The Last Frontier: the Promise of AI-powered Legal Analytics in Texas
As one of the last frontiers for big data, legal tech is still in its infancy. AI-powered legal analytics is working its way into every aspect…
July 13, 2020 at 05:23 PM
6 minute read
As one of the last frontiers for big data, legal tech is still in its infancy. AI-powered legal analytics is working its way into every aspect of the legal industry. It has helped litigators sort through thousands of pages of discovery documents. It has also helped litigators gain strategic insights into the way a judge rules or an opposing counsel argues. When combined, the promise of AI-powered legal analytics is undeniable, offering litigators unprecedented tools for the development of case strategies.
High-Tech Legal Research
The State of Texas is widely known as an electronics leader. Since the 1950s, Texas Instruments and other high-tech companies transformed the region into a key technology hub for the United States. It is unsurprising, then, to find legal analytics spread across the state, deployed throughout the offices of large and small law firms.
Legal analytics is not new. Many litigators have used technology to conduct legal research in their day-to-day legal practice for years. This research has relied on electronic databases (think: Westlaw), a research practice that is not dramatically different from the kind of research conducted in law libraries. Things change, however, when these electronic databases align with new forms of artificial intelligence, softwares that can search for and extract data that is similar to a user's inquiry.
Consider, for example, MacKenzie Dunham, an attorney who operates Access Justice Houston, a "low bono" law firm in Texas. Dunham describes a challenging sexual assault case, one that required him to search through multiple sources of case law to locate an authoritative definition of reasonable grounds to believe. After unsuccessfully combing through secondary sources and utilizing conventional search methods, he eventually tried Casetext's Case Analysis Research Assistant (CARA), an AI-powered legal research tool that uses latent semantic analysis to identify patterns in legal documents. In a matter of seconds, CARA provided Dunham with "a U.S. Supreme Court case analyzing what a 'reasonable ground' meant and comparing it to probable cause."
These powerful search platforms enable users to answer legal questions with incredible speed and accuracy. Jeff Price, a Dallas-based attorney with Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, reflects on his use of ROSS Intelligence. "I recently worked on a project to determine the best damages model for a trademark infringement case. With the help of ROSS, I quickly found several cases that had analogous fact patterns. It also identified cases that provided additional grounds for the recovery of damages that I hadn't previously considered."
Smarter, Faster Document Production
Legal analytics platforms can do much more than search. They can also build. Across the State of Texas, immigration attorneys have utilized automated technologies and natural language processing to make immigration services more accessible and more affordable. These products deploy "complex conditional logic to help people prepare the paperwork and documents they need for an immigration filing."
To give an example, Berry Appleman & Leiden, a global immigration law firm with offices in Austin and Houston, uses open-source software libraries like TensorFlow, PyTorch, and Tesseract OCR. Using its repository of immigration law data, the firm trains AI systems to spot patterns. The firm then uses artificial intelligence "to extract information from documents and draft responses to certain common government requests [they] frequently handle for corporate clients." As one of its managing partners explains, "[w]hen the law firm receives a [government request for evidence], its systems can read the letter, interpret what it is requesting, search a library for potential responses, and then draft a response based on what was said."
Another firm, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, partnered with LegalMation, a legal tech company that provides a web-based AI tool that automatically generates litigation documents. An attorney uploads a PDF document into the website, which then translates the PDF into text, analyzes its contents, and generates a relevant draft response. According to the firm's chief knowledge officer, the tool shrinks six to eight hours of work into two minutes, saving the firm time and money. The firm then shares these savings with their clients, charging a fee for the technology while also reducing the number of billable hours charged to the client. This equates to roughly $3,000 in savings per case. It also allows attorneys to be more strategic and less tactical, explains Ron Chapman, Jr., a Dallas-based shareholder at Ogletree.
A New Legal Landscape
Even with all of these advances, the adoption of AI-powered legal analytics has been slow. There are skeptics, with even its proponents acknowledging its limitations. Michael Smith, a patent infringement litigation attorney with Siebman, Forrest, Burg & Smith in Sherman, warns that predictive analytics can never tell you the whole story. Judicial analytics, for example, "many tell you more about the types of cases [in the dataset] than it does the judge's predispositions. I repeatedly have to caution people that their opponent is not the judge's tendencies or prior rulings, but the facts of the case."
These warnings are a reminder that legal tech may be a new, uncharted territory. It is, nevertheless, here. The attorneys who have embraced these new technologies are moving fast, helping them manage every aspect of the litigation process at incredible speeds and with incredible efficiencies.
Nicole Clark is the CEO and co-founder of Trellis Research and a business litigation, labor and employment attorney. Trellis is an AI-powered legal research and analytics platform that gives state court litigators a competitive advantage by making trial court rulings searchable, and providing insights into the patterns and tendencies of your opposing counsel, and your state court judges. Trellis is providing Texas Lawyer readers complimentary 14-day access to its platform. Click here to start your free trial today.
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 AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
- 2Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 3$1.9M Settlement Approved in Class Suit Over Vacant Property Fees
- 4Former Wamco Exec Charged With $600M 'Cherry-Picking' Fraud
- 5Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
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