Clearbrief, Product that Strengthens Legal Writing, Raises $3.5M Seed Round

I wrote last March about Clearbrief, a first-of-its-kind product designed to strengthen your legal writing, and that was backed by some big-name early investors, including Mark Britton, the founder and former CEO of Avvo; Bryan Garner, legal writing expert and editor of Black’s Law Dictionary; and Bill Neukom, longtime Microsoft general counsel.

Now, Clearbrief has brought in an additional round of seed investors, with more notable names among them, bringing its total capital raised to date to $3.5 million.

This latest round was led by Reign Ventures, the Black-women led VC firm, with Court Lorenzini, DocuSign’s founding CEO, as a major investor.

Also participating were Jack Newton, CEO of legal tech company Clio; Amy Weaver, Salesforce’s president, CFO and former chief legal officer; Hadi Partovi, founder of Code.org and an early investor in Facebook and Airbnb; and Lata Setty, legal tech founder and founding LP at How Women Invest.

As I previously wrote about Clearbrief, it does something unlike any other legal technology product I have seen.

Its algorithm analyzes briefs and other legal documents to identify how well the writer’s sentence is supported by the cited source. It works with citations both to the record of the case, such as evidence and discovery materials, and to caselaw.

It works as an add-in within Microsoft Word, identifying each citation within your brief, aligning it with the cited document or case, and using color codes to flag the degree to which the cited material supports the statement that cites it.

Founder Jacqueline Schafer

Jacqueline Schafer, a former litigator who is Clearbrief’s founder and CEO, said this investment will be used to “supercharge” the company’s growth among law firms and court systems by expanding both engineering and sales and marketing. 

Lawyers can use the product both to review the strength of the lawyer’s own brief and to evaluate a brief received from an opponent.

“It’s a magical experience for lawyers to be able to instantly identify where their opponent is stretching the truth as compared to what the police report, transcript, or statute actually says,” Schafer said.

Clearbrief also creates hyperlinks to the source document for each citation, including both record and case citations, and publishes the final brief online, where the judge and other parties can view the brief (via a secure link) directly alongside the cited documents and cases.

Clearbrief recently posted several examples of this, in which Supreme Court opinions have had hyperlinks added to show the source documents alongside the opinion. You can see these examples here.

DONDA: Litigator’s Lituation Edition

DONDA. Biggest album drop of the year. You know its chock full of quotables you can use for your legal finsta pics. Unfortunately, you are behind schedule and don’t have the time to cull 27 tracks.

I got you.

Here are a couple captions that should signal to your career peers that you’ve heard the new hotness. Don’t worry — I’ll keep who you got these from confidential.

  • Professors to 1Ls just getting in the groove of things: “Hold up, no peace” — Heaven and Hell
  • Biglaw associates in California: “I’m in a Rolls Royce smoking whachacallit” — Off The Grid
  • Prosecutors forgetting to give Brady evidence to counsel: “I was forgetting you, now I remember” — Off the Grid
  • Politicians and attorneys getting dragged by Legal TMZ: “I’m subject to memes” — Praise God
  • When you beat opposing counsel with an overruled case: “Why can’t losers ever lose in peace?” — Junya
  • The accused once they realize their attorneys can’t give them money: “God gon post my bail tonight” — Jail
  • When your work buddy laterals after we post salary raises: “I watch so many people leave I see em change by the season” — Jesus Lord

Those should keep you posted for now. I’ll be Off The Grid till Drake drops CLB.


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.

In Favor Of Argumentative Questions Presented

Many court rules, both trial and appellate, require parties to set out the “questions presented” in a brief.

And most lawyer flub this opportunity.

Even relatively well-respected lawyers will present a question that begins with the word “whether,” wanders on for seven or eight single-spaced lines, and ends with a period.

The judge looks at the question presented, reads it, and immediately thinks, “Should I read that run-on sentence again, to try to understand it, or should I not care what it said and just continue reading the brief?”

We’ll give those types of questions an “F” for advocacy.

Similarly, some relatively well-respected lawyers write utterly generic questions presented: “Should defendant’s motion to dismiss counts one through three of the complaint be granted?”

The judge looks at the question presented, reads it, and immediately thinks, “Maybe yes; maybe no. We’ll see.”

The advocate has at least successfully communicated with the reader. We’ll grade those questions a “D” for advocacy.

Good questions presented do not cause judges to scratch their heads about what’s being communicated and do not leave judges in doubt about the appropriate outcome. Instead, good questions leave the judge saying to herself: “This party is absolutely right! It’s clear that I should grant this motion.”

We’ll grade those questions “A” for advocacy.

Let me give three examples, all based generally on real life but fictionalized to protect both the innocent and the privilege.

