isolation between attorneys (multi-attorney record rules) is intentionally deferred; Step 1 grants the two groups company-wide access. We tighten this when the data model warrants it. diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/CLAUDE.md b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/CLAUDE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b836cef --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/CLAUDE.md @@ -0,0 +1,598 @@ +# CLAUDE.md — Active Blue Family Law Platform + +> **Handoff document for Claude Code.** This is the single source of truth for the +> project: what it is, how it's architected, the decisions already made, what's been +> built, and what to build next. Read this fully before writing code. Companion +> design docs (`00`–`11`) live in the design package; this file is the operational +> brief that ties them together. + +--- + +## 1. What we're building (and the one rule that governs everything) + +A **case-management platform for a Florida family-law practice** in **Miami-Dade +(11th Judicial Circuit)**, built on **Odoo 18 Community**. A staff member with +**little legal knowledge** enters case data through guided intake; the software +**assembles the case** — manages it, attaches verified case law, tracks +statutory/procedural requirements and evidence, and flags what's needed for +success — and routes a **finished, draft case package to a licensed attorney who +reads it, verifies it, and signs it.** The attorney owns the output. + +**THE GOVERNING RULE — non-negotiable, enforced in code, not policy:** + +> The software **builds, verifies, organizes, and flags.** A **licensed attorney +> judges, decides, and signs.** Nothing reaches a client, a clerk, or a courtroom +> without attorney approval. The AI is the paralegal who never sleeps — **it is not +> the lawyer.** + +**Claude's specific role = the quality-elevation layer.** Claude exists to produce +*high-quality, verified, fully-assembled* work product — drafted documents, extracted +facts, completeness-checked files, and **verified** case-law research — and **move it +UP to the licensed attorney for sign-off**. The point of using a frontier model is the +quality of what gets elevated: the attorney receives something strong enough to approve +with minor edits, fast. Claude *intervenes* by supplying verified case law and the +available next steps/avenues — **not** by deciding strategy or rendering the legal +opinion. The intervention makes the attorney faster; it never replaces them. + +This exists because the platform must **not** practice law. Two structural gates +enforce it everywhere: +1. **The review gate** — AI-produced work is born in a draft state; only a licensed + attorney (group) can approve it; nothing can be filed/sent/signed unapproved. +2. **The citation gate** — every case-law citation is born `unverified` and must + pass verification (exists / on-point / good-law) against a real database before + it can enter a filing. (Lawyers have been sanctioned for AI-hallucinated cites; + this makes that mechanically impossible.) + +**The product goal is a high attorney-approval rate achieved by producing genuinely +good, complete, citation-verified work — NOT by making review shallow.** The win +condition is "approve with minor edits, fast," like a senior partner redlining a +strong associate draft. + +**How the software improves over time — the SAFE loop (read this carefully).** The +near-term improvement mechanism is **prompt and few-shot-example refinement plus the +regression eval suite** — NOT model fine-tuning on live matters. Family-law work +product is full of **confidential, privileged client data** (Bar Rule 4-1.6); feeding +attorney-corrected drafts into model training risks leaking one client's information +into another client's matter, which is far worse than any bad draft. Therefore: +- The default loop is: attorney edits → those edits inform **curated, hand-written + exemplars and prompt tweaks** + new regression test cases → output improves. No + client data enters any training process by default. +- **Fine-tuning is a FUTURE, GATED capability**, not part of this build, and only ever + on a **de-identified, attorney-approved, consented** corpus held separately that + **never auto-ingests live matters**. (See doc 09 §10 cautions.) +The attorney is the quality bar and the source of curated examples — never an +unwitting training-data faucet, and never a bottleneck to engineer around. + +--- + +## 2. Capabilities the platform must deliver + +Derived backward from the outcome: **a non-lawyer enters facts → a complete, +verified, attorney-signable case package comes out, fast enough that the attorney's +review is confirmatory, not corrective.** Every capability earns its place by serving +that outcome. **Grouped by RISK, not feature area** — the tier tells you what's safe +to build now vs. what needs attorney-validated legal content first. + +### Tier 1 — The spine (capture & manage) — *safe to build now; data + deterministic rules* +1. **Guided intake & fact capture** — the adaptive questionnaire (triage routes by + case type; branches collect exactly the facts each matter needs, in plain + language). **Highest-leverage capability in the system** — everything downstream + is only as good as the facts captured here; bad capture is the #1 cause of a draft + getting sent back. +2. **Case management & system of record** — matter, parties, children, issues, + **proceedings** (each modification/enforcement is a child `familylaw.proceeding` + under the case — see §4), lifecycle state, team. The Odoo spine; the container + everything fills. +3. **Automated conflict-of-interest screening** — when intake captures the opposing + party, the system **searches every party across every matter** and surfaces + potential conflicts (opposing party was a past client; is adverse to a current + client) **for the attorney to clear**. A human ticking a checkbox across hundreds + of matters *will* miss structural conflicts; an undetected conflict can disqualify + the firm and void work (Bar Rules 4-1.7/4-1.9). The software does the search a + human can't do reliably; the **attorney still decides** (the Step 1 + `conflict_check_cleared` gate stays). Belongs in Step 2 (needs the party model). +3. **Document & evidence repository** — every document on the matter, versioned, + checksummed, with legal metadata (type, privilege, retention). The case file as + one organized source of truth. +4. **Deadline & calendar engine** — statutory/procedural clocks (answer, disclosure, + discovery, objection windows) computed deterministically, surfaced on a layered, + filterable calendar. Pure rules + date math; a real differentiator (a missed + family-law deadline is malpractice). + +### Tier 2 — The assembly (build the case) — *safe to build now; assembly + deterministic scoring* +5. **Document drafting** — first drafts of pleadings/motions/forms from captured + facts, with placeholders for unknowns, born as drafts for attorney review. Where + the non-lawyer's facts become legal documents. +6. **Procedural avenue mapping + decision graph** — given case type + what changed, + surface the *available* procedural paths with their required elements and deadlines, + rendered as a **branching decision graph** the attorney can compare at a glance. The + menu, **not** the decision. Suggests; never strategizes. **Each path node shows a + STRENGTH-OF-SUPPORT comparison — NOT a success percentage:** + - procedural requirements (forms, elements, proof needed); + - **strength factors present / missing**, drawn factually from the case data (e.g. + "income change exceeds 15% threshold ✓; underemployment evidence not gathered ✗; + financial affidavit on file ✓"); + - effort + timeline (deterministic: deadlines, steps, typical duration); + - key risks / unknowns ("outcome depends on whether the court imputes income — a + judgment call for the attorney"); + - what would strengthen the path (the gaps to close). + **This deliberately does NOT output a win probability.