Category: News Feeds

When relying on analytics to craft litigation strategy, it is essential to know what happened in similar cases. When practitioners are looking into hiring counsel or assessing the competition, they need to answer the question, “Who won?” Similarly, when assessing motion strategy, a judge’s record isn’t complete without information about how the judge ruled at certain points of litigation.

Lex Machina has the most specific Outcome Analytics on the market, which tell you not only which side won but on what claim. Our data team, which consists of attorneys and legal analysts, reviews important orders to verify what happened. Then, the information is presented in easy-to-use tables, graphs, and charts, so that users can quickly assess the record of a judge, counsel, or party.

Only Lex Machina uses our unique combination of natural language processing and human review to read all available documents and produce claim-specific outcomes that tell you exactly what happened in a case. Our Outcome Analytics include:

CASE FINDINGS

With nearly 500 claim-specific findings such as “§101 Subject Matter Invalidity” in patent cases or ”Defective Product: Design” in product liability cases, Lex Machina helps users quickly find out how the court ruled on specific issues and at what stage of litigation.

Other Tools: Other products either collect overly-simplified versions of outcomes that are sort of like resolutions or they offer motion practice information that is not based on the substantive arguments. Only Lex Machina can tell you 1) how a court ruled on a particular issue and 2) at what stage of the litigation.

CASE REMEDIES

Find out how the court ruled, including grant/denial rates, on various types of injunctive orders and claim-specific remedies (e.g., specific performance in contracts cases). Practitioners can explore over 50,600 cases that have remedies, and then narrow down using filters to the most pertinent cases to find fact patterns like theirs. Lex Machina doesn’t include noise such as injunctions that are “denied as moot,” so users can quickly see the most relevant cases with injunctions related to their matter.

Other Tools: Other products show whether motions were granted or denied, but do not specify if the ruling was based on the merits of the claim or by consent, etc. Other tools are both over inclusive (they include cases that aren’t pertinent) and under inclusive (they are missing injunctions that require the document itself, rather than just the docket entry text). Don’t waste time going through irrelevant cases.

DAMAGES AWARDS

With over 242,000 individual damages awards, Lex Machina allows you to explore damages that are specific to each practice area, including approved class action settlement damages in antitrust cases and pain and suffering damages in torts cases. Get an idea of how often a judge awards certain types of damages, such as attorneys fees or punitive damages.

Other Tools: No other product has a comprehensive set of damages in a specific practice area or offers damage types at such a granular level. Products that claim to have damages only include a fraction of the information because they are not going through the documents themselves. A sample set of damages cannot fully answer questions about what types of damages are at stake.

COMPREHENSIVE CASE RESOLUTIONS

Lex Machina helps attorneys determine how often claimants win, defendants win, cases settle, or cases resolve procedurally. You can see at what stages cases resolved, e.g., how often claimants win on summary judgment or whether this court has ruled on a judgment as a matter of law.

Other Tools: Other products either collect overly simplified versions of outcomes based on docket headings or do not collect this type of information in analytics form, requiring users to collect it on their own through keyword searching for individual cases.

STATE COURT RULINGS AND RESOLUTIONS

As the only state court analytics provider using a combination of natural language processing and human review to read underlying documents to understand what happened in a case, Lex Machina gives practitioners the best understanding of what is going on in state court. Lex Machina users can discover whether plaintiffs or defendants win more often in front of their judge or see all cases with bench or jury trials where opposing counsel appeared.

Other Tools: Other products subscribe to a do-it-yourself approach to state analytics, where they can count cases for you but do not provide any outcome information. Users have to do keyword searching in order to get outcome information and organize the data points they find to show outcomes in state courts.

USING OUTCOME ANALYTICS

Legal Analytics are used to win business and win cases. Here’s how having specific outcome information helps legal professionals win more business and win more cases:

• Tout your firm’s record by showing that your clients won, that they were awarded damages, and the specific amounts.
• When advising a client, knowing whether a judge actually grants motions on specific issues is imperative. For example, knowing whether a judge has granted a motion to dismiss based on a failure to identify a trade secret.
• Knowing whether opposing counsel has ever gone to trial on a particular issue allows you to better plan for settlement or trial.

