01 — INTAKE
↘
Receive the request.
Bring correspondence into a trackable, consistently formatted review queue.
Every request has a place↗
A clearer way through the first mile
Make every
request easier
to see.
A clearer workflow for legal advocates to coordinate correspondence, organize intake and keep post-conviction requests moving through careful review.
✳ Built around people, not paperwork.
P.
PERIOD / REQUEST DESK
WORKFLOW PREVIEWINQUIRY · ILLUSTRATIVEInitial review
A request deserves a clear next step.
Keep correspondence, review notes and follow-up in one organized view.
ReceivedReviewFollow-upReferral
Example only · no real case dataOPEN REQUEST ↗
One request · one record
Clear handoffs, fewer dead ends
Follow the process
01 / The access gap
When a letter is the only interface, the process gets harder.
Legal support can begin with a simple request. Getting it to the right reviewer is rarely simple.
The archived PERIOD pitch described a digital workspace for incarcerated people seeking legal assistance with innocence claims and post-conviction relief. It aimed to help advocates and attorneys review inquiries, manage correspondence and coordinate next steps.
A modern workflow can make a calmer front door for intake teams: a clearer record of what arrived, what needs attention and who owns the next step.
↗The archived service vision focused on intake coordination. This page does not accept case requests.
02 / A more legible path
From first contact to thoughtful handoff.
An illustrative workflow for legal aid and advocacy teams. Actual eligibility, legal strategy and representation stay with qualified organizations and counsel.
02 — ORGANIZE
§
Make the details readable.
Help teams sort materials, capture missing information and reduce duplicate handling.
Clearer context↗
03 — REVIEW
⌕
Support careful screening.
Give authorized reviewers a shared place to assess requests against their own criteria.
Human review stays central↗
04 — HAND OFF
→
Keep the next step visible.
Coordinate follow-up and referrals with a clear record of who is responsible.
Less ambiguity↗
PERIOD / REQUEST SUMMARY
Illustrative interface · no live case informationReview begins with listening.
·
03 / Built for the people doing the work
One shared view. Different roles.
The original PERIOD pitch identified several stakeholders in the same correspondence chain. A modern workflow could give each one a clearer, role-appropriate view without implying that a platform decides legal merit.
01People seeking legal supportClear status & next steps
02Attorneys & advocatesOrganized intake
03Intake & case teamsCoordinated review
04Correspondence staffClear handoffs
04 / Trust is the infrastructure
Justice technology should earn the right to be used.
Human decisions remain human.
Software can help organize work; it cannot decide innocence, eligibility or legal outcomes.
Privacy comes before convenience.
Case information is sensitive. Any real deployment would require appropriate security, access controls and legal review.
Make status understandable.
People deserve clear communication about process, ownership and what happens next.
Build with affected communities.
Design decisions should include incarcerated people, advocates, attorneys and correspondence staff.
A principle for the work
Technology should make the path easier to understand—not decide who deserves to walk it.
PERIOD · CLEAR PATHS TO REVIEW
A clearer start to the process
More clarity at the start of the process.
This page does not collect case details, provide legal advice or connect people to representation.