This practice runs on a hybrid stack: bulk document analysis on hardware the attorney owns and administers, and frontier models for strategy and planning. We invest in local hardware where we can and use frontier models where we must.
The attorney who tries the case is the same person who wrote the software that helps prepare it. Idea, code, deployment, intake, analysis, negotiation, trial, arbitration, appeal: one attorney is personally accountable for every stage, and the document-analysis systems behind the work were built by him and run on hardware he owns and administers.
That is not a technology boast. It is a confidentiality position. A lawyer's duty to protect client information (Rule 4-1.6, R. Regulating Fla. Bar) does not pause when a file is uploaded to someone else's cloud. Two kinds of system do the work here. Bulk analysis — reading thousands of pages of permits, productions and correspondence to find the handful of facts that matter — runs on hardware David owns and administers in this office. Strategy, planning and drafting assistance use frontier models operated by third parties, because for reasoning about a case strategy nothing that runs locally is as good yet. When one person is answerable for the code, the infrastructure, and the case itself, there is no vendor to point at and nothing lost between hands.
A construction-defect case is a data problem before it is a courtroom problem. Permit histories, code-violation records, inspection reports, carrier correspondence, repair estimates: the pattern is in the paper. Years ago David started building software to find those patterns faster, and he never stopped. Today the practice runs on a document-analysis stack he built and maintains himself.
Software either works or it doesn't. A missed edge case, a date off by one day, an input nobody planned for, and the program breaks in a way that cannot be talked around. Writing code trains a specific habit: check the assumption, check the date, check what happens when the input isn't what was expected.
That is the same habit applied to your case. The date on a certificate of occupancy. The exact wording of a policy exclusion. The day a notice was actually served, not the day everyone assumed. This isn't a personality trait offered on faith; it shows up in the record: the deadline calculated from the earliest triggering event instead of an assumed one, a citation checked against the current statute instead of the one from two sessions ago, the gap between what a denial letter says and what the file actually shows. That is the same discipline, aimed at your case instead of a codebase.
There is no outsourced review team: the person reading your file is your attorney. Bulk document analysis runs in this office, on hardware he owns and administers. Ordinary practice tools — email, court e-filing, and the frontier models used for strategy and drafting assistance — are third-party services, and are identified as such above.
AI here is an assistant, not an author. Every pleading, every demand, every brief is David's work product, reviewed and signed by him. The software shortens the distance between a thousand pages of records and the three facts that matter. It does not decide anything, and it does not replace judgment built over fifteen years of Florida litigation.
Idea, code, deployment, intake, analysis, trial, arbitration, appeal — one attorney, personally accountable, on a stack he built and can account for. That is a confidentiality architecture, not a slogan, and it is checkable: ask, and you will get a specific answer.
Tell us who you are and we will set up a free case review. Please do not include confidential details yet — we will confirm we have no conflict of interest first.
Request a Free Case ReviewRelated: About David M. Greene · Insights