Vendors and Service Providers

Corporate Legal

Law Firms

audience

Landscape Article

Evaluation Framework

Requirements Template

Business Case

Competitive Analysis

Pilot Guide

Thought Leadership

content type

Explore

Implement

Procure

phase

date

Advertising Law

Bankruptcy and Restructuring

Civil Rights

Conveyancing

Corporate

Criminal Law

Employment

Entertainment and Media

Environment and Energy

Family Law

Finance

Fintech

Funds

Government / Administrative Law

Health Law

Immigration Law

Infrastructure

Intellectual Property

International Arbitration

Investigations

Litigation

Neutral

Personal Injury

Privacy and Cybersecurity

Private Equity

Real Estate

Regulatory

Securities and Capital Markets

Transactional

Wills and Probate

practice area

Arabic

Bulgarian

Chinese

Configurable

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Dutch

English

Estonian

Finnish

Flemish

French

German

Greek

Hebrew

Hungarian

Icelandic

Indonesian

Italian

Japanese

Korean

Latvian

Lithuanian

Malay

Maltese

Norwegian

Polish

Portuguese

Romanian

Russian

Serbian

Spanish

Swedish

Tagalog

Thai

Turkish

Vietnamese

language

On Prem

Web App

Private Cloud

Cloud

deployment

Blockchain

GPT / LLM

Interoperability

Law Firm Product

Low Code

Open Source

Word Plug-In

attribute

Africa

Asia

Europe

Global

Latin America

Middle East

North America

Pacific

West Indies

regions served

Algeria

Argentina

Armenia

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Brazil

Bulgaria

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Egypt

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Guatemala

Hong Kong

Hungary

India

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Kenya

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malaysia

Malta

Mexico

Mongolia

Mozambique

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Serbia

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Slovakia

South Africa

South Korea

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sweden

Switzerland

Taiwan

Trinidad & Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

Uruguay

Yemen

Selecting expert witnesses for a trial can be a lengthy process, requiring knowledge of the academic and experiential qualifications of witnesses and their suitability to provide evidence on a particular case. Solutions supporting the identification and selection of expert witnesses provide databases of witnesses together with information helping lawyers decide whether a witness is a good candidate. Experts.com is one such solution. Courtroom Insight allows firms to keep information about wtiness they have previously leveraged, to assist in making decisions internally.

Expert Witness Selection

<p>As a result of the entrenched nature of eDiscovery, litigation is an area of law in which a large number of technology vendors operate. The field of eDiscovery continues to evolve, with ever more sophisticated tools providing forensics solutions and data analytics capabilities. The acquisition by Reveal of Brainspace and NexLP is a good example of an evolving vendor, though Relativity, Exterro, Integreon, AccessData, Everlaw and many others have also developed data products. End-to-end case management systems have now adapted to provide capabilities that support other aspects of litigation practice, including chronology development, transcript management, exhibit management and trial preparation. Major players such as Opus 2 and Litera Litigate allow for integrations with eDiscovery vendors and the import of tagged hot documents into the case management system. During the pandemic, virtual court work has become necessary, giving rise to the development of platforms such as Armatus and DepoDirect for remote depositions and trials. In addition to these categories, many other point solutions have developed to support various aspects of litigation practice.</p>

Litigation Management

When eDiscovery became ubiquitous and law firms were regularly confronted with large numbers of files that required review using a combination of technology and an army of people, the industry of eDiscovery services started evolving. Instead of a law firm hiring contract attorneys as reviewers, they started engaging third party service providers to do the work. The early ALSPs focused on this type of work and the volume has only increased with increased number of files in discovery. Providers in the category include Epiq, Integreon.

eDiscovery Services

Alternative Dispute Resolution

In preparation for trial in certain jurisdictions, parties must file a book of authorities, a binder that records all cases cited in support of argument along with brief summaries of those cases. In other jurisdictions, a table of authorities is required at the beginning of a brief, referencing all caselaw, statutes and other secondary sources relied upon along with the page number on which those sources appear in the brief. This category of solutions automates the creation of a book or table of authorities based on uploading of key documents. 

