Lex Machina Releases App to Track COVID-19's Litigation Impact
The COVID-19 Impact Analyzer provides data regarding the total case filings, including new filings by practice area, and total complaints that mention COVID-19 or related terms.
June 16, 2020 at 10:01 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
From Feb. 24 to March 1, only three federal court complaints mentioned COVID-19. But by the week of May 24 through May 31, as more states relaxed their lockdown requirements, that number jumped to 148. Sound interesting? One company is betting it's more than than just a number.
Today, Lex Machina's Legal Analytics platform launched its web browser-based COVID-19 Impact Analyzer App, a weekly updated program that highlights coronavirus-related filings and outcomes in U.S. federal courts.
To be sure, Legal Analytics is no stranger to in-depth analytics regarding federal court rulings and decisions. It's even beginning to extend its analytics to state courts. But the COVID app is unique in specifically examining the coronavirus' impact on the federal courts beginning the week of Feb. 24.
Lex Machina director of product management Carla Rydholm said the app was developed because they were fielding many questions regarding COVID-19, including if court proceedings were slowing down and what type of cases were being filed.
What It Is: Each Monday, the app is set to release a week's worth of data concerning federal court filings and findings, Rydholm explained.
Users click a week, such as May 18-24, and a chart is shown that includes total case filings in federal courts, except prisoner rights and Social Security matters, according to a demo shown to Legaltech News. Total case filings are also compared with previous years. Likewise, users can also contrast the amount of filings in a specific practice area to filings made in previous years.
For further insights, COVID app users can view how many trials, judgment rulings were made during any week post-shutdown, and view new complaints that mention COVID-19. All of the described elements are available to the public and current Legal Analytics customers for free, Rydholm said.
However, access to the "underlying cases," such as the court documents, aren't available in the public version. Instead, paid access to Lex Machina, which is owned by LexisNexis, is required to access court documents.
Lex Machina decided to release a publicly available version to allow anyone interested to review how the pandemic is impacting federal courts, Rydholm explained.
Rydholm noted the app can be helpful to any practitioner that wants to keep up with what's happening, with real data. She added that it's also a valuable tool for lawyers counseling their clients about trends in the court system.
Competition: The COVID-19 app joins a growing pool of court research tools, including Casetext, ROSS and even other LexisNexis products such as judge-analytics platform Context and Lexis Analytics.
However, while lawyers can check court analytics sites daily or schedule alert notifications regarding filings, Rydholm views the COVID-19 app as unique in that it's a weekly update and provides a snapshot of COVID-19 activities. "The idea with the app is it's easy, it's efficient and you can check in with those snapshots," she said.
A Long Shelf Life: To be sure, some legal tech observers have questioned the viability of some coronavirus-centric legal tech. But Lex Machina foresees a lengthy need for analytics concerning COVID-19-related litigation as it winds through the U.S. judicial system.
"We're expecting the app to evolve. Some of the litigation being filed now that have a keyword matching COVID-19 will play out in the courts for a while," Rydholm said.
While it may take some time for certain practice areas to be impacted by coronavirus shutdowns, lawyers' and the public's interest won't dissipate anytime soon, Rydholm added.
"Major issues occur like a hurricane or a big oil spill, but we've never seen something major happen at the scale of COVID-19," she explained. "There's interest to see how that affects societies and plays out in the courts."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUvalde Shooting 'Fresh in Everyone's Mind:' Lone Dissenting Judge Disagrees with School's Disciplinary Decision Over Pellet Gun
Paul Weiss, Trailblazer for US Firms in China, to Close Beijing Office
3 minute readNew University of Chicago Law Course Digs Deeper Into Using Gen AI Responsibly
Trending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250