Gavelytics Partners with CourtCall, Expanding Judicial Analytics to New States, Markets
Remote court appearance provider CourtCall will offer a 'simplified version' of Gavelytics judicial analysis as it expands to Florida, Texas and California.
October 18, 2018 at 09:00 AM
4 minute read
The rise of litigation analytics is extending to law firms of all sizes. An expansion to smaller firms is behind state and local judicial analytics provider Gavelytics teaming up with remote court appearance provider CourtCall to offer the latter's customers a “simplified version” of its platform ahead of court appearances. The move represents an expansion of litigation analytics to smaller law firms.
Through the partnership, CourtCall customers that rely on the service for remote appearances will be given the option to also purchase analytics exploring the rulings, preferences, biographical information and other facts about the judge they will be appearing in front of. This offering does not require subscribing to Gavelytics' larger enterprise service, and is expected to cost a couple hundred dollars per use.
The partnership coincides with a national expansion for Gavelytics, which to this point has been focused on California courts. The service will be provided to most California and some Florida customers starting in December 2018, with the expectation of rolling out to Illinois and Texas customers by the middle of next year.
For Rick Merrill, CEO and founder of Gavelytics, pairing with a remote court appearance provider was a natural fit. He told Legaltech News, “You can imagine how much sense it would make that if you're going to call into a hearing with Judge Zach, wouldn't it be cool to be offered information on Judge Zach at the same time?”
He said that unlike the current version of Gavelytics, which is primarily sold on a firm-wide basis, the CourtCall version will be “a simplified version of our product.” This means that the purchase will be limited to one judge's analytics, and feature most, though not all, of Gavelytics' features. Merrill added, “You can think of it as the difference between the Basic tier and the Pro or Enterprise tier, like a lot of software products.”
Of course, it also doesn't hurt for Gavelytics, founded in 2015, to break into new markets with a preexisting provider that many law firms of all sizes use on a daily basis. “That's going to put us in front of literally thousands of lawyers per day in those states. This is a really high-volume deal,” Merrill said.
From the CourtCall perspective, offering Gavelytics is a value-add for customers to use the service. “We are excited about the opportunity that this partnership affords us to help our users gain new perspective on trial court judges and utilize technology to develop customized litigation strategies,” said Bob Alvarado, CEO of CourtCall, in a press release announcing the partnership. “Through our national reach, the Gavelytics platform will give litigators, in California and beyond, statistical insights on significant judicial trends and behavior. This is a huge added value for anyone using CourtCall's one-of-a-kind technology.”
And with these sorts of partnerships, judicial analytics continues to grow. There has certainly been a renewed interest for it in the space—both Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis highlighted its federal court analytics capabilities in major product releases over the summer. For his part, Merrill said Gavelytics' expansion to other state courts outside of California and the partnership with CourtCall is an important next step.
He explained, “This is the sort of thing that just about every lawyer should be able to get.” And while Gavelytics may eventually see some of these solo report buyers become enterprise customers, in the end, he said, “we wouldn't be at all bothered if some of the smaller firms out there buy just the reports through CourtCall.”
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
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