Book of Authorities

Brief analysis tools provide a starting point for legal research, or a final check of court documents prior to filing. These solutions allow users to upload a brief or any document containing citations, and provides an analysis of the caselaw cited, including a report of cases that are relevant to the issues in the brief. The leading solution in the United States is Casetext Legal Research. In France, Doctrine is the category leader. Both Westlaw and LexisNexis have developed competitor products.

Brief Analysis

<p>Similar to a knowledge bank or a clause bank, a brief bank is an easily searchable repository of litigation documents that can be used as models and samples (also known as precedent material). Document management systems can sometimes become messy with multiple drafts of pre-filed documents, and in circumstances where rigour and consistency is not applied to tagging final, filed documents, it can be difficult to find the relevant precedent documents unless effort has been taken to collect and store them separately. Fastcase, for example, now provides an API into a firm's dockets, through Docket Alarm, that is able to operate as a secondary repository, distinct from a document management system, containing only final filed documents that may be designated as precedent documents.</p>

Brief Bank

As the artifical intelligence technology used in the legal industry has matured, solutions have evolved that help lawyers draft briefs and motions by suggesting arguments and authority based on the algorithm's conceptual understanding of the facts of a case. As a lawyer begins to draft, these tools suggest relevant authority so that time spent searching for caselaw and relevant statute provisions is minimized. Casetext's Compose is the best known of these solutions.

Brief Drafting

Case Collaboration

Creating a chronology of events is often one of the first tasks in a litigation matter to understand the series of events that led to a claim being made. Chronologies become extremely long, and a critical aspect of the storytelling of a case. Being able to tie key documents, issues, and witnesses to items in the chronology is a critical aspect of litigation strategy. Electronic chronology solutions commonly allow for issues and witness tagging so that the chronology becomes an organic document linked to key evidence. End-to-end case management solutions typically include automated chronology development. This category includes only those that provide chronology support outside of more fulsome case management support. 

Chronology

Ensuring that case citations in briefs, motions and pleadings are accurate and correctly formatted requires painstaking manual proofreading. Various solutions address this pain-point. Some, like Litera’s Litigation Companion and Thomson Reuters’ Drafting Assistant, are Word plug-ins that allow simple in-app checks of citations and citation formatting. Others, such as Casetext’s CARA, Quick Check in Westlaw Edge, and the Judicial Brief Analysis by LexisNexis allow for the uploading of a brief or any document that contains citations, whereupon the tool provides lists of additional relevant cases, note-ups of existing cases, or cases that should be cited in opposition. This functionality is not limited to the US, with Doctrine providing a robust citation check solution for French law.

Citation Check

Law firms handling many litigation cases on behalf of clients must track hundreds of court dates and deadlines for these cases. Court calendaring solutions automatically import key court dates and schedules and distribute these to litigation teams, as well as being able to trigger reminders or "ticklers" to let lawyers know that deadlines are approaching. CourtAlert is a leading provider. See also, Docketing.

Court Calendaring

Solutions supporting the filing of documents in court provide online platforms that enable and streamlined electronic court filing. Due to jurisdictional differences, these solutions are often state- or region-specific. An example is One Legal, which is limited to California. Others, such as InfoTrack, are licensed to support e-filing in numerous states. Court e-filing solutions often provide integrations to practice management systems, to further streamline the process.

Court Filings

Court forms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and must be populated with specific information relating to a litigation matter, including the case file number and party names. Solutions such as Forms Workflow have developed in states that automatically pre-populate court templates for each jurisdiction and which retain case-specific information so that each subsequent pleading or filing within the case is auto-filled. In Canada, ACL by Korbitec captures matter-specific details and autofills court forms and letters.

Court Forms

Docketing tools typically provide litigation docket event (calendaring) management and access to documents that have been filed in litigation matters. PACER, which stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records and is run by the US Federal Judiciary, is the main repository for Federal dockets in the United States. Due to costs associated with using PACER, and the way it limits distribution of filed documents to particular members of a case team, competitors such as PacerPro and Docket Alarm have gained traction. These docketing solutions provide automatic docket updates and delivery of newly filed documents to entire case teams within minutes of filing. PacerPro can also automatically insert filed documents from dockets into an organization's document management system (DMS). New capabilities are being developed within these tools including analytics and APIs that allow firms to gain easy access to their entire docket history.

Docketing