A paralegal résumé example, counted in bundles and documents

One complete paralegal résumé, written out in full. The person is invented. The reading and the score come from the product itself.

ConxfolioPublished 2026-09-13

— matters supported, documents reviewed, deadlines met.

Paralegal work is confidential by default, which leaves most résumés for it describing duties rather than scale. This example is written out in full so you can read a page that describes scale without describing a case, then put through the tools here so you can see what a parser stores. The candidate is invented. Ottoline Marchbanks-Ezeh does not exist, neither firm exists, and every figure was chosen to demonstrate a shape.

The example, in full

Count the work, name no case

Nine matters with 40 000 documents reviewed by a team of four. Thirty trial bundles of up to twelve files. A hundred and twenty witness statement first drafts and forty chronologies for six fee earners. Sixty active matters supported at any time. Every one of those is a fact about the paralegal, and none of them is a fact about a client.

Fee earner counts are worth as much as document counts. Supporting six fee earners is a description of pace that a litigation partner recognises instantly.

The cost line is the unusual one

Review cost on one matter down 22% after the search terms were rebuilt with the e-disclosure provider. Cost control is normally described as a partner's concern, and a paralegal who has moved it is demonstrating judgement about the process rather than diligence within it.

The bundle line carries a quality figure in the same way: thirty bundles with no late corrections. Bundles are where mistakes become visible in court, and an error-free record is a claim that means something to anybody who has prepared one.

What the reading found

The door on this page hands the document to the résumé builder as plain text, through the same import an uploaded file goes through, and the review shows each field beside the line it came from. Here the completeness pass found four readable sections, 109 words of experience evidence and ten distinct skills, with the qualification kept as a certification with its year.

No language model is involved. Every string a reader emits is checked in code to be a span of the document, and where the rules are unsure they ask rather than deciding quietly.

What the checker scored it

Ninety-seven out of 100, with one improvement remaining worth 8 points. The arithmetic is 100 × 30% + 100 × 30% + 92 × 40% = 97, explained in the article on the score. Seven action-led lines, five of them measurable, seven lines of depth, and 185 readable words against a band opening at 250.

Documents, files and matters are all units the evidence rule reads, which is why a legal page written this way scores well without a single percentage until the last line. Run your own through the ATS checker to see which of your lines it counts.

What this example leaves off

No case names, no client names, no counsel names and no outcomes. A litigation partner reads the absence of those as the first evidence that this candidate can be trusted with a disclosure exercise.

Modules from a law degree are left off as well. The degree with its dates and one practice qualification carry it; a list of undergraduate options is the sort of thing that belongs on a first application and nowhere afterwards.

What to change for your own

Change the practice area. Property, family, employment, immigration and criminal work all use this shape with different documents and different deadlines. Then put in your own matter counts, document volumes, filing records and fee earner support.

Keep the qualification with its year. Keep one line about a process you improved. The guide on experience bullets covers the construction, the design gallery holds 37 layouts, and the solicitor example, the reporter example and the receptionist example sit beside this one.