New Feature: Filter Content By Document and/or Case Type

New Feature: Filter Content by Case and Document Type

In the ever-evolving world of litigation, efficiency and accuracy are crucial for success. Legal professionals understand the importance of having quick access to relevant information. As a leading provider of innovative legal solutions, Briefpoint is proud to announce its latest feature update – the ability to filter objections and responses by document and case type. This groundbreaking tool ensures that litigators can swiftly locate pertinent work product while drafting discovery responses, saving valuable time and promoting standardization across all cases within an organization.

  1. Time-saving: With a vast database of objections and responses at their disposal, litigators often find themselves sifting through massive amounts of information to find what they need. Briefpoint’s new case type filter eliminates the need for tedious and time-consuming searches, streamlining the process and allowing legal professionals to focus on their primary task – crafting compelling arguments for their clients.
  2. Standardization: Large organizations often struggle to maintain uniformity in their responses across cases. With the new case type filter, organizations can easily input their history of responses, ensuring that all team members have access to consistent information. 

Step-by-Step Guide to Using the Case Type Filter Feature  

  1. Accessing the Feature: To begin using the case type filter, log in to your Briefpoint account and navigate to your Library’s discovery response drafting section.
  2. Selecting the Case Type: Choose your content and locate the case type dropdown menu located near the top of the page. Click on the menu and choose the appropriate case type from the list provided. 
  3. Drafting Responses: With the relevant objections and responses now labeled, you can begin drafting your discovery responses with ease. Select the desired case type from the Edit Case page and now the content that you similarly tagged is surfaced right where you respond. The seamless integration of the case type filter allows for a smooth drafting process without the need to switch between screens or search for additional information. 
Briefpoint’s new case type filter feature is a game-changer for litigators, streamlining the discovery response process and promoting consistency within legal teams. By providing easy access to relevant objections and responses, this feature saves time and allows litigators to focus on what truly matters – winning cases for their clients. With Briefpoint’s commitment to innovation and constant improvement, we look forward to seeing how this new feature will revolutionize the way legal professionals work and achieve success in the courtroom.

How to Develop a Relationship with AI Built on Trust

How to Develop a Relationship with AI Built on Trust

The release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT showcased the significant advancements in generative AI. As a result, various niche industries, including the famously archaic legal sector, have started to test the waters of high technology for the first time.

In this case, “generative AI” refers to a type of AI system known as a “transformer” that writes natural language one word at a time based on a combination of (a) statistical probability gathered from millions of samples of text and (b) human feedback. Due to the volume of text used to train these systems, transformers are also commonly called “Large Language Models” or “LLMs.”

However shiny, with all new tech comes new risks. Front of mind for litigation attorneys, none want to be made famous for citing fake cases in a brief.

Avoiding generative AI in light of this risk is not, however, the solution. As this article will outline, there are safe methods for employing generative AI in a manner that will not only increase efficiency – it will make you a better attorney.

By automating various tasks and surfacing key insights, generative AI has the potential to significantly enhance the work of any litigation attorney. According to Goldman Sachs, AI could automate up to 44% of legal tasks, giving attorneys who adopt this technology a competitive advantage. A LexisNexis survey revealed that 84% of legal industry respondents expect efficiency improvements due to generative AI.

When considering a generative AI solution, the critical factor is whether it can handle routine tasks that require memory but not creativity. Small law firms and solo practitioners, unable to develop their own AI platforms like Lexis AI, can still benefit from reliable alternatives in the market. Here is a list of areas where generative AI can be useful for litigation:

● Legal research

● Drafting discovery responses

● Locating and creating fact citations

● Generating fact statements and fact summaries

While exploring and adopting generative AI, addressing general concerns and reservations about its use is crucial. Ensuring the technology is employed effectively and safely will enable litigation attorneys to optimize their practices while maintaining professional standards.


General Guidelines for Using Generative AI

If you come across a generative AI company claiming their product has no downsides and can do all the work for you, approach it with caution. A good generative AI should be viewed as a supportive tool, not a replacement for a skilled litigation attorney. However, like any team member, it requires proper management.

