Lexis Advance's CourtLink Integration Brings Solution into Modern Age
LexisNexis is folding court docket and document solution CourtLink into Lexis Advance as part of an overall effort to make the user experience less bumpy and promote greater efficiency.
August 12, 2019 at 01:41 PM
3 minute read
LexisNexis Legal & Professional announced early Monday morning that its CourtLink court docket and document solution has been integrated into the company’s legal research platform Lexis Advance.
Among other things, this means that users will now be able to access CourtLink via the Lexis Advance mobile app. They’ll also be able to access both CourtLink and Lexis Advance using a single username and password, which speaks to the overarching motivation behind the integration in the first place: Bringing CourtLink into the modern age of solutions.
Eric Olson, director of litigation solutions at LexisNexis, said the company relied on customer feedback to help get them there.
“Frankly, the biggest customer complaint we got is, your courts are great, your functionality is terrific, but your product is really hard to use. It’s old, it’s got too many steps in the way to get things done and it’s just not a modern tool,” he said.
So what constitutes a modern tool these days? For starters, a docket or document search can be now be executed, filters and all, from a single screen as opposed to the five that users had previously been required to navigate. There are also fewer steps required to manage the CourtLink alerts regarding new litigation activity on a case, which can be setup in conjunction with alerts from Lexis Advance and timed on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.
In other words, it’s about efficiency. Operational efficiency has remained a critical element of focus for law firms looking to maintain a competitive edge against alternative legal service providers. Such an environment puts pressure on solutions to be more intuitive and user friendly in a manner that echoes the technology platforms attorneys are engaging with in their personal lives.
“It’s often very, very hard to get the end user of the data, the attorney, to attend training. They have actual other work to do than learn how to use our products,” Olson said.
Even the decision to fold CourtLink into Lexis Advance could be seen as a play towards efficiency by allowing users to engage multiple functions under a single system, although Olson pointed out that LexisNexis has been steadily integrating more of its products with the legal research platform for some time now.
This holds especially true for data analytics and visualization technology that came with LexisNexis’ acquisitions of Ravel Law or Lex Machina. To be sure, with the integration, CourtLink users will now be able to search the case histories of attorneys, judges or law firms associated with a particular docket using Lex Machina analytics.
Despite all of the new bells and whistles, the ultimate test for the revamped CourtLink might still come down to whether or not users experience a smoother ride than before.
“We knew that the difficulty of using the product was effecting the breadth of use, and we hope to get a much sort of broader audience now,” Olson said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250