** A "% chance of success" is + fabricated precision (no honest dataset of comparable sealed/settled Miami-Dade + outcomes exists), it is functionally the legal *opinion* only a licensed attorney may + give, it becomes Bar-complaint/malpractice evidence if the case loses, and it anchors + the attorney into shallow review. The graph compares **which path the facts on hand + best support**; the attorney converts that into a probability using their own + judgment and license. (See EXCLUDED, below.) +7. **Requirements & completeness scoring** — the readiness engine: score the file + against what a complete case of that type/stage needs (forms, proven facts, + evidentiary foundations, met deadlines) and surface gaps **before** the attorney + sees it. **The capability that most directly drives approval rate** — it catches + the omissions that cause rejections. (Feeds the "strength factors" in capability 6.) + +### Tier 3 — The legal support (high-risk, high-value core) — *NEEDS attorney-validated legal content before shipping* +8. **Case-law research & verified citations** — propose authority, draft argument, + and **verify every citation against a real reporter (CourtListener) before it can + enter a filing**; unverified = mechanically blocked. Most valuable *and* most + dangerous — the part that makes the software feel like it knows law, and the part + that gets people sanctioned if built wrong. +9. **Prior-judgment interpretation** — extract structured facts from an existing + order, summarize it plainly, and **flag** legal-interpretation questions **without + ruling** on them. Central to the modification/enforcement work this practice + focuses on. + +### Tier 4 — The output & the loop (close it safely) — *the machinery that makes all the above defensible* +10. **Attorney review & approval workflow** — the GATE made into a workflow: + assembled package → attorney reads, verifies, edits, signs → only then does + anything move. **Non-negotiable; the capability that makes every other one safe.** +11. **E-signature & filing preparation** — client-facing docs via DocuSeal; court + filings prepared for `/s/` + Portal upload (prepare-and-upload). The last mile + from approved draft to going out. +12. **Audit trail** — every fact, AI action, citation verification status, and + approval reconstructable. Protects the attorney and the practice when anyone asks + "who did what, and was it checked." +13. **Communications drafting** — plain-language, attorney-reviewed client updates; + never auto-sends. Keeps clients informed without the attorney writing every email. +14. **Nonlawyer supervision & access control** — the operator is a *low-legal-knowledge + staffer handling privileged client data*, which triggers the attorney's duty to + supervise nonlawyer assistants (Bar Rule 4-5.3). So: **matter-scoped access** + (staff see only their assigned matters, not the whole client base), a nonlawyer- + conduct acknowledgment, and the hard principle that **staff capture and assemble + but never communicate legal positions to a client** (extends "never advises" from + the AI to the human operator). This is a confidentiality + ethics requirement, not + a nicety. +15. **Data retention & destruction** — Florida imposes file-retention obligations, and + "keep everything forever in an audit log" is itself a liability (more data = more + breach surface; some data shouldn't be kept indefinitely). So: **attorney-configured + retention classes**, a defined **closed-matter lifecycle** (retain → eligible for + destruction → destroyed, with the action logged), and **client-file return at + matter close**. The audit trail (12) records *that* destruction happened without + retaining the destroyed content. + +### Deliberately EXCLUDED (these cross from *assist* into *judge* → UPL/liability) +- **Outcome / success-percentage prediction** — NO "% chance of winning" on any path, + graph, or report. There is no honest dataset of comparable Miami-Dade family-law + outcomes (cases are sealed, settlements private, "success" isn't binary), so any + percentage is **fabricated precision**; it is functionally the legal *opinion* only a + licensed attorney may give; it becomes evidence if a case loses; and it anchors the + attorney into shallow review. **What IS allowed (capability 6): a strength-of-support + decision graph** that compares which path the *facts on hand* best support — present/ + missing factors, requirements, effort, risks — leaving the probability judgment to the + attorney. The distinction is load-bearing: "72% likely to win" = excluded; + "threshold met, 4 of 5 supporting elements documented" = allowed. +- **Evidence admissibility rulings** — admissibility is a contextual legal ruling. + The software surfaces an evidence **completeness checklist** ("missing the + foundation for exhibit C"); it does **not** rule the exhibit admissible. + +**Build order implication:** Tiers 1, 2, and 4 are safe to build now (no legal +judgment — data, assembly, deterministic rules, safety machinery). **Tier 3 is gated +behind attorney validation of the underlying legal logic** (the requirements/ +elicitation content is the artifact to put in front of a Florida attorney). Build +Tiers 1/2/4 first and gate Tier 3 → genuinely useful product quickly, on the right +side of the line. This maps onto §7: capabilities 1–7 and 10–15 ride Steps 1–14 +(conflict screening 3 → Step 2; supervision/access 14 → Steps 2–3; retention 15 → +Step 12); capabilities 8–9 are the Tier-3 pieces (Steps 6, 7, 9) the attorney +questionnaire validates. + +--- + +## 3. Architecture (decided) + +- **Odoo 18 Community is the spine:** system of record, workflow/state machines, + RBAC, audit (`mail.thread`), deadlines (`ir.cron` + `base.automation`), documents, + calendar, UI. ~70% of needs are Odoo plumbing — **do not rebuild from scratch.** +- **AI = Odoo's own HTTPS call to the Claude API** at `api.anthropic.com/v1/messages`. + - **No Odoo "AI" feature is used** — Odoo Community has none; this is a plain + outbound HTTP call from our module. + - API key in `ir.config_parameter` (encrypted, attorney-group readable only). + - Model **pinned in config** (`familylaw.model`), recorded per task for audit. + - Calls run **async via `queue_job`** (OCA) so they never block the web worker. + - **Provider is pluggable.** Local **Ollama** is a *future* routing option, not + wired now. Build `_route_model()` so flipping high-confidentiality work to local + is a **config change, not a redesign**. + - **Trust/billing reconciliation NEVER reaches any model** — the routing layer + raises before any such call. (IOTA, Bar Rule 5-1.1 — human-only.) +- **One external service:** an optional **FastAPI orchestrator** for the multi-step + **research loop** (search → propose citations → verify each → synthesize). Mirrors + the owner's existing `odoo-ai` pattern. Single-shot AI tasks (drafting, summaries, + extraction) run **from Odoo directly**; only the agentic research chain goes + external. Running even that as sequenced `queue_job` steps inside Odoo is an + acceptable alternative — complexity-vs-consolidation call, not correctness. +- **Satellites:** + - **DocuSeal** — self-hosted e-signature for *client-facing* docs (court filings use + the `/s/` convention via the FL E-Filing Portal, **NOT** DocuSeal). **Two material + caveats (do not bury these):** (1) the **API/embedding needed for the Odoo + integration requires DocuSeal *Pro* (~$200/yr / ~$20-per-user-mo)** — the free tier + does core signing but not the programmatic integration; (2) the **DocuSeal signing + host must be internet-facing**, unlike the rest of the NetBird-internal, + privacy-first stack — so it must be **isolated and hardened** (its Postgres not + exposed, audit trail backed up). For a HIPAA-adjacent operator these are design + facts, not footnotes. + - **MinIO or Synology NAS** — file archive behind `ir.attachment`. + - **CourtListener** — citation verification. **It is a single point of failure for + the citation gate (capability 