When using generative AI, it is essential to understand how to utilize prompts effectively. A well-crafted prompt can significantly impact the quality of the output. For instance, in brief writing, the appropriate prompt can adjust the tone to suit the desired work product.

This process involves asking specific questions and using the correct language to obtain the desired results, similar to the search operators you are familiar with. The ideal prompts will vary depending on the generative AI, so ensure you read the relevant company’s instructions.

Once you have the generated content, rely on it only partially. Always double-check it from top to bottom. This is important for several reasons: it is ethically responsible as a practicing lawyer, helps avoid biases that algorithms might introduce, and ensures the work product is accurate and effective.

Having explored the general capabilities of generative AI for litigation attorneys, we can now delve into specific applications for each of the four areas mentioned earlier, starting with legal research.

Generating Fact Citations with Clearbrief

Locating and citing facts and evidence is crucial to any case, whether you’re working on a demand letter, pleading, memo, or correspondence. Sometimes, the correct fact can be challenging due to the sheer volume of documents to search, or you might need to know what’s available.

Traditionally, fact citation work has been manual and labor-intensive for attorneys, making it an ideal task for an efficient AI to tackle.

Clearbrief is highly recommended for generating fact citations and summaries. It is used by hundreds of law firms, courts, and agencies in the U.S. and was named the 2023 Litigation Product of the Year at Legalweek. Clearbrief is an effective tool for both solo practitioners and large law firms.

To use Clearbrief, highlight any fact sentence in a Word document and utilize the “find fact” cite function. Clearbrief’s specialized AI finds facts from discovery materials (documents and transcripts) with similar or related keywords and identifies related concepts in texts with different languages. Citations are automatically generated in the correct format and directly inserted into your Word document, with hyperlinks to the relevant document or transcript from discovery. Additionally, Clearbrief can compile exhibits and a Table of Authorities with hyperlinked citations.

Learn more about Clearbrief or schedule a demo.

Casetext’s CoCounsel and Legal Research

Legal research is an essential aspect of a litigation attorney’s work, requiring identifying controlling precedent in the relevant jurisdiction, additional supporting laws, and potential weaknesses.

Avoiding “hallucinations,” which can occur when generative AI is not used cautiously, is crucial in this context. Algorithms that create content may occasionally or frequently generate incorrect sources and facts, which is unacceptable for litigation attorneys in any setting.

Casetext’s CoCounsel is an excellent option in this regard, as users report that hallucinations are not a concern. Over 10,000 law firms utilize CoCounsel, which has a 4.8 out of 5 rating on G2 based on over 74 reviews.

By inputting the core legal issue, jurisdiction, and key facts, you’ll receive controlling precedent along with well-crafted arguments in a comprehensive research memo. Quoting and automatic citation in the correct format are also easily achievable.

In addition to legal research, CoCounsel offers other generative AI use cases, such as creating deposition outlines and drafting answers to complaints. Experience the benefits of Casetext’s popular CoCounsel by trying a free demo.

LexisAI and Enhanced Legal Research

As an advanced legal research tool, LexisAI offers unparalleled support to litigation attorneys seeking to optimize their research process. This powerful AI-driven platform comprehensively analyzes case law, statutes, regulations, and other legal materials, ensuring that attorneys have access to the most relevant and up-to-date information.

LexisAI eliminates the need to sift through countless documents manually, saving time and increasing efficiency. The platform’s AI algorithms identify pertinent legal authorities, highlight important passages, and suggest related materials that may strengthen your case or reveal potential weaknesses.

In addition to its core research functionality, LexisAI offers various features that support litigation attorneys throughout the entire case preparation process. These include drafting pleadings, generating deposition outlines, and creating answers to complaints, all with the precision and accuracy expected of a top-tier legal research tool.

LexisAI’s robust offerings make it a must-have tool for any litigation attorney seeking to stay ahead of the competition. To explore the full range of benefits LexisAI can provide, consider scheduling a demo or learning more about this cutting-edge platform.

