ADAC-Legal-US 1.0 — United States Jurisdiction Profile

Version: 1.0
Status: Stable
Copyright: © 2026 InnoVadens, LLC. All rights reserved.
Date: 2026
Base Profile: ADAC-Legal 1.0 — Legal Document Profile Format Specification

Abstract

The ADAC-Legal-US jurisdiction profile extends the ADAC-Legal 1.0 base profile with terminology, well-known value sets, and field guidance specific to the United States federal and state legal systems. This includes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure document types, U.S.-specific matter types (class actions, multidistrict litigation, bankruptcy chapters), FOIA-related redaction reasons, protective order confidentiality tiers, and guidance on populating case references using PACER conventions and federal court naming standards.

This specification is a companion document to ADAC-Legal 1.0. It does not define a separate profile file or container format — containers using this jurisdiction profile still use metadata/profiles/legal.json with profileType: "legal" and jurisdictionProfile: "us".

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Conformance
3. Terminology
4. Relationship to ADAC-Legal
5. Jurisdiction Profile Identifier
6. US-Specific Well-Known Values
7. US-Specific Field Guidance
8. US Court System Reference
9. Subdivision Profiles
10. Complete US Container Example
11. Validation
12. References
13. Version History

1. Introduction

1.1 Problem Statement

The United States legal system presents unique characteristics that the base ADAC-Legal specification cannot fully capture with its jurisdiction-neutral well-known value sets:

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define specific discovery mechanisms (Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, Rule 33 interrogatories) that produce distinct document types not found in other legal traditions.
• Protective orders in U.S. litigation commonly define multi-tier confidentiality designations ("Confidential", "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only", "Highly Confidential — Source Code") that exceed the base specification's classification vocabulary.
• FOIA exemptions provide a structured set of redaction reasons specific to U.S. government document production.
• Bankruptcy chapters (7, 11, 13) represent procedurally distinct matter types with different document requirements.
• Class actions (FRCP Rule 23) and multidistrict litigation (28 U.S.C. § 1407) have unique procedural concepts.
• PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) establishes conventions for case numbering and court identification that applications should follow for interoperability.

1.2 Solution

ADAC-Legal-US addresses these needs by defining:

• Additional well-known values for document types, matter types, confidentiality levels, custody actions, and redaction reasons that are specific to U.S. federal and state practice.
• Field guidance for populating base ADAC-Legal fields using U.S. conventions (PACER case numbers, official court names, state naming standards).
• A reference model for the U.S. court system hierarchy to guide jurisdiction and courtName population.
• Identification of subdivisions (e.g., Louisiana) that warrant their own companion specifications due to structural differences in legal tradition.

1.3 Scope

This specification defines:

• The "us" jurisdiction profile identifier and its scope
• US-specific additions to all five ADAC-Legal well-known value sets (document types, confidentiality levels, matter types, custody actions, redaction reasons)
• Guidance on populating base ADAC-Legal fields for U.S. practice
• A reference model for the U.S. federal and state court hierarchy
• The relationship to subdivision profiles (e.g., "us-la" for Louisiana)

This specification does not define:

• The ADAC core container format (see ADAC 1.0)
• The base ADAC-Legal profile schema (see ADAC-Legal 1.0)
• State-specific legal concepts that require structural schema differences (those are defined by subdivision companion specifications)
• Application-level APIs, user interfaces, or enforcement mechanisms

1.4 Audience

This specification is intended for:

• Software developers implementing U.S. legal document management features in ADAC readers and writers
• Legal technologists at U.S. law firms and litigation support vendors
• E-discovery platform developers integrating ADAC-Legal containers into U.S. review workflows
• Compliance officers managing U.S. document retention and FOIA compliance

2. Conformance

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

2.1 Jurisdiction Profile Conformance

An ADAC-Legal container conforms to this jurisdiction profile when:

1. It conforms to ADAC-Legal 1.0 (valid ADAC container with profileType: "legal").
2. The jurisdictionProfile field in legal.json is set to "us".
3. The jurisdiction.country field, when populated, is "US".

2.2 Additive Inheritance

This specification follows the additive inheritance model defined in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §7.3:

• ✅ Adds US-specific well-known values to existing value sets
• ✅ Provides US-specific guidance on populating base fields
• ✅ Defines US-specific concepts and terminology
• ✅ Inherits the segmented Merkle Tree fixity model, distinguishing between Master and State integrity
• ❌ Does NOT remove or redefine any base ADAC-Legal fields or values
• ❌ Does NOT modify the ADAC-Legal JSON schema
• ❌ Does NOT modify the ADAC core specification

All base ADAC-Legal well-known values remain valid and available in US containers.

