A disciplined engineering standard, applied to legal records.
I founded Computational Forensics Group because legal document analysis deserves the same habits that govern serious technical work: precision, traceability, quality control, and clear responsibility for what is delivered.
Why this firm exists
I have spent my career working in environments where correctness was not a matter of preference. Building spacecraft command-and-control systems taught me a particular discipline around mission-critical software: the system must behave correctly, the record must be clear, and the people responsible for the final decision must understand how the work was produced.
That standard shaped how I think about software, analysis, documentation, leadership, and accountability. It also shaped Computational Forensics Group. The purpose of this firm is not to make legal work look automated. It is to give attorneys a clearer, better organized, more inspectable view of the record they are responsible for evaluating.
The legal judgment remains with lawyers
Attorneys bring training, judgment, professional responsibility, and context that a computational system does not possess. CFG is built with respect for that expertise. We do not pretend to practice law, decide strategy, or tell lawyers what a record means as a matter of legal consequence.
Our role is to make the record more usable: organize the documents, correlate testimony and exhibits, summarize source material, preserve citations, and flag relationships or uncertainties that deserve review. Attorneys decide what matters, what it means, and how it should be used.
What my background contributes
My work reflects 40 years of experience across computer science, software engineering, public-sector executive leadership, and military command. Across those settings, the recurring lesson has been consistent: complex work becomes reliable only when the process is explicit, the evidence is preserved, and responsibility is clear.
That is the standard I bring to each CFG engagement. Findings show their sources. Ambiguities are visible. Quality checks happen before delivery. The final product should help lawyers think more clearly about the record, not ask them to trust a black box.
A restrained role by design
Computational Forensics Group prepares structured, cited analysis for attorney review. We do not produce ready-to-file briefs, legal conclusions, expert opinions, or litigation strategy. That boundary is not a disclaimer tacked onto the work. It is part of the design. The work is more useful because its assumptions, citations, and uncertainties remain visible to the attorneys responsible for the matter.
How that standard shows up in the work.
Cite everything
Analytical claims should remain connected to the record. A useful report lets lawyers move from finding to source without guesswork.
Flag uncertainty
When the record is ambiguous, we say so. We do not present uncertain analysis as certain. Attorneys should know where the analysis is well-supported and where it requires closer review.
Scope honestly
We scope the work in stages, based on the condition of the corpus and the questions lawyers need answered. If the materials are larger, messier, or more complex than expected, we raise that issue before it compromises the work.
Treat your data as confidential
Client documents are processed in isolated, matter-specific environments. They are never used to train models or improve systems. Confidentiality obligations run to the matter, not just the contract.
Talk with us about the record.
Every matter is different, and every attorney's needs are different. Contact us for a complimentary discussion about the record, the work ahead, and how we may be able to help.