Briefpoint and Discovery Responses and Requests

Drafting discovery responses is a crucial aspect of litigation work, but it can become monotonous when you already know what you want to say. For example, a response to a request for admissions may involve repeating the same objection multiple times.

As a litigation attorney, your valuable time would be better spent focusing on strategic planning rather than typing and double-checking for errors, which likely wasn’t your primary motivation for attending law school.

Software solutions like Briefpoint can alleviate this burden for California-based litigation attorneys. With a single browser login, you only need to upload the opposing counsel’s PDF. The Briefpoint platform supports most California documents.

Whether using a premade template or specialized AI, Briefpoint enables you to populate a page with the desired language, whether a response or an objection. Customers find the user interface intuitive and easy to use, allowing you to benefit from a no-cost demo quickly. If you prefer, you can learn more about our service before trying it out.

In addition to drafting discovery responses, Briefpoint offers features for preparing propounding discovery, including requests for admission, requests for production, and interrogatories. This comprehensive approach streamlines the entire discovery process, saving you time and effort while maintaining accuracy and consistency in your legal documents.

Test Briefpoint for yourself by scheduling a demo and starting a trial account.

Everlaw and Drafting Factual Statements

Using off-the-shelf tools like ChatGPT for generating legal writing is not recommended, as litigation attorneys require specialized software for their technical material.

If you use Everlaw to manage discovery, consider trying its drafting function, EverlawAI Assistant. Built-in safeguards prevent hallucinations from becoming an issue. Instead, Everlaw works based on your discovery evidence, including the documents it helped you locate.

This generative AI can provide a useful initial draft, whether you need a deposition summary or a fact-focused section for a brief. While you will ultimately edit the draft, having a fact-based starting point will help you reach the finish line. If you have yet to try Everlaw, consider a free demo.

Leveraging Generative AI in Litigation

Generative AI has significantly impacted various industries, including the legal field, and will continue to do so as the technology advances. While its use has both advantages and disadvantages, as discussed earlier, careful implementation and understanding of prompts can help manage the risks associated with generative AI without sacrificing competitive edge.

Ultimately, generative AI is an exciting new technology that skilled attorneys can handle effectively, just like any other risk or legal issue.

At Briefpoint, we specialize in automating repetitive aspects of discovery drafting, enabling litigation attorneys like you to focus on more profound thinking. We have witnessed our software’s benefits to clients and hope you experience similar advantages from the various technologies outlined in this article.


New: Propounding Discovery Module (Beta)

New: Automated Discovery Requests & Interrogatories

We’re excited to announce the beta launch of Briefpoint’s new propounding discovery automation feature!

With over 600 out-of-the-box requests for admission, requests for production, and interrogatories, you can create flawless first drafts of your propounding discovery in minutes.

To access the new feature, navigate to a case folder on your account, ensure your case is labeled with the appropriate case type under ‘Edit Case Details’, and select “Draft Request” from the case’s dashboard.

Watch this two-minute video to learn more:

NOTICE: This feature is currently in BETA – meaning that its functionality will change and improve as we continue to build it – please help us improve this feature by providing feedback. Thank you for helping us make Briefpoint work better for you in advance.


An Argument for Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs)

