My apologies for the delay. February was a “lost month” due to flu season. Please vote here. 

They Survey will close Friday March 16th.

This blog has covered a wide variety of new products including Judicata’s Clerk, Gavelytics, Voxgov, CARA’s Brief Finder and CARA Push NotificationsLex Machina launched new modules including bankruptcy appeals, commercial, employment and products liability. Ravel launched law firm analytics before being acquired by Lexis.

Wolters Kluwer appeared to have been in innovative overdrive building new tools and features on its own and in alliance with other technology companies. Wolters Kluwer launched M&A Clause Analytics,  Smart Tasks, predictive legislation in their Federal Knowledge Center, Clarivate, Standard Federal Tax Plus, SEC RegReview, a new Cybersecurity Product, Enhanced Arbitration Platform and a KTmine IP Alliance.Lexis unveiled an AI tool: Lexis Answers and began to deliver some “mashups” between their various products. They enhanced Practice Advisor with Intelligize. Lex Machina analytics are appearing in Lexis Advance. They launched a video enhanced practice guide: The Wagstaffe Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial.

BloombergBNA added points of law, citation maps, an E discovery center, a Data Compliance and Risk Benchmark Tool, and Relaunched Corporate Practice Center with In-House Counsel Focus,

Thomson Reuters relaunched their treatise platform. ALM launched Compass which will replace their Rival Edge and the ALM Intelligence Center.

Fastcase launched a publishing arm called Full Court press and a multimedia journal: The Journal of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence and Law

KNOW IT ALL! One of the best new resources which launched in 2017 was  free — AALL’s new daily newsletter called Know it All

PLEASE VOTE  2017 was a busy year for legal information professionals and knowledge managers There are so many products to evaluate and compare. Share your wisdom with your colleagues. Please take a few minutes to participate in the brief “Start Stop” Survey and vote for the best of 2017. Vote Here

Several months ago a colleague asked a group of legal information professionals if they had come up with a way to eliminate “bad” sources from news alerts. I have seen RT News – a notorious source for Russian propaganda show up in  alerts on artificial intelligence. Many law firm competitive intelligence operations rely on news aggregation platforms to curate alerts on companies, industries and issues. Platforms such as Vable, Ozmosys, Manzama and LexisNexis Newsdesk scan an ocean of daily news stories, social media and press releases in order to curate and surface stories relevant to a specific issue. To date, no aggregation platform has offered a tool for flagging or eliminating stories from “unreliable” sources. Human curation may flag bad sources but automated alerts may deliver news from a questionable source unless an alert is limited to a few reliable sources. Help may be on the way in the form of a product called NewsGuard.

NewsGuard will not rate individual stories but will evaluate the overall reliability of the news source. According to the company’s press release, NewsGuard will begin offering “reliability ratings” and news “nutrition labels”. The reliability ratings will follow the familiar red, green and yellow flags which lawyers have come to rely on in online caselaw citators such as Shepards and Keycite. If you are wondering if a lawyer came up with this model – you would be right. And he is a rather famous or infamous lawyer depending on how you got to know him: Steven Brill. His Newsguard co-founder is Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

The Founders of NewsGuard

I have written about Steven Brill in an earlier post American Lawyer Sold: What Does this Mean for the Journalism of Law and Personality? which traced the history and evolution of American Lawyer Media. I have also read his excellent book “America’s Bitter Pill,” a deep analysis of the American health care system and the history of Obamacare. NewsGuard is not Brill’s first attempt to analyze the ontological issues of the news media. I remember an earlier stab he took at analyzing the news industry– a magazine called “Content.” I guess the theory was if you can turn law firm management gossip to read like “a ripping yarn,” newsroom gossip would never disappoint. Content closed after 3 years. American Lawyer lives on.

Brill is a serious journalist who has big ideas and I hope this big idea, to flag information quality issues, gets some traction. Brill is quoted in the press release: “Our goal is to help solve this problem now by using human beings-trained, experienced journalists-who will operate under a transparent, accountable process to apply basic common sense to a growing scourge that clearly cannot be solved by algorithms.”

Crovitz highlighted the diminished strength of news brands in a digital world. In addition to alerting people to fake news,” Crovitz said, “one of our key goals is to help consumers, including young people, know when to take news from certain sites with a grain of salt. Brands convey important information about sources of news, but unlike in the days of newsstands, brands don’t stand out in social media feeds or search results.”

Money and Idealism?

