LegalEdge / Design System

Where precision
meets authority.

A legal SaaS design system built for law firms that demand credibility. Cormorant Garamond serifs, midnight navy depth, and gold accents that command respect in every client interaction.

Cormorant Garamond Indigo #6366F1 Gold Accent Dark Default Legal SaaS
Color Tokens
Midnight navy authority with gold distinction — power dressed in restraint.
Primary Accent
accent
—
accent-hover
—
accent-dim
alpha
Gold — Prestige Accent
gold
—
gold-dim
partner tier
Semantic
success
—
warning
—
danger
—
Surfaces
bg-base
midnight
bg-surface
navy
bg-elevated
deep navy
text-primary
icy white
Typography
Cormorant Garamond — the typeface of authority, scholarship, and trust.
display / 42px / italic
Harrington & Associates
h1 / 32px / 600
Corporate Litigation
h2 / 24px / 600
Motion for Summary Judgment
h3 / 18px / 600
Section IV — Liability Analysis
body / 14px Outfit
The defendant herein failed to exercise reasonable duty of care as established under precedent in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., thereby establishing proximate cause for the alleged damages sustained by the plaintiff.
small / 12px
Filed: March 20, 2025 · Docket No. 2025-CV-00341 · SDNY
caption / DM Mono
MATTER_ID: HA-2025-LIT-0034 · PARTNER: J. HARRINGTON · RETAINER: ACTIVE
Buttons
Understated authority — no pill shapes, no gimmicks. Actions that mean business.
Primary Actions
Gold — Partner Tier
Secondary & Utility
Destructive
Matter Status Badges
Case and client status at a glance — no ambiguity.
Active Pending Urgent Under Review Retainer Closed
Form Inputs
Matter intake, client onboarding, and document management forms.
// Privileged and confidential — attorney-client communication
KPI Cards
Firm performance — vertical left accent bar, Cormorant numerals.
Active Matters📁
47
↑ 6 vs last month
Revenue MTD💰
$284k
↑ 18% vs last month
Deadlines This Week⏱
8
— 3 urgent
Win Rate⚖️
84%
↑ 4pp YTD
Matters Table
Active case docket with deadlines, billing, and attorney assignments.
MatterTypeClientPartnerStatusDeadlineFees
Hendricks v. Axiom Corp
No. 2025-CV-00341 · SDNY		 Litigation Hendricks LLC J. Harrington Active Apr 14 $48,200
In re: Nova Capital M&A
No. 2025-CORP-0018 · Del.		 M&A Nova Capital S. Brennan Retainer May 01 $124,000
Rivera IP Dispute
No. 2025-IP-00092 · NDCA		 IP Rivera Tech Inc M. Chen Urgent Mar 28 $31,500
Chen Employment Claim
No. 2025-EMP-0044 · Cal.		 Employment Chen & Assoc. J. Harrington Under Review Apr 22 $18,750
Case File Cards
Matter summary cards with attorney assignment and deadline callout.
MATTER NO. 2025-CV-00341
Hendricks v. Axiom Corp
Active
🏛 SDNY — Federal
📋 Corporate Litigation
⏱ 847 hrs logged
JH
James Harrington
Senior Partner
Next Deadline
Apr 14, 2025
MATTER NO. 2025-CORP-0018
In re: Nova Capital M&A Advisory
Retainer
🏛 D. Del — Corporate
📋 M&A Advisory
⏱ 312 hrs logged
SB
Sarah Brennan
Partner — M&A
Next Deadline
May 01, 2025
Document Viewer
Legal document display with letterhead, drop cap, and signature blocks.
Motion for Summary Judgment — Hendricks v. Axiom Corp
HARRINGTON & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law · New York · Delaware · California
Plaintiff Hendricks LLC respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment on all claims against Defendant Axiom Corporation. There exists no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
§ 4.1 — Standard of Review. Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The burden rests initially on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
James Harrington, Esq.
Date
Counsel AI
Intelligent legal research, brief drafting, and case strategy assistant.
⚖️
Counsel AI
Active — Research Mode
GPT-4.1
Good morning, Mr. Harrington. I've reviewed the Hendricks v. Axiom matter. The motion deadline is April 14 — 25 days away. I've identified 14 precedents in the Second Circuit supporting your Rule 56 argument. The strongest is Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). Shall I draft the standard of review section?
Counsel AI · 08:42
Yes — draft it. Also pull any recent SDNY decisions applying Anderson in breach of contract cases from 2023 onward.
J. Harrington · 08:43
Drafting Section IV now. Found 3 relevant SDNY decisions (2023–2025): (1) Okafor v. MergeTech, 2024 WL 891442 — identical summary judgment standard in SaaS contract dispute. (2) Park Street Capital v. Vexon LLC, 2023 WL 4422811 — affirmed no genuine issue on breach element. Both are directly on point. Shall I incorporate them as footnotes?
Counsel AI · 08:43
Theme Compare
Dark for attorney dashboards — light for client-facing portals.
🌙 Dark Mode (Default)
--bg-base: #060810
--accent: #6366F1
--gold: #C9A84C
Font: Cormorant Garamond
☀️ Light Mode
--bg-base: #F5F6FA
--accent: #4F52CC
--gold: #9C7A2A
Font: Cormorant Garamond
CSS Token Export
Complete LegalEdge design token set.
/* LegalEdge Design System v1.0 — Dark Theme */
/* Backgrounds */
--bg-base: #060810;
--bg-surface: #0C0F1E;
--bg-elevated: #121628;

/* Accent — Indigo */
--accent: #6366F1;
--accent-hover: #818CF8;

/* Gold — Prestige */
--gold: #C9A84C;
--gold-dim: rgba(201,168,76,0.10);

/* Typography */
--font-heading: 'Cormorant Garamond';
--font-body: 'Outfit';
--font-mono: 'DM Mono';
LEGALEDGE DESIGN SYSTEM v1.0 · STUDIOFLOW.TOP · BUILT WITH ❤ BY APTOCODE