People have been calling for the “death of the billable hour” for longer than I’ve been an attorney, but – to no one’s surprise – it remains.
No one is surprised because ripping-and-replacing law firms’ business models is a monolithic task that necessitates buy-in from attorneys who are willing to take risks that cloak their revenue model in uncertainty. 
Litigation budgets are the closest thing to an AFA in common practice.
The problem with litigation budgets is law firms’ inability to leverage their historical data to accurately estimate actual costs/margins. 
And even if a firm leveraged its data to make a perfect litigation budget, the firm’s margins are still bound by the requisite billable hours. 
Flat-rate fee structures are, in my opinion, the best way forward because (1) we already undertake the same underlying cost/benefit analysis when preparing litigation budgets, and (2) if leveraged properly, they can free a firm from inflexible margins.
Leveraging the flat-rate fee structure model “properly” requires a tool that not only structures mountains of historical data of various shapes and sizes but also derives provably profitable insights.
This hypothetical tool (I’ll call it “Billex”) could take your firm’s timesheets and expense reports and provide you with a breakdown of legal tasks complete with their respective rates and dispersion measurements of hours, costs, and margins. 
Billex could, for example, analyze your firm’s timesheets and expense reports and determine the following about how much it costs your firm to draft an answer to a complaint (assume the average cost of an associate per hour is $139):
> 20% of the time, it takes up to 2 hours ($278),
> 50% of the time, 2 – 4 hours ($556), and
> 30% of the time, 4 – 12 hours ($1,668).
Taking the higher end of each hourly range, billing $400 an hour would see the following margins:
> $522 – 20% of the time,
> $1,044 – 50% of the time, and
> $3,132 – 30% of the time. 
Your firm’s margins’ weighted average for drafting an answer would then be $1,566. The longer your associates take, the more money you make.
A flat-rate fee that incorporated your historical average margin and risk-adjusted cost would total $2,400 per answer:
> 20% of the time, your margins are at least $2,122,
> 50% of the time, $1,844, and
> 30% of the time, $732.
Your margins’ weighted average would still be $1,566 per task – but the more efficiently your associates work, the more you make. 
However, flat-rate billing structures are nevertheless probabilistic, while billable hours are less so. Hence they remain.
Legal tech is shifting this calculation.
Will firms – like casinos – be willing to take the occasional hit in order to reap the rewards borne of statistical probability?


Introducing Bespoke Objections

Introducing Bespoke Objections: Briefpoint's Game-Changing AI Tool

We are excited to announce the latest addition to Briefpoint’s suite of powerful AI-driven tools for litigators: Bespoke Objections. This groundbreaking feature revolutionizes the way you respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests, saving you time and effort while enhancing the quality and effectiveness of your responses.

What are Bespoke Objections?

Bespoke Objections is a new feature in Briefpoint that analyzes your opposing counsel’s discovery request PDFs, suggests appropriate objections for each request, and writes the objections for you, tailoring each to the specific content of the request. This allows you to focus on higher-value tasks and makes it easier for you to respond to discovery requests faster than ever.

How does it work?

When you log into Briefpoint to draft your first response to a discovery request, simply upload the opposing counsel’s discovery request PDFs. Our advanced AI system analyzes the documents, extracts relevant information, and uses that data to construct a response document template. Once you confirm the extracted data, the AI system pulls out all the requests and presents them in a linear workflow for you to respond to one after another.

To respond, select “Suggest an Objection.” The AI will analyze the contents of the request, suggest applicable objections, and write the objections for you, tailoring each to the specific contents of the request. You can then review the objections and select your response from the menu of options on the left.

The Bespoke Objections feature is designed to only suggest objections based on what it finds reasonable. However, you can always supplement these suggestions by selecting additional objections from the left menu.

Once you’re satisfied with your responses, you can click “Open in Word” to download a Word document containing the completed response document. The AI-generated document includes a completed caption page, a preliminary statement, and tailored objections for each request, as well as a proof of service.

Why should you use Bespoke Objections?

Bespoke Objections is a game-changer for litigators. By automating the process of drafting discovery responses and generating tailored objections, it saves you valuable time that can be spent on more important tasks or simply enjoying a better work-life balance. Plus, with the power of AI, you can be confident that your responses are thorough, accurate, and effective.

Ready to try Bespoke Objections?

You can start using Bespoke Objections right now with no credit card required. Simply, click “Try for Free“, create an account, and upload your opposing counsel’s discovery requests. We look forward to hearing what you think about this groundbreaking new feature.


Practice Pointers: Written Discovery

Learn helpful best practices for drafting and using written discovery:

A litigation attorney must think and act in a strategic and measured way to be successful. If you are searching for practice pointers on how to create and handle written discovery in civil litigation, read this article to learn more.

Specifically, we will discuss:

  • Important first steps to prepare for the process of written discovery.

