AI Legal Case Workflow Orchestrator

Problem

In AI legal assistant setups, lawyers often start with vague prompts like “look at these materials” or “handle this case.” The issue is not whether a single skill can perform OCR or draft documents; it is the lack of a unified entry point. Without clear routing, the assistant may draft before analyzing, ignore existing case archives, miss court SMS downloads, or skip confirmation of procedural status and claims.

How It Works

legal-case-orchestrator acts as the first entry point for case-related work. It interprets user intent and routes requests to specialized skills. Key capabilities include:

• New-case workflow: OCR preprocessing, case analysis, document drafting, and archiving in a standard sequence.
• Existing-case follow-up: loads archived progress before analyzing new materials and drafting updates.
• Court SMS handling: parses service notices, downloads documents, and archives them for downstream analysis.
• Targeted dispatch: routes contract review, evidence mapping, mock trial, and case study requests to dedicated skills.

The workflow uses hard Hooks and soft Hooks to control execution. Hard Hooks pause until the lawyer confirms procedural status, claims, or strategy. Soft Hooks prompt once and continue if there is no reply. This keeps automated work within a reviewable process.

Boundaries

This skill is intended for AI legal assistant projects that already have specialized subskills. It is not a standalone legal advice tool and does not replace lawyer judgment. If subskills, archive structures, or references files are missing, the workflow is constrained. Contract review, trial simulation, and final legal conclusions still require lawyer review.