By knowing what happened in cases like yours, you are armed with strategic information to create winning pitches and craft winning litigation strategies. Lex Machina has by far the most comprehensive information on findings, damages, remedies, and resolution information that allow you to confidently make data-driven decisions.

Request a live demo with one of our experts to gain personalized insights from Lex Machina’s Outcome Analytics.

If your firm is still in business, you’ve successfully made the shift to operating online. So have the courts where you practice, as eFiling undergoes a massive expansion throughout the U.S.

With more client and court data now housed in digital systems, it’s no longer necessary for a person to fill out forms one-by-one.
So how can courts and law firms improve upon redundant, obsolete processes?

Join us on October 6th at 1 p.m. ET/ 10 a.m. PT for this live webinar, where we’ll provide actionable takeaways on how your firm can be an early adopter in the integration revolution, creating automatic workflows that can vastly improve your filing efficiency in state courts.

The panel will be hosted by the legal tech expert and journalist Bob Ambrogi.

You’ll learn:

• What the future of court filing looks like in a digital-first legal industry.
• How integration ecosystems that revolutionized the B2B software market
  are making their way into litigation management.
• How pre-built integrations can eliminate mundane and time-consuming
  litigation tasks with no setup required.

REGISTER TODAY! (Not able to attend? We recommend you still register – you will receive an email with how to access the recording of the event.)

By filling out the form, you are opting in to receive communication from Above the Law and its Partners.

Many people believe that Biglaw firms are the best shops to handle a given legal issue since they have the most experience and resources to work on a matter. It is true that many matters that require substantial effort, and in which the stakes are high, might be best handled by Biglaw shops that can flex their muscle in order to solve a client’s issues. However, in many situations, Biglaw firms can actually be a liability to clients. As a result, clients should use a mix of firms in order to handle their legal work so that they can avoid situations in which Biglaw firms present challenges for clients.

One of the biggest liabilities of Biglaw shops are their high fees. It is well-known that Biglaw firms charge rates that are sometimes double, triple, or more than the market rate for legal work in their area. It is not uncommon for Biglaw shops to charge the same rate for a first-year associate that a seasoned partner at a smaller firm charges, and this can impact a client’s bottom line. The rates charged by a Biglaw shop can impact the amount of effort a client wishes to exert in order to solve a given matter and which strategies they wish to pursue in their case.

For instance, many clients have a figure in mind that they view as “nuisance value” on a case. This is the amount of money that will be spent on legal fees and expenses in order to not be involved in litigation. Many clients would rather pay what they believe is nuisance value in order to resolve a matter rather than litigate a case since they would presumably have to spend this money anyways and paying this cost ensures finality in the litigation.

When a client uses a Biglaw firm, the amount a client views as nuisance value could be double, triple, or even higher than the amount would be if the client chose a smaller shop. This makes it more likely that a client will just pay nuisance value than litigate a case, even if the client has meritorious arguments. Indeed, I have been involved in matters with Biglaw shops over the years in which my adversaries flexed their muscles at the beginning of the litigation but then settled earlier on than I was used to. These Biglaw attorneys sometimes told me that their clients knew they would spend more money if they litigated a case than if they just settled, and this issue is exacerbated with higher-paid Biglaw firms. Clients can have more flexibility to keep litigating matters if they choose counsel that is less expensive.

The high rates charged by Biglaw firms can also impact the strategies employed in a case. Clients may be less willing to pay for certain strategies since it might cost tens of thousands of dollars for a Biglaw firm to prepare papers, and clients may not wish to spend the money if they are not assured of a favorable outcome. For instance, at the beginning of a lawsuit, parties are usually able to either answer the complaint or file a motion to dismiss. If a motion to dismiss is denied, clients then need to answer the complaint anyways.

Clients who are worried about the high cost of a Biglaw firm may be less willing to pay for a motion to dismiss, thinking that this will just waste time, and they will need to answer the complaint at some point anyways. However, sometimes clients have at least some chance of getting some or all causes of action dismissed, and they should file a motion to dismiss to at least try to dismiss counts against them. Nevertheless, clients can sometimes be hamstrung by Biglaw shops that can indirectly limit the options they have at their disposal during litigation.