  • When to copy and paste or customize when drafting written discovery, and how to automate repetitive drafting tasks.

  • The importance of crafting clear and concise language and some tips for making that happen.

  • A set of best practices for three main types of written discovery requests, including not underestimating requests for admission.

  • How to best respond and object to discovery requests from the opposing party. 

Read on.

Important first steps to prepare for written discovery

There are four, among other, important first steps that a litigation attorney should take when facing a discovery process.

  1. Know the specific discovery rules that apply.

  1. Do as much discovery as you can with your client.

  1. Ask how written discovery will help you accomplish your goals.

  1. Be realistic with your discovery timeline.

Know the specific discovery rules that apply

If you are in federal court, then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the discovery process. If you are in state court, then the civil procedure rules of that state apply. Important differences include, but are not limited to, the scope of permissible discovery requests and the number of interrogatories.

But those are not the only rules you have to study. Litigation attorneys should pay close attention to local district court rules. They sometimes hold different views even when interpreting the same rules of civil procedure.

Do as much discovery as you can with your client

Discovery for your case starts during intake. From the beginning your client is the best starting point for relevant information, evidence, witnesses, and documents. Talk to your client about what they need to do to help you propound and respond to discovery.

Ask how written discovery will help you accomplish your goals

Your own efforts to investigate the case help you know what the opposing party or a third party may have that you want to target during the discovery process. Think carefully about what type of information each source may have. At times, the answers might be unexpected. Because you never want to ask questions whose answers you don’t know at trial, the time to find the answers to your case’s critical questions starts with discovery.

In general, if you believe that asking for something might help your client, ask for it. The scope of what is admissible at trial is narrower than what you can put into the discovery process. 

Garnering relevant facts and helpful information is only one goal you may have for written discovery. Other objectives can include testing the pleadings. Whatever you do, make sure you can provide support your decisions if necessary. In general, the rules of discovery consider the needs of the case as well as prejudice and negative impact on the parties involved. The more you understand the discovery needs of your client and the alternatives available, the better off you will be during – for example – motion practice.

Be realistic with your discovery timeline

Make a discovery timeline. Tailor it to the circumstances of your client and the case. Your discovery timeline should account for written discovery between the opposing parties as one aspect of a broader discovery process.

As an example, some cases may require third-party discovery via subpoenas. You may decide that depositions and documents with third parties would also be valuable. Understanding that third-party discovery can take a significant amount of time to execute is critical for you timeline – it may take you weeks to discuss and come to terms with third parties regarding their deposition dates and document productions.


Drafting written discovery: Copying, customizing, and automating

Use pre-approved discovery requests as much as you can

Use discovery requests that have been pre-approved in your jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, this could include, but may not be limited to, interrogatories asking for basic information and requests for admission seeking to admit the genuineness of documents. It will be difficult for the opposing party to objects on grounds of ambiguity or burden given the judicially-approved nature of the form interrogatories.

Tailor discovery requests to the case at hand

The more litigation experience that you have under your belt, the more you will encounter situations where you know exactly what information you need to win your case.

Until then, be as thoughtful as you can when drafting requests or interrogatories. Copying and pasting from discovery requests made by other practitioners can be a waste of your time and your client’s money because each case involves a unique nexus of facts. That being said, by evaluating the complaint and answer underlying sample discovery requests will be much more helpful because you’ll be able to determine what requests relate to what theories/facts.

Use software to save time on routine work

Options for software in the legal industry have improved significantly in recent years. This is especially true with the rise of artificial intelligence. Attorneys have access to great tools. The best legal industry software saves attorneys time on routine work. Litigation attorneys also have access to useful technology. Software can automate litigation tasks. This includes drafting discovery response documents.

Briefpoint, for example, automates the construction of discovery response documents.

Craft clear and concise language

Use clear and concise language as much as you can. Written discovery requests and responses should be technical – not inflammatory. Make your arguments in motions and in court – discovery requests are not the place to postulate the merits of your case.