8 — the thing that prevents sanctions), so:** + (1) **fail CLOSED** — if CourtListener is down, rate-limited, or has no record for a + cite, the citation **stays `unverified` and remains blocked**; the system NEVER + "assumes good" or waves anything through on a verification failure; (2) define at + least **one fallback source** (e.g. Google Scholar / a secondary API) before relying + solely on it; (3) **confirm Florida appellate (DCA + Supreme Court) coverage is + adequate BEFORE building on it** — verify the tool actually works for FL family-law + authority, don't assume. +- **AI cost & latency (model this from day one):** a fully-assembled matter can mean + *many* calls (drafting + research + per-citation verification), so a research loop can + run minutes and cost real money per case. Set a **per-task token ceiling**, and + **record token cost + latency on each `ai.task`** so the economics are measurable and + capped, not discovered later. Budget the cost-per-assembled-case explicitly. +- **Court e-filing reality:** the FL Courts E-Filing Portal has **no public push + API**. The model is **prepare-and-upload**: software prepares, attorney signs + `/s/`, a human uploads through the Portal, confirmation recorded back in Odoo. + +### Tech/environment notes +- **Odoo 18 view syntax:** use `` (NOT `` — removed in 18). `attrs=` + and `states=` are **removed**; use direct attributes (`invisible="..."`, + `readonly="..."`, `required="..."`). Chatter: explicit `oe_chatter` div used for + cross-release safety (v18 also supports the `` shorthand). +- Owner runs Odoo 18 in production (Docker/Proxmox stack, Postgres, Traefik, + NetBird). The orchestrator/Ollama/GPU box already exist. +- **Verify volatile legal facts at build time.** Florida renumbers forms and amends + rules/statutes regularly (e.g., the 2023 alimony overhaul removed permanent + alimony; Rule 12.410 subpoena amendment effective Oct 1 2025). Never bake a + specific statute version into code as if permanent; keep "verify current rule" + in the flow. + +--- + +## 4. Decisions locked (apply these — do not re-litigate) + +| Decision | **Choice** | Consequence for the build | +|---|---|---| +| **Intake front door** | **Intake creates a draft case directly** | The intake questionnaire fills a `familylaw.case` that starts in `intake` state. No separate lead/convert step. | +| **Case creation strictness** | **Conditional: strict for standard intake, FAST-PATH for emergencies** | Standard intake = **strict** (require matter name, client, case type, county/court + triage essentials before the draft case commits — the friction is fine and keeps data clean). **Emergency intake = fast-path:** if the urgency screen trips (child withheld / removal threat / violence), creation requires only the bare minimum to act (who, which child, what's happening) and **defers** the rest. Rationale: in a genuine emergency the procedural clock and the child's safety beat data completeness; a bare "strict" rule would block opening the matter exactly when speed matters most. The urgency screen runs first, so it gates which creation path applies. | +| **Modification: how Case A is handled** | **One continuous case; each new proceeding is a child `familylaw.proceeding`** | A modification/enforcement **reopens the same `familylaw.case`** (continuity, full history in one place) **BUT** spawns a new **`familylaw.proceeding`** record under it. **Deadlines, documents, and proceeding-state attach to the PROCEEDING, not the case.** This resolves the flaw in a bare "reopen": without it, the deadline engine can't tell the 2024 dissolution's disclosure clock from a 2027 modification's, and documents/audit from distinct legal proceedings pile together. The case is the client-matter spine; the proceeding is the unit of legal action. (Reconciles with doc 03's parent/child structure — same idea, named `proceeding`.) | +| **"Interpret the prior judgment"** | **Extraction + plain summary + legal interpretation (flagged, not concluded)** | The AI extracts structured facts, writes a plain-language summary, **and** may surface legal interpretation of provisions — but interpretation is **flagged for the attorney, never stated as a conclusion/ruling.** Born as draft; attorney decides. | + +Other standing choices from design: **native Odoo models** for the questionnaire +(NOT the Survey app) — answers must land as typed case data the workflow can use, +with no survey→case mapping layer. Markdown for docs; module version-controlled in +Gitea by the owner. + +--- + +## 5. The build method — VERIFIABLE STEPS (follow strictly) + +Build in small, independently verifiable slices. **Do not start step N+1 until step +N's tests are green and its walkthrough passes.** Every step delivers, in order: + +1. **Installable code** — installs/upgrades cleanly (`-u activeblue_familylaw`). +2. **A walkthrough** — a UI click-path that shows the new behaviour end to end. +3. **Tagged unit tests** — under `tests/`, tagged `familylaw_step`, proving the + step's guarantees (especially the gates). +4. **Done-when** — explicit pass condition: green tests + clean walkthrough → ship, + then advance. + +### Test harness +- Tests subclass `TransactionCase` (savepoint rollback; DB stays clean). +- Tag: `@tagged("post_install", "-at_install", "familylaw", "familylaw_step")`. +- Group-gated actions: `new_test_user(..., groups="base.group_user,activeblue_familylaw.group_familylaw_attorney")`; call with `.with_user(attorney)` / `.with_user(paralegal)`. +- **External APIs are ALWAYS mocked** (`unittest.mock.patch`) — Claude, DocuSeal, + CourtListener. Tests must never hit the network. Assert on what got written to + Odoo (e.g. "document born `ai_draft`", "citation born `unverified`"). +- **Date math tested with fixed dates**, never `today()`, for determinism. + +Run all: `odoo -d -i activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --stop-after-init` +Run one step: `odoo -d -u activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --test-tags familylaw_step1 --stop-after-init` + +--- + +## 6. What's already built — STEP 1 ✅ (delivered, validated) + +Module: `activeblue_familylaw` (in the Step 1 zip; layout below). + +**`familylaw.case`** — the matter spine: +- Identity: `name`, `client_id` (res.partner), `case_type` (selection: dissolution + w/ & w/o children, paternity, support/parenting/alimony modification, enforcement, + DV injunction, other). +- Team: `attorney_id`, `paralegal_id` (res.users). +- **`representation`** (attorney / pro_se) — drives the Step 8 subpoena branch. +- **`conflict_check_cleared`** (attorney-only gate, readonly, tracked). +- **`state`** lifecycle: `intake → engaged → disclosure → discovery → mediation → + hearing → closed`, with **guarded transitions** (each checks current state, rejects + illegal jumps) and **attorney-only** actions (`action_mark_conflict_cleared`, + `action_close`, `action_reopen`) enforced in **Python AND** via `groups=` on buttons. +- `mail.thread` / `mail.activity.mixin` — every transition + clearance posts to the + chatter (the audit trail). + +**Security:** groups `group_familylaw_user` (Staff) and `group_familylaw_attorney` +(Attorney, implies Staff implies internal). Access rules: staff can't delete; attorney can. + +**Views:** list (``), form (statusbar + transition buttons + chatter), search +(filters: My Cases, Open, Awaiting Conflict Clearance; group-by: stage/attorney/type). +**Menu:** Family Law → Cases (+ Configuration placeholder). + +**Tests (`tests/test_case_lifecycle.py`, tag `familylaw_step1`):** 10 tests — initial +state, conflict-clearance gate (engage blocked until cleared; only attorney clears), +illegal-transition rejection, full forward path, attorney-only close/reopen, audit +logging. Statically validated: Python compiles, XML well-formed, manifest is a dict, +every button maps to a method, every view field exists on the model, zero +Odoo-18-forbidden constructs. + +### Module layout +``` +activeblue_familylaw/ + __init__.py + __manifest__.py # depends: base, mail + models/ + __init__.py + familylaw_case.py # the spine + state machine + gates + security/ + familylaw_security.xml # groups + module category + ir.model.access.csv # staff (no unlink) / attorney (full) + views/ + familylaw_case_views.xml # list, form, search, action + familylaw_menus.xml # app menu + tests/ + __init__.py + test_case_lifecycle.py # familylaw_step1 +``` + +--- + +## 7. The step sequence (roadmap) + +| Step | Slice | Key models / files | Proves (tests) | Doc | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| **1 ✅** | Case spine + lifecycle + attorney gates | `familylaw.case`, security, views | transitions, conflict gate, attorney-only, audit | 02,03 | +| **2 → NEXT** | **Parties, children, issues + `proceeding` + conflict screening + `case_number` + search + intake questionnaire** | `familylaw.party`, `.child`, `.issue`, **`familylaw.proceeding`**; indexed `case_number`; conflict-search method; intake wizard | relations, DOB constraints, **find by party/child/case number**, **conflict search surfaces a past-client opposing party**, questionnaire creates draft case (strict) / emergency fast-path, urgency flag raised, "good case?" captured not answered | 02,03 | +| 3 | **Documents + the review gate** | `familylaw.document` (`ai_draft→attorney_review→approved`), attached to a **proceeding** | only attorney approves; can't file/send unapproved (GATE 1) | 03,04 | +| 4 | Deadline engine | `familylaw.deadline` (**FK to `proceeding`, not case**) + `base.automation` + `ir.cron` + `calendar.event` mirror | 20/45/30-day math, weekend roll, overdue, **deadlines isolated per proceeding** | 02,11 | +| 5 | Mandatory disclosure (Rule 12.285) | `disclosure.item`, `financial.affidavit`, `fin.line` (per proceeding) | 12.902(b) vs (c) by income, 45-day due, can't-waive | 02,11 | +| 6 | **Claude client + `ai.task` ledger** (single-shot) | `familylaw.ai.client`, `ai.task` (**logs model + token cost + latency**), drafting agent, `queue_job` | (mocked) doc born `ai_draft`, task logged w/ cost, cites born `unverified` | 04,09 | +| 7 | **Citation ledger + filing gate** + research loop | `familylaw.citation`, `action_request_filing`, FastAPI orchestrator; **fail-closed verification + fallback source** | filing blocked on any unverified cite (GATE 2); verification failure keeps cite blocked | 06 | +| 8 | **Discovery + subpoena** (12.351 gate + pro-se/attorney branch) | `discovery.request`, objection-window gate | objection-window hard gate, same-day Notice of Issuance, clerk-vs-attorney routing | 11 A.6,C | +| 9 | **Child-support modification** workflow (end to end) | wires 1–8 for `support_modification`; **new `proceeding` under the reopened case** | 15%/$50 threshold, 20-day answer, DOR-case flag, retroactivity note, **prior-judgment extraction+summary+flagged interpretation** | 11 B.2 | +| 10 | **Emergency** workflow (12.941 pick-up/removal) | emergency motion records + required-attachment checks; **uses the intake fast-path** | have-order-vs-not fork; missing-attachment block; fast-path opens matter on minimum facts | 11 B.1 | +| 11 | DocuSeal e-signature | `action_send_for_signature`, webhook controller (**Pro tier; isolated internet-facing host**) | (mocked) only `approved` sends; webhook → `signed` | 05 | +| 12 | File archive + calendar layers + **retention lifecycle** | `ir.attachment` + `familylaw.archive` metadata; calendar categories; retention classes + closed-matter destruction | SHA-256 checksum, **retention class drives destruction-eligibility**, client-file-return at close, **per-layer filter toggles** | new | +| 13 | Miami-Dade auto-seed (AO 14-13) | Status Quo Order, parenting-course + mediation obligations on case open | obligations seed on open; course-before-judgment guard | 11 D | +| 14 | Comms agent + AI-assisted billing flag + hardening + **matter-scoped access** | `comms` drafts, `time.entry.ai_assisted`, record rules scoping staff to assigned matters, encryption/backup | (mocked) comms never auto-sends; AI ratio reportable; **staff can't see unassigned matters** | 04,08 | + +**Intake questionnaire** (native models; intake-creates-draft-case; **conditional +strictness — strict for standard, fast-path for emergencies**) is the high-leverage +elicitation layer. It belongs with **Step 2** (it needs the party/child fields) and is +built **triage section + ONE case-type branch (child-support modification first)**, +then more branches added incrementally. The triage **urgency screen runs FIRST** and +selects strict vs. fast-path creation. It captures facts only — it **never answers** +"do I have a good case?" (logs that as a question for the attorney). + +**MVP to run a solo practice:** Steps 1–6 + 8 + 11, then add 7. Steps 9/10 are the +headline workflows; 12–14 round it out. + +--- + +## 8. STEP 2 — the immediate task (build this next) + +**Goal:** the related records that make a matter real, the **proceeding** layer that +keeps modifications/enforcements cleanly separated, **automated conflict screening**, +search the way a practice actually searches (by people + court case number), and the +intake questionnaire front door (conditional strict / emergency fast-path). + +**Build:** +1. **`familylaw.party`** — a party to the matter (`res.partner` + role: client / + opposing party / opposing counsel / other). Opposing-party capture feeds conflict + screening (#6). +2. **`familylaw.child`** — a minor child (name, DOB **with validation: reject future + or implausible dates**, link to case); searchable. +3. **`familylaw.issue`** — a contested issue (time-sharing, support, equitable + distribution, alimony, etc.) — the spine for later requirements scoring. +4. **`familylaw.proceeding`** — **the unit of legal action under a case.** A case can + have many proceedings over time (original dissolution, later modification, later + enforcement). Fields: `case_id` (FK), `proceeding_type`, `state` (its own + lifecycle), open/close dates. **From here on, deadlines and documents attach to a + proceeding, not directly to the case** (Steps 3–5 build on this). On case creation, + open an initial proceeding for the originating matter. +5. **`case_number`** on `familylaw.case` — court-assigned (e.g. 2024-DR-001234), + **indexed + searchable**. (A proceeding may also carry its own number if the court + assigns one.) +6. **Automated conflict screening** — a method that, given the captured opposing + party, **searches `familylaw.party` across ALL cases** and returns potential + conflicts (opposing party matches a past/current client; or is already an opposing + party elsewhere). Surface the hits **on the case for the attorney to clear** — it + does **not** auto-clear or auto-block; the Step 1 `conflict_check_cleared` attorney + gate remains the decision point. (Name-match can be fuzzy; flag for human review, + never auto-resolve.) +7. **Search-by-person / by-number:** extend case search so a matter is findable by + party name, child name, and `case_number` — not just title/client. +8. **Intake questionnaire (native; creates draft case; conditional strictness):** a + guided multi-step flow that (a) runs **triage FIRST** (caller + contact, opposing + party, minor children y/n, county/court, existing case/order, **urgency screen: + child withheld / removal threat / violence**), (b) **branches on urgency**: + *standard* → strict (require name, client, case type, county + triage essentials + before commit); *emergency* → **fast-path** (commit on minimum facts: who, which + child, what's happening; defer the rest), (c) branches into the **child-support + modification** question set, and (d) on completion **creates a draft + `familylaw.case` in `intake` state** (and its initial proceeding). Runs conflict + screening (#6) as part of completion. Collects facts only. + +**Tests (`familylaw_step2`):** relation integrity (party/child/issue/proceeding ↔ +case); DOB constraint rejects future/implausible dates; **find case by party name / +child name / case_number** returns the right matter; **conflict screening surfaces a +past-client opposing party** and does NOT auto-clear; a case can hold **multiple +proceedings** and each carries its own state; questionnaire triage sets case type; +**standard path enforces strict creation** (rejects incomplete submission); +**emergency path commits on minimum facts** and raises the urgency flag; "do I have a +good case?" is **captured as an attorney question, never answered**. + +**Constraints:** Odoo 18 syntax (``, direct attributes — no ``, no +`attrs`/`states`). **No external/network calls in Step 2** (questionnaire is pure data +capture; AI extraction of an uploaded judgment is Step 6+; conflict screening is a +local DB search, not an AI call). Keep the gate philosophy intact — nothing here +advises, decides, or auto-clears a conflict. + +**Done-when:** `familylaw_step2` tests green + a walkthrough where you (a) complete a +*standard* modification intake and land on a new draft case with an initial +proceeding; (b) complete an *emergency* intake and get a matter opened on minimum +facts with the urgency flag set; (c) see a conflict flag when the opposing party +matches an existing client; and (d) find an existing case by opposing-party name, by +child name, and by case number. + +--- + +## 9. Working agreements for Claude Code + +- **Read the relevant design doc (`00`–`11`) before each step**; this file says + *what/next*, the docs say *why/detail*. +- **One verifiable step at a time.** Don't scaffold ahead. Deliver code + tests + + walkthrough, stop, confirm green, then continue. +- **The two gates are sacred.** Never add a code path that lets AI output be + filed/sent/signed without attorney approval, or lets an unverified citation into a + filing. If a request would breach this, flag it instead of building it. +- **Mock all external APIs in tests.** Never hit Claude/DocuSeal/CourtListener from a + test. +- **Verify volatile legal facts** (forms, rules, statutes) against current sources at + build time; keep "verify current rule" in the flow rather than hardcoding a version + as permanent. +- **Owner profile:** experienced infra/dev (Proxmox, Docker, Postgres, Python, + Odoo 18 in prod). Be direct and technical; prefer CLI; the owner version-controls + in Gitea. Plan fully, validate each stage. +- **This is not legal advice** and the platform must not practice law; a licensed + attorney reviews, verifies, and signs all output. + +--- + +## 10. Design-revision changelog (audit fixes applied to this revision) + +Nine flaws were found in a critical design review and fixed in this document: + +1. **Training-data flywheel → safe improvement loop (§1).** The "attorney corrections + become training data" claim risked leaking privileged client data (Rule 4-1.6) and + assumed nonexistent fine-tuning infra. Replaced with prompt/example refinement + + regression evals as the default; fine-tuning is future/gated on a de-identified, + consented, separate corpus. +2. **Bare "reopen" → `familylaw.proceeding` model (§4, §7, §8).** Reopening one case + repeatedly would conflate deadlines/documents/audit across distinct legal + proceedings and contradicted doc 03. Now: one continuous case, each + modification/enforcement is a child proceeding that owns its own deadlines/docs/state. +3. **Conflict checkbox → automated conflict screening (capability 3, Step 2).** A human + ticking a box misses structural conflicts across many matters. Added a DB-wide + party search that surfaces conflicts for the attorney to clear (attorney still decides). +4. **Strict creation vs. emergencies → conditional strictness (§4, Step 2/10).** Strict + field requirements would block opening a genuine emergency matter. Now strict for + standard intake, fast-path (minimum facts) when the urgency screen trips. +5. **AI cost/latency unmodeled → budgeted (§3, Step 6).** Added per-task token ceiling + and cost+latency logging on `ai.task`; budget cost-per-assembled-case explicitly. +6. **CourtListener single point of failure → fail-closed + fallback + FL-coverage check + (§3, Step 7).** Verification failure now keeps a cite blocked (never "assume good"), + a fallback source is required, and Florida appellate coverage must be confirmed first. +7. **Non-lawyer operator confidentiality → supervision + matter-scoped access + (capability 14, Step 14).** Added Rule 4-5.3 supervision layer, matter-scoped record + rules, and the principle that staff never communicate legal positions to clients. +8. **DocuSeal caveats restored (§3, Step 11).** Surfaced the Pro-tier cost (~$200/yr for + the API) and the internet-facing/isolated-host requirement at the architecture level. +9. **No retention policy → retention & destruction capability (capability 15, Step 12).** + Added attorney-configured retention classes, a closed-matter destruction lifecycle, + and client-file return at close (audit logs *that* destruction occurred, not the content). + +**Note:** none of these were defects in the delivered Step 1 *code* — they were in the +surrounding design. Step 1 remains valid. The structural change that most affects +forthcoming work is the `familylaw.proceeding` model (fix 2), which Step 2 introduces +and Steps 3–5 build on. + +**Later additions (this revision):** +10. **Strength-of-support decision graph, NOT a success-percentage predictor + (capability 6, EXCLUDED).** A requested "% chance of success per path" was declined + as fabricated precision / functional legal opinion / liability, and replaced with a + factual path-comparison graph (present-missing factors, requirements, effort, risks) + that leaves the probability judgment to the attorney. +11. **Claude's role clarified as the quality-elevation layer (§1)** and a new **§11 + "Requirements for Success"** added — the non-code gaps (engaged licensed attorney, + practice-ownership model, malpractice insurance, engagement-letter AI clause, + security/breach plan, operator UPL guardrails, content-maintenance process, the + elicitation content, FL-proven citation source, eval/QA, cost model). #1 (attorney) + and #2 (ownership) gate the venture; both are non-coding and run parallel to Steps 2–5. + +--- + +## 11. Requirements for SUCCESS (non-code gaps that must be closed) + +The 15 capabilities make the software *function*. These items make the venture +*succeed and stay legal*. Several are **launch-blockers**, not enhancements. They are +not optional, and most cannot be solved by writing code. + +### Critical — blocks the whole model +1. **A named, engaged, licensed Florida family-law attorney — NOW, not at launch.** + The entire architecture routes assembled cases to a reviewing/signing attorney; with + no such attorney, there is no one to hand the case to and the product cannot legally + operate. This attorney must (a) **validate the legal logic** in docs 02/11 (forms, + deadlines, avenues, 11th-Circuit specifics), (b) be the **actual reviewing/signing + attorney**, and (c) **own the malpractice and Bar exposure**. *First concrete step: + the attorney-review questionnaire (below) — it turns the researched-but-unvalidated + legal logic into something a Florida attorney can confirm and sign off.* +2. **Settle "whose practice is this?" (ownership / business model).** Florida prohibits + nonlawyer ownership of law firms and fee-splitting with nonlawyers. Clean model: + **Active Blue builds/operates the software; a licensed firm uses it.** Problematic + model: **Active Blue runs the practice** — no code fixes that. Resolve before + building the Tier-3 legal-reasoning pieces, because the answer shapes how they're + built and who the "attorney" in the workflow legally is. + +### Launch-blockers — required before a single real client matter +3. **Malpractice insurance that contemplates AI-assisted work**, carried by the + responsible attorney/firm. +4. **Engagement-letter framework with an AI-disclosure clause** — the client is told AI + assists their matter and a licensed attorney reviews and is responsible. +5. **Security review + breach-response plan for privileged data.