There are 18 investors in NewsGuard and the lead investor is an ad agency Publicis Groupe. So we have to think about what this means for advertisers. This is about making money and helping legitimate news sources enhance their share of a tight market for advertising dollars.

How will it Work?

NewsGuard will hire dozens of journalists to analyze and review the 7,500 news and information websites which are most accessed and shared in the United States. The goal is to have this accomplished before the mid-term elections in November. Accodring to the press release those 7,500 sites are responsible for 98% of the news articles read and shared in the US.

The reliability ratings will be licensed to social media platforms and online research companies. A free browser plug in will be available to schools, universities and individuals. It is not clear what this means for “for-profit” organizations such as law firms.

Sample NewsGuard Nutrition Label:

The Evaluation Process and The Swat Team

Here is the process described in the press release:

Two NewsGuard analysts will independently review and rate each site or online publication. One will then draft the Nutrition Label, which the other will edit. These write-ups can then be accessed to allow readers to learn more about why publishers received the Green, Yellow or Red rating.

The labels will explain the history of the site, what it attempts to cover, who owns it, who edits it, and make transparent other relevant factors, such as financing, notable awards or missteps, whether the publisher participates in programs such as the Trust Project , which holds publishers to transparency standards, or has repeatedly been found at fault by one of the established programs that check individual articles. (Links are available at the end of this release to an explanation of the ratings system and to a sample of Nutrition Labels.)

Any disagreements between the two analysts reviewing each site will be resolved by NewsGuard’s senior editorial officers, who will include co-founders Brill and Crovitz, as well as James Warren and Eric Effron.

In addition to rating the 7,500 most read and shared sites, a separate “SWAT Team” will be on call on a 24/7 basis to receive and act on alerts about sites that are suddenly trending, but that have not yet been rated, including because the site was just launched to promote a fictitious, sensational story. The NewsGuard analysts will rate these sites in real time.

Not Censorship

Here’s what I like about NewsGuard.  NewsGuard is NOT censoring the news. It is simply alerting readers that a source has been rated as unreliable. The reader can review the reasons for the rating and make their own decision. The NewsGuard press release describes a process of ongoing evaluation so the rating of a site can be “appealed” and go through a review process and change if the quality of the content changes or other disclosure problems are resolved.

What are Aggregators Doing?

I reached out to executives at several news aggregation platforms to determine how they protect their customers from “fake news” and to gauge their interest in licensing the NewsGuard tool. I will report those responses in a future blog post.



It was only eight weeks ago that Fastcase announced the axquisition of Docket Alarm. Today they are announcing the expansion of Docket Alarm to include court dockets from California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. They will also be adding docket integration with Fastcase and addition visualization tools to provide insights on litigation trends for client development and litigation strategy.

 In addition, Docket Alarm users can now move from court dockets, briefs, and pleadings into cited cases from Fastcase without a separate login. Docket Alarm is making an archive of over 200 million litigation briefs, motions, pleadings, and opinions available to Fastcase subscribers who add a Docket Alarm subscription.

Docket Alarm State Analytics and Briefs Integrated with Fastcase

Expanded  Docket Alarm Team The Docket Alarm team has also been expanded to support rapid development and product innovation. The Founder of Docket Alarm Michael Sander  remains at Fastcase as Managing Director of Docket Alarm and Director of Fastcase Analytics.  The press release describes a team with significant experience in legal publishing and technology including: “ Product Manager Molly Lindblom, who brings more than 18 years of product management and marketing leadership with companies such as LexisNexis, Bloomberg, and Wanted Analytics. Lindblom led the creation of the litigation and client development analytics categories while at LexisNexis CourtLink. David Nayer, who has a background in law and technology, joined the team as the reference attorney and trainer, and Liz Morgan came onboard as a sales executive, bringing more than 20 years of experience in legal publishing and legal analytics sales with Lex Machina and Wolters Kluwer.”

The press release quotes Fastcase CEO Ed Walters. “This is a combination of two disruptors, as evidenced by the momentum of our first eight weeks together. Our team loves Docket Alarm, and we’re going to be very aggressive in building its libraries and analytics, and integrating them into Fastcase to provide our customers and even better experience,” he added.

Docket Alarm offers a library of hundreds of millions of litigation records which are analyzed used their machine learning and natural language processing tools. Similar to their competitors Docket Alarm provides analytical profiles on judges, parties, law firms, and attorneys, identifying win rates, time to decision. One unique feature is offering diversity rates of law firms. They also offer an API which will enable firms leverage its existing database of PACER cases, alerting capabilities, and analysis in bulk.