Standard English

Use standard English. Avoid legalese to the extent possible. If your discovery requests are shown to a jury, they will respond much better to simple, easy-to-understand language. This will be important if, for example, you use a request for admission response for purposes of impeachment via cross-examination. And it’s not just the jury who will appreciate simpler word choice and shorter sentences. The judge will too. Further, the more clearly you write, the less grounds for objection based on ambiguity.

Use definitions

If a term in your written discovery is ambiguous, either substitute it for clearer language or define the term. Depending on your jurisdiction, terms may be required to bein a centralized index or within each request or interrogatory wherein the defined term is used.

Avoid intricate subparts and multiple “and/or” operators

Written discovery requests can run into problems in two ways, among others. One, using subparts in written interrogatories and requests for admission. Two, multiple “and/or” operators. Both can create confusion and will ultimately expose your requests or interrogatories to objection. Keep your requests from becoming intricate. Try splitting the sentences or subparts into multiple questions.

Refer to the pleadings

When drafting discovery requests, refer to the pleadings. Paying close attention to them while you draft will keep you focused on the most important questions. Additionally, the more you can use opposing counsel’s own words in your requests/interrogatories, the less grounds they’ll have for objecting on ambiguity or relevance.

Discovery requests

Let’s discuss three important types of written discovery requests:

  • Written interrogatories

  • Requests for admission

  • Requests for Production

Keep reading. 


Interrogatories are helpful tools for a variety of reasons, often for identifying and organizing facts including, but not limited to, the identification of witnesses and locations where evidence is stored.

You may find, however, that interrogatory answers from the opposing party are scripted and less helpful than documents related to your case’s fact pattern.

You will elicit answers from the opposing party that counsel likely played a substantial role in creating. Opposing counsel will also likely use their answers to your interrogatories to prepare their witnesses before testimony. You should do the same with the answers to interrogatories that you worked on. 

Try the “interrogatory first” approach

Before propounding a document request, consider a propounding interrogatorries first. This is suggested because it tends to make the responding party’s production of documents more orderly for the requesting party. You would first propound interrogatories that ask the opposing party to identify documents. Then, after reviewing answers to those interrogatories, you would send a request for production of documents for the documents they identified. 

Contention interrogatories

Contention interrogatories will elicit answers from the responding party that may reveal the evidence and witnesses they will use to support their claims and undermine yours. Use of contention interrogatories may lead to objections, including of privilege. The opposing party’s counsel may object that it would be premature to answer the interrogatory. Eventually they will have to answer.

Requests for Production of Documents

Document discovery is potentially the most critical function of discovery. Requests for production of documents can elicit some of the strongest evidence in a case. Contemporaneous documents can offer a real-world, unscripted view into the facts of your case – unfiltered by the motives of your opposing counsel.

Try not to propound broad document requests without first understanding what you’re looking for. Instead, focus on crafting tailored document requests based on what you know about the case so far. These requests will lead to useful documents and you will appear more defensible should you find yourself compelling responses.

Requests for admission

Requests for Admissions have numerous benefits, which we will discuss after technical writing pointers.

Tips for when you draft requests for admission 

Your requests for admission should be as carefully written as you can make them. Clear communication avoids confusion and prevents some obfuscation. Better writing is a ward against valid objections. 

The language in your requests for admission should satisfy, among others, two criteria. First, write clearly: State the fact you want admitted. Second, tailor the language: State no more facts than what you want admitted; there is one fact described in the request.

Tips to write clear requests for admission:

  • Do not use adjectives.

  • Use plain words.

  • Avoid clauses as much as you can. 

  • Strive to make the request one simple sentence. 

Try not to rely on a definitions section to carry your burden. Definitions can help make drafting more efficient, but they can also become clunky and make reading difficult. Consider using helpful and simple language in parentheticals after a potentially ambiguous word. It is meant to be cited as it is written, with no additional aid needed to understand it.

Use requests for admission to settle uncontroversial facts

Requests for admission settle issues and provide some finality so the parties can focus on more important issues of fact. You are unlikely to get an admission of a highly-disputed fact (buy you should still try).

