LexisNexis Unveils Lexis+, A New Research Platform Built for Speed
This week LexisNexis will begin rolling out its new legal research platform Lexis+, which introduces several new features powered by natural language processing. Much like other providers in the space, the company wants to streamline the research process and cut down on search times.
July 08, 2020 at 02:01 PM
4 minute read
Today, LexisNexis announced the phased release of Lexis+, the latest addition to its lineup of legal research products. Built on the foundation of Lexis Advance, the Lexis+ platform includes a variety of new features designed to foster a more integrated user experience in a highly competitive legal research market.
Some of the platform's novel features include Lexis Answers, which directs users to documents where the answer to a specific legal question is found. The Shepard's At Risk feature also identifies cases where the underlying points of law have been negatively treated by other decisions with a specific jurisdiction. Also, a Brief Analysis function supplies additional research recommendations while casting a net for other relevant materials to a case.
Jeff Pfeifer, chief product officer at LexisNexis, indicated that users are generally looking to drive greater efficiencies within the legal research process. "What we sought to do with Lexis+ is see how we could drive those insights faster or get the user to interact with that information much more quickly," he said.
Lexis+ will begin rolling out this week to law school faculty across the country, who will spend the month of July becoming familiar with the product before it is opened up to students in August. Law firms, in-house counsel and other commercial clients will start gaining access to the platform in September and Pfeifer said that LexisNexis' commercial teams would begin discussing pricing and packaging — which will likely be influenced by the content configuration selected — with those customers around that time.
While Lexis+ does feature new content and workflows that make it distinct to predecessor Lexis Advance, users will not be forced to upgrade or adopt the new platform. Instead, LexisNexis appears to be looking to sway clients the old-fashioned way—by incorporating customer feedback directly into the Lexis+ development process.
Specifically, users were looking for a sleeker, bolder design echoing the technology solutions they were interacting with every day in their personal lives. "That was the bar we tried to hit here. How could we make Lexis+ a solution with a modern design experience, a set of unique functional capabilities and empowered by some new technical capabilities that drive better insights," Pfeifer said.
Chief among those "new technical capabilities" is natural language processing, which helps to power features such as Lexis Answers. To be sure, Lexis+ isn't the only legal research platform deploying that technology. Fastcase, for example, entered into a partnership with ROSS Intelligence with the hopes of leveraging the company's experience with AI to diminish search lengths and bolster real-time updates.
But there's also some risk to throwing around buzz words like "natural language processing" too freely, which resulted in Lexis+ attempting to thread the tech almost invisibly throughout the platform. According to Pfeifer, if made too prominent, that kind of high-end technology can often be a double-edged sword.
"Especially machine learning and artificial intelligence, because many of our customers tell us things like, 'It kind of scares me, because I'm not exactly sure what's happening and sometimes I feel like I may loose control of the product experience,'" he said.
There are other challenges more specific to the moment. For example, Lexis+ marks the first time that LexisNexis has released a product in the middle of a global pandemic. But the legal research market in general seems healthy, with other legal research companies like Casetext and Fastcase proceeding full-speed ahead through COVID-19 following a brief slump in March.
"We've been able to amazingly find a very receptive customer audience both to ongoing research and development that's taken place, since most of our customers went to work from home back in March, all the way through the final coding work," Pfeifer 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