The Race for State Dockets

As the demand for docket driven analytics has escalated, the market is impatient to supplement the comprehensive federal  docket materials  which are available from many vendors with state docket data.  The quick expansion of  Fastcase/Docket Alarm state docket materials will certainly get the attention of the sophisticated consumers of analytics  who are ready to enhance their law firm’s or legal department’s insights into state litigation trends and outcomes.


 Here is the Press Release:

Fastcase Ignites Integration with Docket Alarm

Fast Expansion into 11 State Dockets, Integrated Caselaw

Washington, DC (March 7, 2018) – Less than eight weeks after being acquired by Fastcase, Docket Alarm is already delivering its customers state court dockets, Fastcase caselaw integration, and additional resources to help law firms visualize and analyze litigation strategy for clients.


Docket Alarm has expanded its state court dockets to include courts in California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Long considered the “holy grail” of docket services, state docket searching and alerting has been an early investment by the combined Fastcase-Docket Alarm team.


In addition, Docket Alarm users are now able to seamlessly move from court dockets, briefs, and pleadings that cite case law to view the cases from Fastcase without a separate login. Lawyers can immediately share the cited cases with courts, clients, paralegals, and anyone they choose.  By integrating case law with Docket Alarm’s library of more than 200 million litigation briefs, motions, pleadings, and opinions, Fastcase and Docket Alarm are combining two of the most innovative legal research libraries in the world.


Fastcase is expanding the Docket Alarm team to support rapid development and product innovation. Michael Sander is at the helm as Founder and Managing Director of Docket Alarm and Director of Fastcase Analytics. Joining the team is Product Manager Molly Lindblom, who brings more than 18 years of product management and marketing leadership with companies such as LexisNexis, Bloomberg, and Wanted Analytics. Lindblom led the creation of the litigation and client development analytics categories while at LexisNexis CourtLink. David Nayer, who has a background in law and technology, joined the team as the reference attorney and trainer, and Liz Morgan came onboard as a sales executive, bringing more than 20 years of experience in legal publishing and legal analytics sales with Lex Machina and Wolters Kluwer.


“It’s exciting to see the momentum we’ve created by putting the strength and capabilities of the Fastcase team behind the latest developments in Docket Alarm,” said Sander. “In a matter of weeks, we’ve formally launched state court dockets and a have linked millions of citations across opinions, briefs, and complaints to Fastcase, a first-of-its-kind product – and this is only the first step in our integration.”


“This is not your grandfather’s acquisition,” said Fastcase CEO Ed Walters. “This is a combination of two disruptors, as evidenced by the momentum of our first eight weeks together. Our team loves Docket Alarm, and we’re going to be very aggressive in building its libraries and analytics, and integrating them into Fastcase to provide our customers and even better experience,” he added.


“We’re building strength on strength, and together we’re going to drive the next generation of legal analytics,” said Sander.


Docket Alarm, founded by intellectual property litigator Michael Sander, is a disruptor in the legal analytics market. The nation’s largest law firms, Fortune 500 companies, and market research and consulting firms rely on Docket Alarm to search, track, and analyze judicial trends in lawsuits and bankruptcies in federal, state, and administrative courts. Its insight into the ITC, PTAB, and TTAB give intellectual property litigators unparalleled visibility.


Leveraging both a library of hundreds of millions of litigation records and its machine learning and natural language processing tools, Docket Alarm has quickly become a preferred analytics tool for identifying judicial trends and predicting litigation outcomes. Docket Alarm provides analytical profiles on judges, parties, law firms, and attorneys, identifying win rates, time to decision, and even measuring gender diversity at law firms. Unique for the industry, Docket Alarm’s API gives other firms and companies the ability to leverage its existing database of PACER cases, alerting capabilities, and analysis in bulk.




About Fastcase

As the smarter alternative for legal research, Fastcase democratizes the law, making it more accessible to more people. Using patented software that combines the best of legal research with the best of Web search, Fastcase helps busy users sift through the clutter, ranking the best cases first and enabling the re-sorting of results to find answers fast. Founded in 1999, Fastcase has more than 800,000 subscribers from around the world. Fastcase is an American company based in Washington, D.C. For more information, follow Fastcase on Twitter at @Fastcase, or visit


I am honored to be speaking at several upcoming events.