Moreover, the way that Biglaw shops delegate work may be a liability to clients. At Biglaw shops, partners usually interact with clients and delegate work to associates. This allows the partners to work on business and client development, which can help the firm maximize billing. Sometimes, partners need to assign projects to associates. Associates are billed out at a lower rate, and partners know that they can get more work done on a budget if associates work on tasks. This is very different from other firms in which attorneys are more likely to handle all aspects of a case, including client interaction and all of the other tasks that are involved with working on a matter.

Some bigger clients may not mind not interacting with the people that are actually doing the work. However, some clients appreciate talking directly with all of the attorneys performing work on a file. In addition, this helps ensure that attorneys who are performing the legal work have all of the information needed for a representation without going through a partner, who can distort the details. How Biglaw firms are structured can lead to communication issues and problems in workflow that are not present at other firms.

In the end, Biglaw firms can be a great resource, but they should not be used on all types of work. Sometimes, Biglaw firms can be a liability to clients since they can limit the options available to clients and create barriers between clients and the ones who perform their legal work.

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

The exact phrasing was reported a number of ways by contemporaneous newspaper accounts, but sources generally agree that about 150 years ago, on a hot August day in San Antonio, the distinguished and dust-caked General Philip Sheridan uttered, “If I owned Texas and all Hell, I would rent out Texas and live in Hell.”

It’s said that Sheridan acknowledged later that the remark was made in frustration at a time when he was “a tad warm” with his “eyes and ears and throat” filled with Texas dust. He explained that the colorful saying “did not represent [his] true opinion of this magnificent state.” As someone who’s spent time in San Antonio during the summer myself, I can certainly understand Sheridan’s impulse.

All that’s to say that I, too, hope true Texans don’t take what I’m about to say as disparagement of their fine state. Well-founded criticism ultimately comes from a place of admiration. You wouldn’t bother to try to improve a place’s circumstances if you didn’t care about it. And Texas undoubtedly has a lot going for it: wide open spaces, a fantastic music scene, and a pretty cool space center, among other things.

Lately though, Texas, what the hell? A number of the Texas government’s recent policy decisions seem calculated to turn the great state into the abode of Mephistopheles that Sheridan compared it to a century and a half ago.

The most-discussed aspect of Texas’ recent descent into damnation is its new abortion ban. This law prohibits abortions after the point at which a fetal heartbeat can be detected. It is facially unconstitutional under standing Supreme Court precedent and has been condemned as a violation of international law by the United Nations. Also, many women don’t even know they are pregnant before the six-week cutoff point, and there are no exceptions for rape or incest.

The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, said not to worry though, because Texas is going to “eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas” by aggressively prosecuting them. Ah, what? Rape has been codified as a crime (albeit problematically) since at least 1780 BC when Hammurabi’s Code was set in stone, and we haven’t managed to prosecute rape into oblivion yet.

It’s easy enough to understand that some folks who are not getting abortions themselves don’t like it when other people get abortions, even though it in no way affects the latter folks, but isn’t this law a tad extreme? It’s already costing Texas jobs and business investment. It’s not very libertarian either, if that is what Texas was going for.

Then there’s also the new Texas law that makes it legal for almost anyone to arm themselves in public without any kind of permit or training. This makes perfect sense along with the new abortion law since Texans apparently believe in the preciousness of all life unless it sets foot on their property. Even (especially?) gun people, of which I am one, don’t think it’s a good idea to slap a gun into someone’s hand without any training. Gun people love gun training. And, you know, the research is pretty clear that the justifications for these kinds of lax carry laws are bullshit, since crime rates actually rise after laws like this are passed.

Of course, the cherry on the cake is another ill-conceived law that will make it much harder for Texas to undo any of these recent bad policy decisions. Just for good measure, Texas now officially bans 24-hour voting, drive-thru voting, and people sending you a mail-in ballot application. So, if you want to vote out the politicians who forced your fellow Texans to carry unborn children to term against their will, well, better take a whole day off of work. You’re going to need it to face your untrained neighbors who are now armed to the teeth and officially empowered to harass voters as partisan poll watchers.

Texas has become a parody of itself with this rare trifecta of stunningly bad policy decisions. It’s scaring away business, it’s doing irreparable harm to Texas’ reputation, and it’s just going to make life worse for Texans.

Texas is, perhaps, still preferable to hell. Yet, it’s surely not growing into a more inviting place, especially if you’re a woman, someone who wants to vote, or a person who would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire when the pistols are unholstered. I hope Texas can do better.