Here’s a good question presented:

Darnay was injured in a car crash on May 1, 2019. The applicable two-year statute of limitations thus expired on April 30, 2021. But Darnay did not file his complaint until August 15, 2021. Is this action time-barred?

The reader can have only one reaction to that question: “Hell yes!”

That’s advocacy.

Here’s a question presented in a draft brief by a lawyer who doesn’t care about repeat business:

Where defendant/insurance broker proffers uncontested evidence demonstrating a break in the causal chain between its alleged wrongful conduct in connection with the procurement of an insurance policy for plaintiffs and the loss asserted by plaintiffs due to the denial of a claim for coverage under the procured policy, should summary judgment have been granted dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against defendant/insurance broker for lack of proximate cause, a required element of the claims asserted against defendant/insurance broker?

Here’s the revised question presented after in-house counsel edited the brief:

An insurance broker presented uncontested evidence showing that the insurer denied coverage of the policyholder’s claim for several reasons, including a reason unrelated to any alleged error in placing the policy. Does this lack of proximate cause require granting summary judgment dismissing the policyholder’s claims against the broker?

Finally, here’s an utterly generic question presented, which convinces nobody:

Should this court grant defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action?

Here’s the same question, but no longer generic:

Jarndyce is a participant in a fully funded defined-benefit retirement plan.  Jarndyce will thus receive precisely the same retirement benefits no matter how the plan’s investment options perform. Should this court grant BigCo’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Jarndyce lacks standing to challenge the performance of the retirement plan?

See? Adding a little detail makes a world of difference.

Every word you write in a brief is an opportunity to persuade. Don’t overlook those opportunities, even if they’re hidden in the required format of the brief.


Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Need A Vaccine For That Oral Argument? Well, It Depends.

So, do you have an oral argument coming up in a federal appellate case? Do you what the COVID protocol is for that argument? Because it varies wildly from circuit to circuit.

Sure, sure — they’re all part of the same system, but don’t expect any consistent rules. Each circuit has developed its own rules for how to deal with the emerging threat of the Delta variant. Yes, there is a recently announced system for emergencies, “not limited to pandemics,” for any “extraordinary circumstances relating to public health or safety, or affecting physical or electronic access to a court, [that] substantially impair the court’s ability to perform its functions,” but that doesn’t mean we are getting consistency right now.

So, what is going on in each circuit? Law360 has helpfully gathered the information (save for the 3rd Circuit, which did not respond to a request for comment). Here are the relevant details:

1st — No in-person oral arguments through at least November.
2nd — Vaccination or negative test within preceding 72 hours. In person in August.
3rd — No information provided.
4th — No in-person oral arguments until at least Oct. 26.
5th — Masks required; in person Aug. 30. Individual panels can grant remote hearing.
6th — No in-person oral arguments until at least Oct. 18.
7th — Vaccination required. In person starting Oct. 4.
8th — No in-person oral arguments through at least September.
9th — No in-person oral arguments through at least October.
10th — Vaccination required. In person starting Sept. 20.
11th — Vaccination or negative test within preceding 72 hours. In-person date unclear.
Federal — Vaccination or negative test within preceding 48 hours. In person Aug. 30.
D.C. — No in-person oral arguments through at least October.

But remember the situation is dynamic, and policies are always subject to change. Dr. Amira Roess, an epidemiologist at George Mason University, notes that with the recent full FDA approval the Pfizer vaccine has received, we can expect more mandates coming our way: “[M]any institutions have gone ahead and implemented vaccine mandates, and it just makes sense given that we’re dealing with the delta variant. We need to do what we can to dramatically decrease cases so that we can keep our hospitals functioning.”

It’s hard to say if an appellate argument is going to change anyone’s current vaccine plans, but for those jurisdictions requiring it, it sends an important message about the health and safety of the court system and everyone who works in it.


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).

Peloton subpoenaed over reporting of treadmill injuries – MedCity News

Peloton recalled its Tread+ treadmill earlier this year after several reports of injuries. Photo credit: Peloton

After dozens of reported injuries led Peloton to recall its line of treadmills, it still isn’t out of the woods. Multiple federal agencies are investigating the company, Peloton disclosed in a Friday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security subpoenaed the exercise equipment maker for information on how it reported injuries related to its products. The SEC is also launching its own investigation of public disclosures related to Peloton’s Tread+ machines, its pricey, connected treadmills that cost more than $4,000 each.

Peloton declined to comment, with a company spokesperson saying it could not comment on active litigation.

In May, Peloton recalled both its Tread and Tread+ machines, nearly a month after the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) urged the company to pull its treadmills after multiple reported injuries and one death.