Driving Analytics into Practice: A High Speed Tour of the World of Commercial Analytics, Workflow and Predictive Tools. Marcus Evans Data Utilization and Practice Innovation Conference,  Chicago, Il. March 19-21, 2018.

Using AI to Power Push, CodeX FutureLaw 2018 Conference, Palo Alto, Ca. April 5, 2018. I will be a co-panelist with Patric Di Domenico, Ogletree Deekins, Marlene Gebauer, Greenberg Traurig; Jeff Rovner, O’Melveny & Myers  on the panel moderated  by Jake Heller of Casetext.

A Whirlwind Tour of the Hits and Hyperbole in Legal Research and Workflow Products, Southeast Law Library Association Conference, Nashville, Tn., April 14, 2018  an updated version of the presentation which I did with Steve Lastres of Debevoise and Plimpton last summer at the American Association of Law Libraries conference in Austin.

Last  Thursday, Daniel Lewis, co-Founder of Ravel Law (now part of LexisNexis) gave the Keynote address at the annual Ark Best Practices & Management Strategies for Law Firm Library, Research and Information Services  conference in New York. Instead of another frothy,  sermon on the emergence of “robot lawyers,” Lewis delivered a measured analysis of the current state of AI in the legal market.  It was a dramatic counterpoint to some of the overheated  AI rhetoric reverberating througout the recent  Legal Tech conference in New York. Lewis provided a framework for understanding what AI can do today. His talk covered current AI technologies and applications. But the topic which was of greatest interest to me was the a practical outline  of  questions to ask of vendors who are selling AI enabled products.  How do you  distinguish marketing hype from reality? How do you help manage lawyer expectations after they have read about the latest “game changing” AI product — which was acquired by a peer law firm? When the talk was over I felt like standing up and cheering. 


Lewis provided a terrific overview of AI and machine learning. He explained why  humans are not really like computers If a person can perform a mental task in less than one second of thought – that task can probably be automated using AI. There are a wide range of machine learning tasks that are already in use  for tasks such as  photo tagging, loan approving online ads, speech recognition, language translation and self-driving cars. Legal applications of Machine learning include contract analysis, motion analytics, recommendations, document classification, forecasting outcomes and discovery. One of the challenges for law firms is that  AI requires the investment of scarce resources, data to train with and talent to  work on customization and designing models.

  Probabilistic syntactic parsing. Having spent the last 30 years using online research systems I recognized that legal terms had completely different meanings depending on the context. Case law is full of references to prior cases  where a motion has been denied in a cited case,  but that is not indicative of the outcome of the case in which it is cited. I finally got a tutorial on the problem.  Lewis  outlined how legal materials have a complex rhetorical structure which impact meaning –  the same word has a different meaning depending on context:  and many  words can appear in a variety of different contexts within one legal opinion : procedural, referential, adjudicative or abstract.

 What are the right questions to be asking?  Lewis provided a great series of questions which  can be the starting point for evaluating AI products.

                How good is the training data?

                Is it representative?

                What is the validating process?

                What are the evaluation methods?

                What is the data?

                Are the  results  accurate?

                Are the results accurate at scale?

                Who is training the systems users or the company?

                What is the output?

                How comprehensive in the coverage?

                How comprehensive is the taxonomy – results will be limited by the taxonomy provided.

                Who is creating the product?

                What is their technical and legal expertise?

                Is there a data steward?

The Vocabulary of AI Hype: Lewis also suggested that the audience be on the  look out for the red flags of hype.

                Marketing language using the words “transformative,” “cutting edge,” “game changing.

                Anthropomorphism:  language  referring to the product as “understanding, ” ” reading,” ” thinking”

 Will AI Replace Lawyers?

                Even if algorithms can be trained to  do more routine tasks, the majority of  a lawyers analyzing, advising and communicating will not be automated  any time soon.


Courtroom Insight was originally designed to as a Yelp-type directory to enable litigators to locate and share insights about expert witnesses. In a recent interview co-founder Mark Torchiana explained that since the launch in 2010 he has learned that lawyers do not want to share their comments about experts in a public forum. Courtroom Insights has evolved into the dominant internal expert witness knowledge management solution for law firms.

That transitional pivot occurred when the  Scott Rechtschaffen, The Chief Knowledge Officer at the Littler firm contacted Torchiana and asked if the product could be used to manage internal information about arbitrators. After eight years the company has become totally focused on private installations in law firms and content has expanded to include profiles of experts, arbitrators and judges. They recently upgraded the platform search engine.

