What makes the gap report useful?

It tells you where your record goes quiet. Firms routinely change discovery strategy off the back of it, because a three-month silence in the file is either a fact about the case or a gap in your production - and it is better to know which before opposing counsel does.

Can you update a chronology as the matter develops?

Yes. Send the new material and we merge it into the existing chronology rather than rebuilding it, which keeps your line numbering and any annotations you have added.

Do you decide what is significant?

No. You give us the theory of the case and we tag against it, then a lawyer reviews that tagging before delivery. Where something looks significant but does not fit your theory, we flag it rather than dropping it.

Cross-practice legal support

Fully pipelined

Case chronologies and fact timelines

The chronology is the backbone of every case theory, and it is almost always built late, by hand, under deadline, from a file nobody has read end to end. We build it from the whole file at once: every dated event, cited to its source, with a significance view and a report of the periods where your record is thin.

Send us this work →See the full rate card

Published price: $400–1,500 / matter
Turnaround: 48 hours to 5 days
Without us: $1,500–4,000 / matter

Fully pipelined

How we actually produce this

Our pipeline produces the deliverable end to end. A qualified lawyer samples the output and signs it before it leaves us.

The pipeline is ours. It was built for legal work rather than adapted from a general product, which is why the price for this service is a published number instead of an hourly estimate.

Why this work leaves a firm: The chronology is the backbone of every case theory, and it is almost always built late, by hand, under deadline pressure, from a file nobody has read end to end.
What our pipeline does: We extract every dated event across the entire matter file, including documents, correspondence, records and transcripts, deduplicate events reported in multiple sources, sort chronologically, cite each entry to its source document and page, and tag significance against the case theory you give us.
Where a lawyer steps in: Significance tagging is reviewed against your theory of the case before delivery.
What it changes: The gap report alone frequently changes discovery strategy, because it shows you what you are missing before the other side does.

What you receive

Every dated event across the file, cited to its source, with a significance view and a gap report.

Priced per matter, with the range set by file volume and condition. Matters above roughly 5,000 pages are quoted after we have seen the index, and ongoing matters can be refreshed at a reduced rate rather than rebuilt.

A working chronology of every dated event across the matter file, in a format you can filter and sort
A source citation - document and page - on every single line
A significance-filtered view showing only the events that matter to the theory you gave us
A gap report identifying periods where the record is thin or missing entirely
A conflict list where two sources date the same event differently, with both citations
A party and actor index, so you can see the chronology through one participant's activity

What it costs, and what it replaces

Both figures are published ranges for the same unit of work. Ours is fixed before we start; if our process gets faster, that is our gain and your price does not move.

How engagements are structured →

Price per matter · same work, both sides

Adnah Legal: $400–1,500 / matter
Typical cost without us: $1,500–4,000 / matter

Roughly 65% lower at the midpoint of each published range.

How the work runs

Ingest the whole file

Everything goes in at once, including the material nobody has read. Mixed formats, scanned records and native productions are handled together rather than in separate passes.

Extract and deduplicate events

Every dated event is extracted with its source binding. Events reported in several documents are collapsed into one entry carrying all of its sources, which is what stops a chronology from double-counting the same meeting.

Sort, tag and find the gaps

Entries are ordered, tagged for significance against your case theory, and the periods with little or no record coverage are identified and reported as gaps.

Lawyer review and delivery

A qualified lawyer reviews the significance tagging against your theory before delivery, and checks the conflict list where sources disagree on dates. The tagging is a judgement, so it is not delivered unreviewed.

What we need from you

The matter file: documents, correspondence, records, transcripts - whatever you hold, in whatever form
Your theory of the case in a paragraph, which is what significance tagging is scored against
Any date range that matters more than the rest, if the file runs long
The format you want it back in - spreadsheet, table, or a case management import

What we check before delivery

Every line is traceable to a document and page before it is delivered
Duplicate events across sources are merged rather than repeated, and the merge is checked on a sample
Date conflicts between sources are surfaced, never silently resolved in favour of one document
Significance tagging is reviewed against your stated theory rather than applied on our own view of the case

When firms send us this

Taking on a file mid-matter, where the history sits in boxes nobody has read

Mediation or settlement preparation that needs the story straight and cited

Discovery planning, where the gap report shows what you are missing before the other side finds it

Expert instruction, where the expert needs a cited factual spine rather than the raw file

Questions about case chronologies and fact timelines

What makes the gap report useful?
It tells you where your record goes quiet. Firms routinely change discovery strategy off the back of it, because a three-month silence in the file is either a fact about the case or a gap in your production - and it is better to know which before opposing counsel does.
Can you update a chronology as the matter develops?
Yes. Send the new material and we merge it into the existing chronology rather than rebuilding it, which keeps your line numbering and any annotations you have added.
Do you decide what is significant?
No. You give us the theory of the case and we tag against it, then a lawyer reviews that tagging before delivery. Where something looks significant but does not fit your theory, we flag it rather than dropping it.

Firms who send us this usually also send

Cross-practice

Deposition and hearing transcript summaries

A topic-headed summary with page-line citations throughout, plus admissions, exhibit and inconsistency indexes.

$150–400 / transcript

Personal injury

Medical chronology

A complete treatment chronology with a page citation on every entry, a provider summary and a flag list.

$300–900 / case

Cross-practice

First-pass document review

Documents coded for responsiveness, privilege and issue tags, ready for attorney sign-off.

$800–2,500 / 1,000 docs

Send one and judge the output.

Case chronologies and fact timelines at $400–1,500 per matter, 48 hours to 5 days. No minimum, no scoping call, no onboarding cycle.

Schedule a Call See prices and turnaround