** The privacy-first + stack is a head start, but privileged legal data + a non-lawyer operator + an + internet-facing DocuSeal host needs an actual review, encryption-at-rest for case + data, and an incident plan — not just good instincts. +6. **UPL guardrails for the human operator** (pairs with capability 14): the non-lawyer + never communicates legal positions/opinions to clients; all legal questions route to + the attorney; this is trained and enforced, not assumed. + +### Ongoing — required to stay correct over time +7. **A legal-content maintenance process.** Florida changed alimony (2023) and subpoena + rules (2025); forms get renumbered. Someone must **watch for rule/form/statute + changes and update the logic** on a schedule. A case built on a repealed form is a + malpractice event. "Verify current rule" handles point-in-time; this handles drift. +8. **The requirements/elicitation content itself** (unblocks capabilities 7 & 8). The + per-case-type definition of "what a complete, winnable file requires" — elements, + proof, forms, the strength factors the decision graph reads — **does not exist yet**. + This is the artifact the attorney validates and the engine consumes; without it, + completeness-scoring and research have nothing authoritative to check against. +9. **A citation-verification source proven for Florida** (pairs with §3 architecture): + confirm CourtListener (+ fallback) actually covers FL DCA + Supreme Court family-law + authority adequately before relying on the citation gate in production. +10. **A real evaluation/QA process before anything is client-facing.** The regression + eval suite (doc 09 §9) wired to run before every prompt/model change; a defined bar + the assembled output must clear; attorney spot-audits of approved work. + +### Strongly recommended — for the product to actually deliver its promise +11. **Cost-per-assembled-case model** (pairs with §3 / Step 6): know the token cost and + latency of a full matter so pricing and the economics hold; cap per-task spend. +12. **Client intake/consent for AI involvement** captured in the record (distinct from + the engagement letter): the client's informed acknowledgment, logged. +13. **A "human-in-the-loop won't be skipped" enforcement audit**: periodic proof that no + code path and no operator habit lets unreviewed/unsigned work reach a client, clerk, + or court — the two gates verified in practice, not just in tests. + +**Bottom line:** of everything above, **#1 (the attorney) and #2 (the ownership model) +gate the venture** — neither is a coding task, both should be moving in parallel with +Steps 2–5, and #1 starts with the attorney-review questionnaire. The software can be +~80–90% built and validated and still cannot run a real matter until #1–#6 are closed. diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/START_HERE.md b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/START_HERE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d924a49 --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/START_HERE.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +# START HERE — Claude Code kickoff + +You are picking up an in-progress build. Read in this order, then start the task at +the bottom. Do **not** re-derive the design — it exists; follow it. + +## Read order (do this first) +1. **`CLAUDE.md`** — the operational brief and single source of truth. Read it fully. + Pay special attention to: + - §1 — the governing rule + the two gates + Claude's role as the quality-elevation layer. + - §2 — the 15 capabilities, grouped by RISK (what's safe now vs. attorney-gated). + - §4 — locked decisions (apply them; do not re-litigate). + - §5 — the verifiable-step method + the test harness rules. + - §8 — **STEP 2, your immediate task.** + - §10 — the audit fixes already applied (esp. fix 2, the `familylaw.proceeding` model). + - §11 — the non-code success gaps (context for why some steps are gated). +2. **`BUILD_PLAN.md`** — the step contract and the run/test commands. +3. **The design docs `00`–`11`** (in the separate design package) — *why/detail* behind + each step. Read the relevant doc(s) before each step, not all at once. For Step 2: + docs 02 (domain) and 03 (data model). + +## Current state +- **Step 1 is DONE and validated** — `activeblue_familylaw` module: the `familylaw.case` + spine, the lifecycle state machine, attorney-only gates, security groups, views, + and 10 passing tests (tag `familylaw_step1`). Module layout is in `CLAUDE.md §6`. +- The code is Odoo 18 (uses `` not ``; direct attributes, no `attrs`/`states`). +- Nothing else is built yet. Steps 2–14 are designed, not implemented. + +## Hard rules (from CLAUDE.md — do not violate) +- **One verifiable step at a time.** Don't scaffold ahead. Each step = installable code + + a UI walkthrough + tagged unit tests + a done-when. Get green before advancing. +- **The two gates are sacred:** no code path lets AI output be filed/sent/signed without + attorney approval, or lets an unverified citation into a filing. If a request would + breach this, flag it — don't build it. +- **Mock all external APIs in tests** (Claude, DocuSeal, CourtListener). Never hit the + network from a test. Test date math with fixed dates. +- **No outcome/success-percentage prediction.** The decision graph compares strength of + support, never a "% chance of winning" (CLAUDE.md §2 EXCLUDED). +- **Tier 3 (capabilities 8–9, Steps 6–7–9) is gated** behind licensed-attorney + validation of the legal logic. You may build the *structure/scaffolding* but flag that + the legal content is unvalidated; do not present legal reasoning as authoritative. + +## Your first task: STEP 2 +Build exactly what `CLAUDE.md §8` specifies: +- Models: `familylaw.party`, `familylaw.child`, `familylaw.issue`, **`familylaw.proceeding`**. +- Add indexed, searchable `case_number` to `familylaw.case`; open an initial proceeding + on case creation. +- **Automated conflict screening** — a local DB search over `familylaw.party` across all + cases that surfaces potential conflicts for the attorney to clear (never auto-clears, + never auto-blocks; the Step 1 `conflict_check_cleared` attorney gate remains). +- Extend case search to find by party name, child name, and `case_number`. +- **Intake questionnaire** (native models; creates a draft case): triage-first with the + urgency screen, **conditional strictness** (standard = strict; emergency = fast-path on + minimum facts), branching into the **child-support modification** question set, runs + conflict screening on completion. Captures facts only — never answers "do I have a good + case?" (logs it as an attorney question). +- Tests tagged `familylaw_step2` covering everything in §8's test list. +- **Done-when:** `familylaw_step2` green + the four-part walkthrough in §8. + +Work in the module, keep Step 1's tests green, and deliver Step 2 as one reviewable, +tested slice. Then stop and report before starting Step 3. diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/__init__.py b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/__init__.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0650744 --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/__init__.py @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +from . import models diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/__manifest__.py b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/__manifest__.