2.3 Forward Compatibility

Readers MUST tolerate unknown JSON properties in all structures, consistent with ADAC-Legal 1.0 §6.3. US-specific values that appear in well-known value set fields are ordinary strings — applications that do not recognize them MUST preserve them during round-trip serialization.

3. Terminology

4. Relationship to ADAC-Legal

4.1 Inheritance Chain

A container with "jurisdictionProfile": "us" is simultaneously:

• A valid ADAC 1.0 container
• A valid ADAC-Legal 1.0 container (base profile)
• A valid ADAC-Legal-US 1.0 container (this specification)

An application that understands only the base ADAC-Legal specification can still read and process a US container — US-specific values appear as ordinary strings in well-known value set fields.

4.2 What This Specification Adds

4.3 Container Format

No changes. US containers use the same structure as base ADAC-Legal containers:

• File extension: .adac
• Profile file: metadata/profiles/legal.json
• profileType: "legal"
• jurisdictionProfile: "us"

5. Jurisdiction Profile Identifier

5.1 When This Profile Applies

Use "jurisdictionProfile": "us" when:

• The legal matter is governed by U.S. federal law or procedure.
• The legal matter is in a U.S. state court following the common law tradition.
• The document was produced, filed, or stored under U.S. legal authority.

Use a subdivision profile (e.g., "us-la") instead when the matter involves jurisdiction-specific structural differences that the base US profile cannot capture (see Section 9).

6. US-Specific Well-Known Values

The following value sets extend the base ADAC-Legal well-known values defined in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14. All base values remain valid — these are additions only.

6.1 Document Types

Additions to classification.documentType (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.1).

6.2 Confidentiality Levels

Additions to classification.confidentialityLevel (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.2).

These tiers reflect the multi-level confidentiality designations commonly established by U.S. protective orders in commercial litigation:

6.3 Matter Types

Additions to caseReference.matterType (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.3).

6.4 Custody Actions

Additions to custodyChain[].action (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.4).

6.5 Redaction Reasons

Additions to redaction annotation reason (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.5).

7. US-Specific Field Guidance

7.1 Case Reference

7.1.1 Case Number

The caseReference.caseNumber field SHOULD follow U.S. federal court conventions when the matter is in federal court:

Common PACER case type abbreviations:

For state court matters, use the case number format assigned by the filing court.

7.1.2 Court Name

The caseReference.courtName field SHOULD use the official court name as listed in PACER:

7.1.3 Jurisdiction

When jurisdictionProfile is "us":

7.1.4 Docket Number

The caseReference.docketNumber field is OPTIONAL. In U.S. practice, the docket number is often the same as the case number. Use this field when:

• The matter has a separate docket number (e.g., MDL docket numbers differ from individual case numbers).
• A case has been consolidated and the consolidated docket number differs from the original.

7.2 Document Classification

7.2.1 Bates Numbering

U.S. Bates numbering conventions:

7.2.2 Confidentiality Marking

When a U.S. protective order establishes tiered confidentiality, map the tiers to ADAC-Legal confidentiality levels as follows:

For protective orders with custom tiers not listed above, use "restricted" (base) and describe the restriction in a notes or free-text field.

7.3 Retention Policy

7.3.1 Federal Records

Federal records retention is governed by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) records schedules. Common periods:

7.3.2 State Records

State retention requirements vary significantly. The retentionPolicy.period field SHOULD include the governing authority (e.g., "7 years per NY CPLR § 213", "6 years per Texas statute of limitations").

7.3.3 Litigation Hold

When retentionPolicy.litigationHold is true in a US container, applications MUST suppress any automated destruction workflows regardless of the retention period. This reflects the U.S. duty to preserve evidence once litigation is reasonably anticipated (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).

8. US Court System Reference

This section provides a reference model for the U.S. court hierarchy to guide population of the caseReference.courtName and jurisdiction fields.

8.1 Federal Court Hierarchy

8.2 State Court Hierarchy

State court naming varies. Common patterns:

Applications SHOULD follow local naming conventions and include the county or parish in the court name for trial-level courts.

9. Subdivision Profiles

9.1 When a Subdivision Profile Is Needed

The base US profile covers the common law tradition shared by 49 states and federal courts. A subdivision profile is warranted when a state's legal system has structural differences that cannot be captured by the US-level value sets alone.