Most of the complaints were related to Peloton’s Tread+ machine, with concerns about children and pets being pulled under the back of the treadmill, which is elevated off of the ground.

In March, Peloton CEO John Foley disclosed that a six-year-old had died in an accident related to the treadmill. That prompted CPSC to launch an investigation, finding more than 70 reports related to the Tread+, including 29 reports of injured children.

Separately, the company also recalled its less expensive Tread line due to concerns that its screen became detached when people were running. CPSC noted six incidents where the screen had fallen off of the treadmill, but no reported injuries in the U.S.

Peloton plans to start selling its Tread machine again next week after making some safety improvements, but did not share a date for when it will relaunch its Tread+.

The fitness equipment company saw its sales surge after the start of the pandemic, but recently saw its stock price tumble after slashing the price of its stationary bikes and lowering its sales forecast to $800 million.

Morning Docket: 08.30.21

(Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty)

* Ye dropped DONDA. Bump it as you grind your billables. [Pitchfork]

* Been thinking about a lateral but don’t know how to break up with your firm? Then you’ll see a familiar story and an amazing copypasta here. [Reddit]

* Despite what they said publicly, these cops are protecting big business and Line 3. Who’d have thought? [The Intercept]

* Two men were arrested for… returning a TV they had the receipt for? [NBCNews]

* Fire and bullets are one thing, but vaccines? Some cops and firefighters would rather quit. [Reuters]


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.

Twitter Fail — See Also

Recommended

Twitter Fail — See Also

This Is Some Nonsense: Twitter won’t verify Justice Alan Page. Follow The Money: Until the cows come home? That’s mixing references I guess, but there are questions about fees in the Devin Nunes case. Fair? Who Said Anything About Fair?: Folks don’t see law firm work expectations as all that reasonable. Automation Revolution: And if firms want to fix those unreasonable work expectations, they can consider some automation.

Holy Crap! Biglaw Sure Is Hiring A Bunch Of Associates

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected by Decipher, by what percentage is Biglaw associate hiring up this year, over the previous three-year average?

Hint: The hiring spree is reportedly making firms loosen their traditional standards. “Firms are all the sudden open to those associates if they have any of the requisite experience,” said Summer Eberhard, managing director at legal recruiter Major Lindsey & Africa. “Their open-mindedness is looking beyond law school grades to, ‘Are you somebody that can come in and get ramped up?’”

See the answer on the next page.

Do You Miss Your Stacks Of Paper?


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

Chorus Grows To Declassify Space Threat Info From Services, Congress – Breaking Defense

Long March 5-B launch, May 5, 2020. (People’s Republic of China State Information Council)

COLORADO SPRINGS: The House Armed Services Committee’s draft policy bill calls for the head of the Space Force to review all classification of space systems “to determine if any programs should be reclassified or declassified.”

The chairman’s mark of the fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), obtained by Breaking Defense, is the latest in a growing chorus arguing that the classification of the vast majority of information regarding national security space impedes cooperation with allies and partners, and limits the public’s understanding of the threat environment.

It comes on the heels of an exclusive Breaking Defense report that senior military leaders are considering declassifying an existing, currently-classified space weapon. The long-running effort to bring the system in from the cold, which would require White House approval, reportedly has been led Gen. John Hyten, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. That said, for months now, DoD Space Force and Space Command leaders have been speaking out on the issue.

One of the strongest arguments yet in favor of declassification was made here at the Space Symposium by a panel on Navy space. Rear Adm. Eric Ruttenberg, vice chief engineer for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command,  noted that the other admirals on his panel use data from space systems that often is classified as TS/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI),  “Yet the fleet and our Marine forces typically operate at the secret level or on SIPRNet. How do we close that security level gap and provide that capability to the warfighter?,” he asked rhetorically.

Rear Adm. Bernacchi, Space Command

“You know in space, everything’s classified,” Rear Adm. Michael Bernacchi, director of strategy, plans and policy for Space Command, responded. “So, on a submarine, everybody knows we have torpedoes. Okay, that’s not a secret. Obviously we have some highly classified systems on a submarine. But the enemy understands that we have advanced torpedos that will kill them. In space, I can’t say anything.”

“We have to get to a happy medium,” he said.

Space Command, Bernacchi added, is “working on some actual mechanisms to get through the declassification or lower classification of some very specific systems right now, because you cannot go TS/SCI on every ship fire control system when you’re going to do something. It’s just not practical.”

His call is particularly notable because it comes from a bubblehead, as submariners are known, a group in the military who rarely call for anything to be declassified.

The HASC chairman’s mark says the review by Chief of Space Operations Gen. Jay Raymond “would need to be conducted in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of  Defense for Space Policy, and any other heads of elements of the Department of  Defense as appropriate.”