Upload files to "/"
This commit is contained in:
598
CLAUDE.md
Normal file
598
CLAUDE.md
Normal file
@@ -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 `<list>` (NOT `<tree>` — 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 `<chatter/>` 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<N>`, 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<N>")`.
|
||||
- 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 <db> -i activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --stop-after-init`
|
||||
Run one step: `odoo -d <db> -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 (`<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 (`<list>`, direct attributes — no `<tree>`, 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.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user