Not exact matches
Two years ago, I wrote a post titled, In
Litigation and Legal Research, Judge Analytics is the New Black, in which I discussed three products — Lex Machina, Ravel Law and ALM Judicial Perspectives — that were extracting
data from court
dockets and applying analytics to reveal insights about judges, such as how they might rule on a specific type of motion or how long they might take to issue a decision.
It has also expanded in analytics, using
docket data to predict
litigation outcomes and to to provide analytical profiles of judges, parties, law firms, and attorneys.
Courtroom Insight helps firms assemble this
data on which experts they have used by mining not only its own database but also other sources of
litigation and
docket data.
As the federal PACER system is upgraded and more and more states put some or all
dockets in electronic form, more
litigation data will become available to analytics vendors.
At the time it offered ground breaking reports and analysis of a company's
litigation history by extracting
docket data.
Legal analytics involves mining
data contained in case documents and
docket entries, and then aggregating that
data to provide previously unknowable insights into the behavior of the individuals (judges and lawyers), organizations (parties, courts, law firms), and the subjects of lawsuits (such as patents) that populate the
litigation ecosystem.