According to Torchiana, the company is now focused on  enhancing the profiles with material from commercial legal publishers though content integration alliances. The goal is to allow researchers to  leverage all of the expert witness content which a law firm subscribes to though the single Courtroom Insight platform. A recent alliance with the Daubert Tracker has enabled them to load 120,000 expert witness challenges into Courtroom Insight. They  are currently  in discussions with six  other companies to integrate content  based on   existing law firm already subscriptions. These new content integrations and a new Courtroom Insight dashboard pictured below will be rolled out in the summer of 2018.


Knowledge management professionals and librarians are the key drivers of development and adoption because they understand that expert witness research involves research across multiple databases. Courtroom Insight is being designed to streamline workflow by enabling these internal and external knowledge intersections. Third party content will be mapped to the experts inside the CI directory.

Have it Your  Way Courtroom Insight customization can include identifying the firms expert retentions and then linking that history to profiles and internal documents such as retention letters, testimony, resumes etc.. Most importantly lawyers can share ratings or comments within their organization. Although Courtroom Insights still makes profiles of experts, arbitrators and judges available to the public CI has transitioned into a private knowledge management platform. Torchiana says that CI  will provide the firm content in any format the firm wants,  such as delivering feeds or populating a firm’s intranet portal.

AI solutions in the Future. Courtroom Insight has entered a partnership with Fastcase to explore applications using the Fastcase AI sandbox. At some point in the next year or two  they hope to embed a AI technology in the product.

The White Paper on Improving Expert Witness Workflow

Torchiana is planning to produce a “white paper” on improving expert witness workflow Participate in a related survey at this link. White paper results will be sent to all survey respondents.


For my entire career, people have been suggesting that “the end was near” for librarians.  A  spectacularly absurd notion in a burgeoning knowledge economy. Once again the marketplace is demonstrating the versatility and value librarians  can bring to innovative knowledge organizations even in the 21st Century. Last week Kira the legal tech innovator posted a new job opening for a “Machine Learning Knowledge Analyst.” A complete description and link to the job application can be located at this link.

Here is how the job  posing in introduced:

“There is no question that for every successful law firm there is a talented group of law librarians who manage the flow of information, disseminate legal resources, and strategically support other professionals within their organization. The work that law librarians do has evolved to more than just reviewing and cataloguing resources. Kira Systems recognizes the unique skill set required to excel as a law librarian and is hiring someone with this background to work as Machine Learning Knowledge Analyst.

As a Machine Learning Knowledge Analyst you will assist in acquiring, developing and organizing contracts and related transactional documents used to train our cutting edge machine learning technology. You will report directly to the Director of Legal Knowledge Engineering and be responsible for sourcing documents through research and collaborative relationships, and organizing them into a sophisticated document taxonomy.”

Why  a Librarian ? I asked Anne McNulty, Kira’s Director of Legal Knowledge Engineering to explain why the company  executives decided that they needed the special expertise of a librarian as Machine Learning Knowledge Analyst.

“McNulty provided the following insights into the creation of this new position:

There are actually a number of challenges that led to us creating this position. First, because our software uses machine learning to identify provisions in contracts, we need a large volume of contracts (of all different types) to train it. These contracts must be carefully grouped together for the lawyers who train the system, and we need someone thoughtful and organized to make sure that the “training data” is appropriately diverse and representative of what the software will be used on. If the training data is not carefully put together, the software won’t perform as well when our customers use it.

Second, Kira has a feature that will classify contracts according to their type. We train this in a similar way to the way in which we train Kira to identify provisions – by showing Kira a number of examples. We’d like to grow the number of contract types that Kira can identify, so to do this we need someone who can help us expand on the taxonomy we have built and feed the appropriate contract types into it.

Finally, as we grow, we are starting to need contracts that are not easily available through public sources. We’d like someone to help us develop and manage relationships with partners who would share contracts with us for the purpose of training our system.”

Good luck to Kira and good luck to applicants applying for this exciting new position!


Last week Casetext released a brief new report on the future of Knowledge Management. The full report is available at this link. The report is really a “thought piece” based on a question posed to a group of knowledge leaders. The question was basically”what would you do to improve KM if you had $10 million dollars?”  The respondents highlighted a variety of challenges and recommendations.  It appears that no one has the right mix of tools, technology and resources today but there was a consistent refrain – that emerging technologies may soon appear which will help bridge some of the critical gaps between implicit, explicit, internal and external knowledge.

