Casetext Launches New Brief-Writing Automation Platform Compose
Casetext has shifted from legal brief analyzer to legal brief drafter. Casetext's CEO said it was time to automate some of the "drudgery" consuming legal brief writing.
February 25, 2020 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
Today, Casetext has announced the release of its automated legal brief-writing software Compose. The legal tech company most known for legal research is expanding beyond purely analyzing case law that relates to a brief or filing, and is now taking a more hands-on approach to motion writing.
Compose uses Casetext's legal research and machine-learning abilities to streamline the brief-writing process. After lawyers write their arguments, they can highlight a sentence and search for supporting cases and standards. Compose lists any supportive case filings, including the specific quote that supports their argument and access to read the full document. Once the lawyer decides to add the suggested case citation, the supporting case's citation appears in the brief beside the lawyer's argument.
To begin a brief in Compose, all users must answer whether they are the movant or nonmovant party, the jurisdiction the brief is being filed in and the motion sides, according to a demo shown to Legaltech News during Legalweek earlier this month.
"Compose does list all arguments available to your side," said Casetext CEO Jake Heller. "The list is tailored to whether you support or oppose the motion, as well as to the jurisdiction you are in."
Currently, Compose allows a user to file a motion to quash a subpoena, exclude expert testimony, file a motion for protective order or compel discovery or disclosure.
Heller stressed Compose's automation isn't taking the lawyer out of brief writing. Rather, "it helps you put together your best possible brief by taking away some of the drudgery involved," he said.
That "drudgery" includes lawyers sifting through their firm's document management system for an example brief or motion, turning to treatises or practice guide books or leveraging various legal research platforms, he said.
Casetext is venturing into new, but not entirely unfamiliar territory with Compose. Casetext launched brief analyzer Case Analysis Research Assistant (CARA) in 2016 to allow users to drag and drop their legal briefs—and not just keywords—to search for missing arguments or case law.
In 2018, CARA was revamped to help users "contextualize the search experience to the facts, legal issues, jurisdictions and motion issues," Heller said at the time. By 2019, Casetext announced its first practice-specific tool with CARA Patent, which allows users to search patent-related documents against Casetext's database of court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board filings with a similar drag-and-drop function.
CARA's release was followed by Bloomberg Law and Thomson Reuters announcing automated brief analyzer releases in 2019.
Heller said Casetext decided to expand from legal research because the company saw how much time litigators spent researching and drafting briefs under looming deadlines. Automating some of the legal brief writing workflow allows lawyers to focus on the essential aspects of the brief and have the biggest impact, he said.
"Some people hear automation and their initial reaction is, 'Oh, that's impossible or will that take away from my voice.' But once they engage with the product, the automation isn't something that takes away but supplements what they can do and empowers them to be the best lawyer they can be."
Compose's automation also fuels cost predictability that can enable law firms to provide services at a flat fee, Heller added.
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
- 1Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 2US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 3‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 43 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
- 5Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Combined Class of Partners and Counsel in Firm History
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