The Hearing Packet — $1,500
Not a stack of templates. A binder you read from at counsel table — built for your hearing, in the order your day actually happens.
Start with your hearing dateThe intake comes first, and payment comes after — we cannot build a packet without the parameter block.
The problem nobody warns you about: you will build one big document to prepare with, and it will fail you. Study material and courtroom material are different things. Under pressure you cannot find the words in a research memo. You need one artifact to understand the case and a separate one to run the day.
What is happening, in plain English. The law that governs, applied to your facts. Every case either side cites, digested, with its verification status marked. A model of your judicial officer. The memorize layer: seven questions, a sixty-second spine, your key numbers, a blank-recovery line.
Ten tabbed sheets in the order your day happens. A Day Map with your one focus per phase and a time budget. Verbatim scripts — bold means say it out loud. Exhibit offers embedded at the exact moment they occur, not in a list at the back. A live Admission Tracker so nothing goes un-offered. Answers to the objections you will actually hear. A closing with skip-if blocks so it survives being cut short.
Every authority is verified. No citation enters your binder without a saved, hashed copy of the opinion behind it and a quote check against it. Anything that cannot be verified goes on a DO-NOT-CITE list instead of into your mouth. Courts have sanctioned people for citations a chatbot invented. That does not happen here — and it is the reason this work has survived an evidentiary challenge in open court.
Delivered seven days before your hearing, so you have a week to drill. Includes a working session to run the spine and the interruption drill.
$1,500. You review, edit, and own every word. We do not appear, we do not advise you on what to argue, and we do not predict what your judge will do.
Do not order this if your hearing is inside 14 days. The build has a schedule and rushing it produces exactly the scattered document this exists to prevent.
This is the scope of the offer. It is shown as a real section because the boundary is part of the product, not fine print.
| Included | Explicitly not included |
|---|---|
| Included: intake and parameter block; elements table; law verification with saved hashed sources; both artifacts; guardrails pass; print-ready files plus the print/pack protocol; one drill session; 14 days of process questions. |
|
The dates are the discipline. This is why we will not sell you a packet inside 14 days of your hearing.
T−21 to T−14
Intake, parameters confirmed, elements table drafted
Litigant fills, we structure
T−14
Exhibit strategy locked before the exchange deadline; Study Packet v1 delivered; daily reads begin
Us → them
T−10
Law verification complete; every authority saved, hashed, quote-checked; DO-NOT-CITE list issued
Us
T−7
Binder delivered. Ten sheets, numbered in the day's chronological order
Us
T−5
Drill session: sixty-second spine, interruption drill, opponent mode, blank recovery
Together
T−3
Guardrails pass; updates from the other side's late filings folded into Sheets 7/8/10
Us
T−2
Print gate. Every number diffed against the FILED version of its source document. Print, staple, pack
Litigant, our checklist
T−1
Drill only. No new material — new material on the last day is how you blank
Litigant
T
Run the binder. Every box checked = the day is done
Litigant
T+1
Voice-memo debrief (drive home is ideal)
Litigant
T+7
Official record ordered; debrief tier begins if purchased
Us
Selecting strategy, elements, and case law for a stranger's hearing is not the scrivener's exception. The exception protects: the user selects the document type, the user supplies the facts, the software formats, the user reviews and takes responsibility.
The architecture that keeps us inside it — and makes a better product anyway:
The litigant does the work. The system runs the process.
Concretely: the intake asks; they supply the facts and choose the theory; the system assembles it in the proven structure and verifies every authority; they review, edit, own, and sign. Our contribution is process and clarity — how an exhibit gets admitted, how to carry a rule's elements, how to check AI work, how to budget time backwards from closing. That is legal information, which is what we intend to sell and what the customer actually needs.
Required before scaling past 10 customers: a Colorado UPL opinion on this exact delivery shape. Founder decision, not a machine task. Going in with eyes open costs nothing; going in blind risks the business.
Standing rule: if a customer asks "what should I argue?" the answer is the elements table and the question set — never our selection. If a delivery cannot be produced without us choosing the theory, that delivery is out of scope and gets refunded.
Process guarantee, never an outcome guarantee. "If the binder does not pass the eight-point quality gate above, you do not pay." Outcome guarantees are both unsellable and a UPL/consumer-protection hazard — the DoNotPay FTC action is the cautionary precedent.
Refund triggers: we miss a delivery date on the ladder; the quality gate fails; the scope turns out to require us to choose the theory (§5).
Start with your hearing dateCourtDocs is document-preparation and legal-information software. We are not a law firm, nothing here is legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by using this service. Court procedure varies by state, county, and judge.