Depositions and cross examination

  • You can use an admission to take previously garnered deposition testimony and make it more firm.

  • An admission can be useful later on for cross examination because they are easy to quote.

  • If the opposing party has been evasive with interrogatories or production of documents, try a request for admission before depositions to make it so they can’t claim confusion. The opposing party has been focused on the key issues.

Three more ways to use requests for admission

  • Propounding requests for admission early in the discovery process may help you discover holes in the opposing party’s argument and buffer your own.

  • Requests for admission can help you figure out what exactly the opposing party is disputing factually. 

  • You can send a request for admission near the close of discovery to admit facts for a motion for summary judgment or to help with negotiations to settle the case.


Objecting to written discovery requests

Objections are common during the discovery process. When objections are raised during the discovery process, parties in the majority of jurisdictions have to discuss the dispute (“meet and confer”). Be prepared to handle motion practice, as it is common when parties stand on their objections. 

Telling the truth and advocating at the same time

When you do respond and answer discovery requests, make sure two things are true.

  1. The words directly address the request and they state the truth.

  1. You answered and gave no more than you needed; you stayed within the scope of the request.

At the same time, you are an advocate. If possible, frame the response with context that favors your client’s position. For example, consider a written interrogatory is a closed-ended question calling for a “no” or a “yes” and you want to say no, say no and then explain why. Tell the story. Whenever the opposing party’s counsel tries to use your response, your client’s side of the story is there too. 

Answering written interrogatories

Learn two practice pointers for answering written interrogatories in civil cases.

First, draft every interrogatory answer knowing that any inconsistencies will be used for impeachment. Make sure that you and the witness are fully comfortable with the answer ahead of time.

Second, it can be difficult and costly to respond to interrogatories asking for identification of documents. A failure to identify documents may be acceptable, though regrettable, if the interrogatory is broadly framed or answering the interrogatory fully is burdensome.  

Responding to requests for admission

Be reasonable when you respond and object to requests for admission. If the fact matters in some way and it’s not something you can really disagree with, admit it. If you agree with part but not all you may be required to state that in your response (depending on the jurisdiction).

If you deny a request for admission, then in federal courts and in California, among other jurisdictions, you could potentially be forced to pay the opposing party’s expenses incurred to prove the fact. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(c)(2); California Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420.

Make drafting written discovery responses easier

Written discovery is part of what litigation attorneys do. It has its own learning curve but, with enough time and practice, drafting discovery will become second nature.

If this article gave you helpful practice pointers, consider if there is room to automate the drafting of your discovery response documents. A free demo of Briefpoint’s software is an easy way to see how much time you will save: Schedule a Demo.




Why Outside Litigation Teams Use Briefpoint

Outside Counsel Billing More Than 2 Hours to Draft a Discovery Response?

Ask Them Why They Aren’t Using Briefpoint.

As an in-house counsel, you’re tasked with finding the perfect balance of liability protection and litigation budget. Unfortunately, this balance can be easily frustrated by an opposing counsel’s discovery gamesmanship forcing you to wrangle with voluminous discovery requests. 

Fortunately, there are solutions that can protect your litigation budget from the bleed-dry tactics. Indeed, by 2025, 97 percent of legal departments will require law firms to describe their technology before they are hired, according to a 2022 study published by Wolters Kluwer.

One such platform is Briefpoint: Briefpoint is a cloud-based platform that takes the edge of discovery-based bleed-dry tactics by fast-tracking discovery response drafting with AI.

Outside litigation teams use Briefpoint to draft discovery responses in minutes – not hours.  By using Briefpoint, your outside litigation’s discovery drafting bills can decrease by 80-90%. This frees up your legal budget by the thousands and it only costs your attorney $89 (see pricing details here).

And, even if I’m only half right, there’s no reason your outside litigation counsel shouldn’t give Briefpoint a shot because:

  • They can try Briefpoint right now – for free,
  • Briefpoint works right out of the box – they don’t need to change how they work to innovate for your benefit, and
  • There’s no implementation cost, required training, or contracts to sign. They can draft a discovery response within minutes of creating an account without paying a dime or sitting through lengthy instructional videos.