---

Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author of Your Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Our client is a large, growing, and somewhat secretive family office seeking its first general counsel. In this position, the successful candidate will be handling several investments per week across the investment spectrum. While much of the work will be venture finance or private equity style investments, the successful candidate will be a versatile player able to jump in on all manner of transactions.

This position could be based in New York, San Francisco, or Miami, and will NOT be a remote-only position. While this will not be a sweatshop and you will not need to meet a billable hours requirement, it also is not a 9 to 5 job. The successful candidate will be richly rewarded over time, but he or she will need to be a dedicated problem solver who can handle tight deadlines, work effectively with a team, coach and develop other team members, and keep commitments. In terms of requirements, at least five years of experience at a top international law firm, venture capital firm, private equity firm, or family office is required.

Salary and bonus depend on experience, but expect a package that is similar to Cravath-scale mid- to senior associate levels initially, growing over time, and enhanced by significant co-investment opportunities. Apply here. 

Cleveland State University’s Cleveland-Marshall College of Law is dealing with a notice of noncompliance from the legal academia accrediting authority, the American Bar Association. The notice, dated August 31, reportedly dinged Cleveland-Marshall for the school’s financial condition.

Specifically, the law school was found to be out of compliance with Standards 202(a), (c), and (d). Those all deal with a law school’s finances:

Under 202(a), a law school’s financial resources must be sufficient to operate in compliance with the standards. Standards 202(c) and (d) state that a law school is not in compliance if its current or anticipated financial conditions are expected to have a “negative and material effect” on carrying out a legal education program.

Cleveland-Marshall’s dean, Lee Fisher, said, “We take this matter seriously, and we are working to directly address the issues.” The school plans to file a response by October 1, and said they’re confident the ABA will find Cleveland-Marshall in compliance when they meet in November.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

In light of the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, we talk about the nature of the mysterious shadow docket and how it’s been transformed over the last few years. The dismantling of Roe is in full swing, reigniting Court expansion talk, which we think is a bad move. Joe and Kathryn also check in on the annual law school scholarly impact ratings to see which law school rules the Ivory Tower.

* Even Britney Spears’s dad thinks it’s time for the conservatorship to be up. Womanizer no more? [Reuters]

* Texas snitch hotline bling’ed to a different platform because of meme lords. [The Guardian]

* Increasingly, Trumpers are the ones saying “L’etat c’est moi.” You either die a swamp drainer or live to become the bog. [CBS News]

* In today’s episode of good news elsewhere: Mexico’s Supreme Court rules criminalizing abortion is unconstitutional. I wonder if they invoked any penumbras‽ [CNN]

* Finally, here’s the content your inner child has been craving. Cheers to being the person Steve knows you could be. [EW.com]

---

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. Before that, he wrote columns for an online magazine named The Muse Collaborative under the pen name Knehmo. He endured the great state of Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com.

The call comes after the government announced the phased re-opening of schools for both examination and non-examination classes.

Learning institutions around the country had been closed as a precautionary measure due to the increasing number of Covid-19 cases around the country.

In a statement, ECOZI called on various stakeholders inclusive of the government, private sector, international community, religious entities, CSOs, NGOs, philanthropists, and individuals to commit to pooling resources to improve the education sector.

“While acknowledging these noble efforts to make education accessible to all, we note that the pandemic has adversely exposed and widened the gaps in our education sector and societies in general. Some learners fail to access quality education during lockdown because of lack of access to radios, internet connection, data and technological gadgets for online lessons.”

ECOZI emphasised the need for the government to avail enough PPE for learners, teachers and non-teaching staff in all learning institutions.

“The government must improve the welfare of teachers and upskilling to ensure quality learning and teaching in public schools. All food-handling personnel in schools, both boarding and day schools must be trained on Covid-19 safety protocols relating to food handling,” the statement read.

“There is a need to ensure the availability of sufficient running water in all public schools to protect learners and teachers from contracting Covid-19. Establish a COVID-19 education relief fund to subsidise the termly fees and levies to be paid by each parent during this difficult situation”

ECOZI said the 2021 examination timetable should be pushed to early 2022, so that the syllabus can be completed and learners prepare accordingly and that the examination registration period be extended to allow parents to raise the funds.

Post published in: Featured