Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.litigationlabs.io/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Session Review

After completing a CaseSim session, reviewing your performance is essential for improvement. LitigationLabs provides comprehensive tools for analyzing your examination technique and identifying growth opportunities.

Accessing Session History

From the Dashboard

Navigate to completed sessions:
  • Home Panel: Recent sessions appear with quick access links
  • Case Manager: Browse sessions organized by folder
  • Search: Find sessions by scenario name or date

Session Cards

Each session card displays:
ElementDescription
ScenarioThe case practiced
DateWhen the session occurred
ScoreOverall completion percentage
DurationTime spent in session
StatusCompleted or in progress

The Session Review Interface

Clicking a completed session opens the review interface.

Transcript View

The full examination transcript:
  • Complete record of all questions and answers
  • Objections, arguments, and rulings
  • System messages and phase transitions
  • Timestamps for each exchange

Score Summary

Detailed breakdown of performance:
Overall Score: 78% (31/40 points)

Witness Breakdown:
├── Jane Doe (Plaintiff's Assistant): 85%
│   ├── ✓ Confirmed employment dates (1 pt)
│   ├── ✓ Admitted seeing the document (2 pts)
│   ├── ✓ Described meeting details (2 pts)
│   └── ✗ Did not establish signature timing (3 pts)

└── Robert Chen (Financial Analyst): 70%
    ├── ✓ Confirmed report accuracy (2 pts)
    ├── ✓ Explained methodology (1 pt)
    └── ✗ Did not obtain damage calculation (2 pts)

Performance Metrics

Quantitative measures of your examination:
MetricValueInterpretation
Questions Asked42Total questions during session
Elicit Rate0.74Elicits per question
Objections Faced8OCA objections during your examination
Objections Sustained3Objections that were granted
Your Objections5Objections you raised during cross
Successful Objections4Your objections that succeeded

Analyzing Your Transcript

Identifying Successful Patterns

Review questions that elicited key facts:
1

Find Score Popups

Locate messages where elicits were established (marked in transcript).
2

Review Preceding Questions

Examine the question sequence that led to the admission.
3

Note the Approach

Identify what made the approach effective (foundation, phrasing, timing).
4

Catalog for Reuse

Save effective patterns for future examinations.

Identifying Missed Opportunities

Analyze where elicits were not obtained:
1

Review Missed Elicits

From the score summary, identify facts not established.
2

Find Related Questions

Search the transcript for questions on that topic.
3

Analyze Why It Failed

Did you not ask? Did the witness evade? Was there an objection?
4

Plan Alternative Approaches

Consider how different questioning might have succeeded.

Studying Objection Handling

Review objection exchanges: When OCA Objected:
  • Was the objection valid?
  • How did you respond?
  • What was the ruling?
  • Could you have avoided the objection?
When You Objected:
  • Were your grounds correct?
  • Did the ruling go your way?
  • What arguments worked or failed?

Comparative Analysis

Multiple Attempts

If you have tried the same scenario multiple times:
AttemptDateScoreNotes
1Jan 562%Missed foundation questions
2Jan 871%Better foundation, weak cross
3Jan 1278%Improved cross-exam technique
Track improvement trends:
  • Which elicits do you consistently obtain?
  • Which remain challenging?
  • What changes improved your score?

Different Sides

Compare performance representing different parties:
SideScoreObservations
Plaintiff78%Stronger on direct examination
Defendant68%Cross-examination needs work
This reveals whether your skills differ between direct and cross.

Learning from Specific Exchanges

Effective Examination Sequences

Study sequences that worked:
Q: "What is your role at the company?"
A: "I'm the contracts administrator."

Q: "In that role, what are your responsibilities?"
A: "I manage all vendor contracts and ensure compliance."

Q: "Were you involved with the ABC Corporation contract?"
A: "Yes, I handled that contract from negotiation through signing."

Q: "When was the contract signed?"
A: "January 15, 2024." ← ELICIT ESTABLISHED
Why it worked: Built foundation through role and responsibilities before asking the target question.

Ineffective Approaches

Identify what did not work:
Q: "The contract was signed on January 15th, wasn't it?"
OCA: "Objection—leading."
COURT: "Sustained."

Q: "Do you know when the contract was signed?"
A: "I believe it was in January, but I don't recall the exact date."
Why it failed: Started with leading question (objected), then asked without foundation (vague answer).

Dashboard Statistics

The dashboard tracks aggregate performance:
  • Average Score: Mean across all sessions
  • Total Sessions: Count of completed examinations
  • Practice Time: Hours spent in simulation
  • Current Streak: Consecutive days practiced

Progress Visualization

Charts show improvement over time:
  • Score trend line
  • Elicit completion by category
  • Objection success rates

Identifying Patterns

Look for patterns in your performance:
  • Do you perform better on certain case types?
  • Are there specific objection grounds you struggle with?
  • Does time of day affect performance?

Exporting Session Data

Transcript Export

Download your session transcript:
  • Full text of all exchanges
  • Includes timestamps and speaker labels
  • Suitable for external review

Score Report

Export detailed scoring data:
  • Elicit breakdown by witness
  • Points obtained vs. available
  • Metrics summary

Use Cases

Export data for:
  • Personal review outside the platform
  • Sharing with mentors or supervisors
  • CLE documentation
  • Progress tracking in external systems

Improvement Strategies

Based on Score Analysis

If score is below target:
IssueStrategy
Low elicit completionFocus on foundation and follow-up
Many objections sustainedReview question formulation
Weak cross-examinationPractice leading question technique
Missed opportunitiesStudy witness profiles more thoroughly

Based on Transcript Review

Common improvement areas:
Symptom: Vague answers or objections to lack of foundationFix: Always establish who, what, when, where before seeking key testimony
Symptom: Frequent “leading question” objectionsFix: Use open questions: “What happened?” not “Did X happen?”
Symptom: Witnesses give incomplete or tangential answersFix: Follow up persistently; pin down with specific questions
Symptom: Witnesses give narrative answers on crossFix: Use tight leading questions with yes/no answers expected

Deliberate Practice

Target specific weaknesses:
  1. Identify your weakest skill area
  2. Select scenarios that emphasize that skill
  3. Focus practice sessions on improvement
  4. Track progress on that specific dimension

Session Review Best Practices

Review Every Session

Make review a habit:
  • Immediate review while memory is fresh
  • Note specific observations
  • Identify one thing to improve next time

Focus on Learning, Not Just Scores

Scores are indicators, not endpoints:
  • A lower score with good technique may be more valuable
  • A high score from easy scenarios teaches less
  • Process matters as much as outcome

Document Your Insights

Keep notes on what you learn:
  • Question formulations that work
  • Objection patterns to avoid
  • Witness handling techniques
  • Scenario-specific strategies

Apply Lessons Promptly

Use insights in your next session:
  • Try the techniques you identified
  • Test whether improvements work
  • Iterate based on results