If they don’t love it – no worries, at least they can say that they attempted to reduce the amount you’d otherwise spend protecting yourself. 

Need internal buy-in? Here’s a snapshot of Briefpoint’s core functionality that you’re welcome to share internally:

  • Discovery Response Drafting Tools: Briefpoint provides powerful, AI-backed document drafting tools that can help your outside litigation team draft high-quality responses to discovery requests in minutes. This includes response standardization tools that will protect your company from litigants cross-referencing inconsistent discovery responses underlying related cases.
  • Improved Collaboration: By providing real-time access to documents and drafts, Briefpoint eliminates the need for time-consuming and expensive communication methods like email or phone calls. This makes for faster and more accurate responses to discovery requests, reducing your litigation exposure & spend.
  • Automatic Docketing: Briefpoint’s automated docketing system ensures your outside litigation counsel won’t miss a single discovery deadline. Programmed with court holidays and every discovery response deadline per the CCP, you can rest assured that you won’t have to pay attorneys’ fees for a motion to compel pursuant to dilatory responses.

Briefpoint is an excellent tool for in-house teams looking to reduce the their litigation spend by empowering their outside-litigators to draft discovery responses using significantly less time and resources.

If your outside litigation counsel is spending more than 2 hours drafting any discovery response, ask them why they aren’t using Briefpoint.

Want to learn more? You can schedule a demo of Briefpoint by clicking here


New Account Type: Paralegal Accounts

Briefpoint has launched Paralegal Accounts!

With the Paralegal Account, your support staff can select the attorney they’re working on behalf of and then draft documents using that attorneys’ work product.

This empowers your support staff to seamlessly create documents for your attorneys in a manner that drafts documents with your attorneys’ favorite phraseology – in their own words.

Paralegal Accounts are about half the cost of an attorney account and you can set it up right now by inviting your paralegal to Briefpoint from your firm dashboard and selecting “Invite User.”


New Feature: Automated Client & Case Management

Briefpoint has announced the addition of a new client and case management feature to its platform. This exciting new feature allows users to easily manage the documents they process for their clients in one convenient location.

With the addition of this new function, Briefpoint now independently creates, compiles, and maintains client and case information – including client contact information, documents processed by Briefpoint, approaching deadlines, and more. 

Further, users can now invite other team members to join them in working on cases, facilitating smooth communication and centralized document creation.


New Feature: Discovery Response Due Dates (Automated)

Briefpoint now automatically extracts dates of service from your uploaded discovery requests and provides you with the due date pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) – including the newer rules applicable to Electronic Service.

To use this feature, upload any California discovery request .pdf, select the manner and date of service (if not already extracted), and the date your discovery response is due will appear on your Document List page. 

By way of recap, a plaintiff may serve discovery requests/interrogatories 10 days after service of the complaint.

Responses to written discovery are due within 30 days of the service of the discovery, unless mailed (which adds 5 days to the due date) or served electronically (explained below).

For California electronic service, there are two wrinkles that impact the due date: 

First, any “document that is served electronically on a noncourt day shall be deemed served on the next court day.” CCP 1010.6(a)(5).

Second, the deadline to respond to electronically served discovery requests is extended by two court days. CCP 1010.6(a)(4)(B).

For example, if a Request for Production is electronically served on January 14, 2023 (a Saturday), then, pursuant to CCP 1010.6(a)(5), the date of service is next court day (in this case, Tuesday, January 17th). 

30 days after January 17th is February 16, 2023 (a Thursday). 

Two court days after February 16th, 2023 is Tuesday, on February 21st, 2023 (that Monday is President’s Day). 

Accordingly, any discovery request served electronically on January 14, 2023 has a response deadline 38 days later. 

Luckily, if you’re using Briefpoint, you won’t need to do any of these calculations because we’ve done the math for you (and incorporated all of the court days / court holidays into our system for the next decade of discovery work):

Give it a shot for yourself by trying Briefpoint for free today.