Respondents basically were asked; “If you had $10 Million to spend on KM, What would you do?” While lack of law firm investment in knowledge solutions is part of the problem, it is not only only obstacle to effective knowledge management in law firms.

Key findings:

  • Data Collection will be Automated
  • Data will be automatically structured
  • Legal research and KM tools will be powered by AI.

KM Departments will play an important role in bringing about these changes.

Contributors to the the report include many prominent  law law firm thought leaders including, Patrick Dundas, KM Associate, Schulte, Ross and Zable, Shabeer Kahn, Director of Research Service, Morrison & Foster, Rich McClain, Chief Information Officer, Hunton & Wiliams, Holly RIccio, Knowledge Management Director, Nossaman; Joseph Keslar, Director of Library and Research Services, Blank Rome: Gina Lynch, Director of Knowledge Services, Paul Weiss; Genevieve Nicholson, Manager of Research & Knowledge Services, Lewis Roca.

Thanks to Jake Heller, CEO of Casetext for acknowledging the challenges facing knowledge managers today and  providing them will a platform on which to share some insights into the road ahead


Thomson Reuters and Acritas has released their first annual State of Corporate Legal Departments Report. Many of the themes echo discussions at last week’s Legal Tech conference in New York. Clients are king and law firms  are trying to catch up to shifting client expectations. The report analysed data from Thomson Reuters Legal Tracker, Acritas and the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium. One of the most interesting aspects of the report for me was the focus on collecting metrics.  The suggested list includes 21 data elements which are categorized as preventive, efficient, effective or review. These metrics signal the issues which should also be of importance to law firms.

The five goals mentioned most consistently are:

In House Counsel Goals 2018

Key take aways:

  • Satisfaction with outside counsel has increased by 9% over the past 5 years.
  • Budgets for in house legal work increased 10%
  • Budgets for outside legal work decreased 6%
  • Although 53% reduced their legal roster, 43% have grown their outside counsel roster..
Acritas Spectrum of Technology and Innovation

Here is the list of key recommended metrics:

Recommended in-house counsel metrics

I met with Jeff Pfeifer, VP of Product Management at LexisNexis and Daniel Lewis,one of the co-founders of Ravel Law to review the upcoming release of Ravel content on Lexis. I reviewed Ravel Law when came to market in 2014 offering one of the most innovative approaches to legal research to hit the market in the past decade.  In addition, they had the novel idea of highlighting  judges precedential history – what cases do specific judges tend to cite for particular issues and then how do they rule?  They offered what I originally described as a constellation-like visualization of case law relationships. LexisNexis purchased Ravel in 2017 only two years after purchasing another Legal Analytics platform Lex Machina. Lexis has begun integrating Lex Machina analytics into Lexis Advance so it was not clear where the Ravel analytics would fit in. Last week at Legal Tech in New York, I received a preview of these integrations which are scheduled to  rolled out over several months beginning in March 2018.

Enhanced Shepard’s Citations


Ravel Law will Enhance Shepards Citations

In 2016 Lexis launched the search term maps feature which enables researchers to navigate to specific search terms and to see the depth of treatment of each term. With Ravel Law they are integrating Shepard’s  citations as a color wheel.

They have kept the standard Shepard’s color red- negative, yellow caution/explained, green – followed in the wheel. However since they are using those same colors in the term map which runs along the top of the case – I was originally confused and though the red in the term map  was connected to the Shepard’s history. I suggest that Lexis give this issue more thought.

 Ravel’s Search Visualization

Ravel’s search visualizations have been simplified and now include colored dots using the Shepard’s history indicators in the search visualization map.

Ravel Visuaizaton in Lexis Advance


6 Million Caselaw Images

Until now, Lexis has not had access to case law images. When LexisNexis bought Ravel they got access to the “Free the Law” archive  arising from  the 2015 Harvard Law School-Ravel Law collaboration .

According to Pfeifer, the Harvard case law archive will load more than 500,00 new cases into Lexis. In addition, over 6 million case reporter images will be available to lawyers who want an original reporter page to examine or attach as an image to a court filing.

Harvard Case Law Images on Lexis

Coming Soon 

Ravel’s judge, law firm and case law analytics are scheduled to be added to Lexis Advance and Lexis Profiler over the coming months. In addition, they are working on an expert witness enhancement providing analytics on expert witness challenge history.

The market has a strong interest in products which streamline expert witness research, so this feature will be welcomed by litigators.