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..17e9a7d --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/__manifest__.py @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- +{ + "name": "Active Blue Family Law", + "version": "18.0.1.0.0", + "category": "Services/Legal", + "summary": "Florida family law case management (Miami-Dade / 11th Judicial Circuit)", + "description": """ +Active Blue Family Law +====================== +Case-management platform for a Florida family-law practice, built in verifiable +steps. STEP 1 delivers the case spine: the familylaw.case model, its lifecycle +state machine, security groups (attorney / staff), and the case views. + +Each subsequent step adds one vertical, independently testable slice. See +BUILD_PLAN.md for the full sequence and the test method. + +Design package: docs 00-11 (architecture, domain, data model, AI agents, +signing, citation verification, wire map, training, forms & playbook). +""", + "author": "Active Blue LLC", + "website": "https://activeblue.net", + "license": "LGPL-3", + "depends": [ + "base", + "mail", + ], + "data": [ + "security/familylaw_security.xml", + "security/ir.model.access.csv", + "views/familylaw_case_views.xml", + "views/familylaw_menus.xml", + ], + "application": True, + "installable": True, +} diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/models/__init__.py b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/models/__init__.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6192781 --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/models/__init__.py @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +from . import familylaw_case diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/models/familylaw_case.py b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/models/familylaw_case.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3103ad0 --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/models/familylaw_case.py @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- +"""STEP 1 — The case spine. + +familylaw.case is the system of record for a matter. This step implements: + * the core identifying fields and the responsible-people links, + * the pro-se / attorney representation flag (drives later workflows), + * the lifecycle STATE MACHINE with guarded transitions, and + * two attorney-only gates (conflict clearance, closing a case). + +The guards are enforced in Python (server-side, testable) AND mirrored in the +view via `groups=` on the buttons (defence in depth). Later steps add parties, +children, documents, the review gate, deadlines, AI, discovery, etc. +""" + +from odoo import api, fields, models, _ +from odoo.exceptions import UserError + +ATTORNEY_GROUP = "activeblue_familylaw.group_familylaw_attorney" + +# The case lifecycle. Order matters: it defines the legal "forward" path. +STATE_SEQUENCE = [ + "intake", + "engaged", + "disclosure", + "discovery", + "mediation", + "hearing", + "closed", +] + + +class FamilyLawCase(models.Model): + _name = "familylaw.case" + _description = "Family Law Case" + _inherit = ["mail.thread", "mail.activity.mixin"] + _order = "create_date desc" + + # --- Identity ----------------------------------------------------------- + name = fields.Char( + string="Matter", + required=True, + tracking=True, + help="Short matter title, e.g. 'In re the Marriage of Client A'.", + ) + client_id = fields.Many2one( + "res.partner", + string="Client", + required=True, + tracking=True, + ) + case_type = fields.Selection( + selection=[ + ("dissolution_no_children", "Dissolution — no children"), + ("dissolution_children", "Dissolution — with children"), + ("paternity", "Paternity"), + ("support_modification", "Child Support Modification"), + ("parenting_modification", "Parenting / Time-Sharing Modification"), + ("alimony_modification", "Alimony Modification"), + ("enforcement", "Enforcement / Contempt"), + ("dv_injunction", "Domestic Violence Injunction"), + ("other", "Other"), + ], + string="Case Type", + required=True, + default="dissolution_children", + tracking=True, + ) + + # --- People ------------------------------------------------------------- + attorney_id = fields.Many2one( + "res.users", + string="Responsible Attorney", + tracking=True, + ) + paralegal_id = fields.Many2one( + "res.users", + string="Paralegal", + tracking=True, + ) + + # --- Representation (drives the subpoena workflow in a later step) ------ + representation = fields.Selection( + selection=[ + ("attorney", "Attorney of Record"), + ("pro_se", "Pro Se (self-represented)"), + ], + string="Representation", + default="attorney", + required=True, + tracking=True, + help="Pro-se matters route subpoena issuance through the clerk of court; " + "attorney-of-record matters issue directly. See Forms & Playbook, Part C.", + ) + + # --- Gates / status ----------------------------------------------------- + conflict_check_cleared = fields.Boolean( + string="Conflict Check Cleared", + readonly=True, + copy=False, + tracking=True, + help="Set by an attorney once the conflict check is documented and clear. " + "Required before the matter can be engaged.", + ) + state = fields.Selection( + selection=[ + ("intake", "Intake"), + ("engaged", "Engaged"), + ("disclosure", "Mandatory Disclosure"), + ("discovery", "Discovery"), + ("mediation", "Mediation"), + ("hearing", "Hearing / Trial"), + ("closed", "Closed"), + ], + string="Stage", + default="intake", + required=True, + copy=False, + tracking=True, + ) + + date_opened = fields.Date( + string="Date Opened", + default=fields.Date.context_today, + ) + active = fields.Boolean(default=True) + + # --- Internal helpers --------------------------------------------------- + def _ensure_attorney(self): + """Raise unless the acting user is in the attorney group.""" + if not self.env.user.has_group(ATTORNEY_GROUP): + raise UserError( + _("Only a licensed attorney (Family Law / Attorney group) may " + "perform this action.") + ) + + def _require_state(self, allowed): + """Raise if any record is not in one of the allowed states.""" + bad = self.filtered(lambda c: c.state not in allowed) + if bad: + raise UserError( + _("This action is not allowed from the current stage (%(states)s). " + "Allowed from: %(allowed)s.", + states=", ".join(sorted(set(bad.mapped("state")))), + allowed=", ".join(allowed)) + ) + + def _advance_to(self, target): + """Write the new state and log it on the chatter.""" + for case in self: + case.state = target + case.message_post( + body=_("Stage changed to: %s") % dict( + self._fields["state"].selection).get(target, target) + ) + + # --- Gated transitions -------------------------------------------------- + def action_mark_conflict_cleared(self): + """Attorney-only: record that the conflict check is clear.""" + self._ensure_attorney() + for case in self: + if case.conflict_check_cleared: + continue + case.conflict_check_cleared = True + case.message_post(body=_("Conflict check cleared by %s.") + % self.env.user.name) + return True + + def action_engage(self): + """intake -> engaged. Requires a cleared conflict check.""" + self._require_state(["intake"]) + not_cleared = self.filtered(lambda c: not c.conflict_check_cleared) + if not_cleared: + raise UserError( + _("Cannot engage a matter before the conflict check is cleared. " + "An attorney must clear it first.") + ) + self._advance_to("engaged") + return True + + def action_start_disclosure(self): + """engaged -> disclosure (Rule 12.285 phase begins in a later step).""" + self._require_state(["engaged"]) + self._advance_to("disclosure") + return True + + def action_start_discovery(self): + """disclosure -> discovery.""" + self._require_state(["disclosure"]) + self._advance_to("discovery") + return True + + def action_start_mediation(self): + """discovery -> mediation (mandatory in Miami-Dade before final hearing).""" + self._require_state(["discovery"]) + self._advance_to("mediation") + return True + + def action_set_hearing(self): + """mediation -> hearing / trial.""" + self._require_state(["mediation"]) + self._advance_to("hearing") + return True + + def action_close(self): + """Attorney-only: close the matter from any non-closed stage.""" + self._ensure_attorney() + self._require_state([s for s in STATE_SEQUENCE if s != "closed"]) + self._advance_to("closed") + return True + + def action_reopen(self): + """Attorney-only: reopen a closed matter back to engaged.""" + self._ensure_attorney() + self._require_state(["closed"]) + self._advance_to("engaged") + return True diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/security/familylaw_security.xml b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/security/familylaw_security.