9.2 Identified Subdivisions

9.3 Potential Future Subdivisions

The following subdivisions MAY warrant companion specifications if sufficient structural differences are identified:

9.4 Inheritance

A container with "jurisdictionProfile": "us-la" or "us-pr" inherits from both this specification (US) and the base ADAC-Legal specification:

1. Base layer — ADAC-Legal 1.0 (all base values and schema)
2. Country layer — ADAC-Legal-US 1.0 (this document — all US-specific values and guidance)
3. Subdivision layer — ADAC-Legal-US-LA 1.0 or ADAC-Legal-US-PR 1.0 (subdivision-specific additions)

An application that understands US but not US-LA can still process a Louisiana container — it will recognize all base and US-level values and treat Louisiana-specific values as custom strings.

10. Complete US Container Example

10.1 Container Structure

smith-v-jones-rule34-production.adac
├── manifest.json
├── master/
│   ├── master_0001.tif              (Page 1 — contract signature page)
│   └── master_0002.tif              (Page 2 — contract terms)
├── metadata/
│   ├── core.json
│   └── profiles/
│       └── legal.json
├── derivatives/
│   └── deriv_0001.jpg
├── regions/
│   └── master-001.regions.json
└── provenance/
    ├── log.json
    └── checksums.json

10.2 Legal Profile (metadata/profiles/legal.json)

{
  "profileVersion": "1.0",
  "profileType": "legal",
  "jurisdictionProfile": "us",
  "caseReference": {
    "caseNumber": "1:25-cv-04521-LTS",
    "courtName": "U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York",
    "jurisdiction": {
      "country": "US",
      "state": "New York",
      "county": "New York"
    },
    "docketNumber": null,
    "matterType": "litigation",
    "caption": "Smith v. Jones Corp.",
    "parties": [
      { "name": "John Smith", "role": "plaintiff" },
      { "name": "Jones Corp.", "role": "defendant" }
    ]
  },
  "classification": {
    "documentType": "requestForProduction",
    "exhibitNumber": null,
    "filingDate": "2025-03-15T00:00:00Z",
    "confidentialityLevel": "highlyConfidential",
    "batesRangeStart": "JONES000442",
    "batesRangeEnd": "JONES000443",
    "retentionPolicy": {
      "period": "7 years after case closure",
      "disposition": "destroy",
      "litigationHold": true
    }
  },
  "custodyChain": [
    {
      "action": "producedInDiscovery",
      "custodian": "Jones Corp. — Legal Department",
      "timestamp": "2025-04-01T09:00:00Z",
      "organization": "Jones Corp.",
      "notes": "Produced pursuant to Plaintiff's First Request for Production, Request No. 14."
    },
    {
      "action": "received",
      "custodian": "Jane Doe, Esq.",
      "timestamp": "2025-04-01T17:00:00Z",
      "organization": "Smith & Associates LLP",
      "notes": "Received via secure file transfer from opposing counsel."
    },
    {
      "action": "scanned",
      "custodian": "Litigation Support",
      "timestamp": "2025-04-02T10:00:00Z",
      "organization": "Smith & Associates LLP",
      "notes": "Scanned from production set at 600 DPI, TIFF format."
    },
    {
      "action": "stored",
      "custodian": "Records Management",
      "timestamp": "2025-04-02T14:00:00Z",
      "organization": "Smith & Associates LLP",
      "notes": "Physical production binder stored in locked evidence room, Cabinet 12-B."
    }
  ]
}

10.3 Region Annotations (regions/master-001.regions.json)

{
  "mediaId": "master-001",
  "coordinateSystem": "pixel",
  "width": 4800,
  "height": 6400,
  "regions": [
    {
      "id": "region-001",
      "type": "boundingBox",
      "label": "Confidentiality Stamp",
      "bounds": {
        "x": 1800.0,
        "y": 50.0,
        "width": 1200.0,
        "height": 100.0
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "region-002",
      "type": "boundingBox",
      "label": "Redacted — SSN",
      "bounds": {
        "x": 2400.0,
        "y": 2800.0,
        "width": 500.0,
        "height": 60.0
      },
      "linkedEntities": {
        "legal:redaction": {
          "reason": "pii",
          "authority": "Protective Order dated 2025-02-10, ¶ 7(b)",
          "authorizedBy": "Jane Doe, Esq.",
          "notes": "Social Security number of individual plaintiff."
        }
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "region-003",
      "type": "boundingBox",
      "label": "Bates Stamp",
      "bounds": {
        "x": 4000.0,
        "y": 6200.0,
        "width": 700.0,
        "height": 80.0
      }
    }
  ]
}

11. Validation

11.1 Base Validation

US containers are validated by the standard ADAC validator and ADAC-Legal validation rules. No additional validation error codes are defined by this specification.

11.2 Recommended US-Specific Application-Level Checks

12. References

12.1 Normative References

12.2 Informative References

13. Version History