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..735108f --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/security/familylaw_security.xml @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ + + + + + + Family Law + Access rights for the Active Blue Family Law platform. + 20 + + + + + Family Law / Staff + + + + + + + Family Law / Attorney + + + + + diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/security/ir.model.access.csv b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/security/ir.model.access.csv new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d54c036 --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/security/ir.model.access.csv @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +id,name,model_id:id,group_id:id,perm_read,perm_write,perm_create,perm_unlink +access_familylaw_case_user,familylaw.case staff,model_familylaw_case,group_familylaw_user,1,1,1,0 +access_familylaw_case_attorney,familylaw.case attorney,model_familylaw_case,group_familylaw_attorney,1,1,1,1 diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/tests/__init__.py b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/tests/__init__.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0b0a44e --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/tests/__init__.py @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +from . import test_case_lifecycle diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/tests/test_case_lifecycle.py b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/tests/test_case_lifecycle.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f5f023d --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/tests/test_case_lifecycle.py @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- +"""STEP 1 tests — case lifecycle state machine + attorney-only gates. + +Run just this step: + odoo -d -i activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --test-tags familylaw_step1 --stop-after-init + +The tests prove the verifiable behaviour for Step 1: + * a new case starts in 'intake' with no conflict clearance; + * a matter cannot be engaged before an attorney clears the conflict; + * only an attorney can clear the conflict / close the case; + * illegal (skipping) transitions are rejected; + * the full forward path works end to end. +""" + +from odoo.tests.common import TransactionCase, new_test_user, tagged +from odoo.exceptions import UserError + + +@tagged("post_install", "-at_install", "familylaw", "familylaw_step1") +class TestCaseLifecycle(TransactionCase): + + @classmethod + def setUpClass(cls): + super().setUpClass() + cls.partner = cls.env["res.partner"].create({"name": "Client A"}) + + # An attorney and a paralegal, each in the right group. + cls.attorney = new_test_user( + cls.env, + login="fl_attorney", + name="Test Attorney", + email="attorney@example.com", + groups="base.group_user,activeblue_familylaw.group_familylaw_attorney", + ) + cls.paralegal = new_test_user( + cls.env, + login="fl_paralegal", + name="Test Paralegal", + email="paralegal@example.com", + groups="base.group_user,activeblue_familylaw.group_familylaw_user", + ) + + cls.Case = cls.env["familylaw.case"] + cls.case = cls.Case.create({ + "name": "In re the Marriage of Client A", + "client_id": cls.partner.id, + "case_type": "support_modification", + "attorney_id": cls.attorney.id, + "paralegal_id": cls.paralegal.id, + }) + + # --- defaults ----------------------------------------------------------- + def test_01_initial_state(self): + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "intake") + self.assertFalse(self.case.conflict_check_cleared) + self.assertEqual(self.case.representation, "attorney") + + # --- conflict-clearance gate ------------------------------------------- + def test_02_engage_blocked_without_clearance(self): + with self.assertRaises(UserError): + self.case.action_engage() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "intake") + + def test_03_clearance_requires_attorney(self): + with self.assertRaises(UserError): + self.case.with_user(self.paralegal).action_mark_conflict_cleared() + self.assertFalse(self.case.conflict_check_cleared) + + def test_04_attorney_clears_conflict(self): + self.case.with_user(self.attorney).action_mark_conflict_cleared() + self.assertTrue(self.case.conflict_check_cleared) + + def test_05_engage_after_clearance(self): + self.case.with_user(self.attorney).action_mark_conflict_cleared() + self.case.action_engage() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "engaged") + + # --- transition guards -------------------------------------------------- + def test_06_illegal_transition_blocked(self): + # cannot jump straight from intake to discovery + with self.assertRaises(UserError): + self.case.action_start_discovery() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "intake") + + def test_07_full_forward_path(self): + self.case.with_user(self.attorney).action_mark_conflict_cleared() + self.case.action_engage() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "engaged") + self.case.action_start_disclosure() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "disclosure") + self.case.action_start_discovery() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "discovery") + self.case.action_start_mediation() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "mediation") + self.case.action_set_hearing() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "hearing") + self.case.with_user(self.attorney).action_close() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "closed") + + # --- closing / reopening gate ------------------------------------------ + def test_08_close_requires_attorney(self): + with self.assertRaises(UserError): + self.case.with_user(self.paralegal).action_close() + self.assertNotEqual(self.case.state, "closed") + + def test_09_reopen_requires_attorney_and_closed_state(self): + # reopen only valid from 'closed' + with self.assertRaises(UserError): + self.case.action_reopen() + # close then reopen as attorney + self.case.with_user(self.attorney).action_mark_conflict_cleared() + self.case.with_user(self.attorney).action_close() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "closed") + self.case.with_user(self.attorney).action_reopen() + self.assertEqual(self.case.state, "engaged") + + # --- audit trail (mail.thread tracking) -------------------------------- + def test_10_state_change_is_logged(self): + before = len(self.case.message_ids) + self.case.with_user(self.attorney).action_mark_conflict_cleared() + self.case.action_engage() + self.assertGreater( + len(self.case.message_ids), before, + "Stage changes and conflict clearance should post to the chatter " + "(the audit trail).", + ) diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/views/familylaw_case_views.xml b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/views/familylaw_case_views.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4675d30 --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/views/familylaw_case_views.xml @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ + + + + + + familylaw.case.list + familylaw.case + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + familylaw.case.form + familylaw.case + +
+
+ +
+ +
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
+
+ + + + + + familylaw.case.search + familylaw.case + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Cases + familylaw.case + list,form + + {'search_default_open_cases': 1} + +

Open your first matter

+

Create a case to begin. New matters start in Intake; an attorney + clears the conflict check, then the matter can be engaged.

+ + + + diff --git a/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/views/familylaw_menus.xml b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/views/familylaw_menus.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dabcd13 --- /dev/null +++ b/activeblue_familylaw_handoff/activeblue_familylaw_build/activeblue_familylaw/views/familylaw_menus.xml @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + +