Should You Still Be Using the Legal Research Technology You Learned About in Law School?
Many attorneys are still using the same legal research technology they first learned to use in law school. A recent study proves that this could mean attorneys are missing opportunities to dramatically improve the speed and quality of legal research with the help of new technology.
In particular, one technology that is relatively new to legal research, artificial intelligence, gets a lot of attention. But until now, there was not a clear answer as to whether artificial intelligence was just the flashy new tech, or if it could actually make a real difference in attorneys’ practice.
The attorneys of the National Legal Research Group put Casetext’s A.I. technology, CARA, to the test. Twenty attorneys, with an average of 25.3 years in the legal profession, were asked to perform research exercises on two platforms: Casetext CARA A.I. and LexisNexis. The attorneys were provided with litigation materials from a real litigation, which they used to familiarize themselves with the litigation, and were then given a research task related to that litigation.
To help them prepare for the study, attorneys were given a 20-minute explanation which included a brief training on Casetext CARA A.I. (which they were seeing for the first time). Given their average 25 years of experience, familiarity with LexisNexis was assumed.
As they worked on their research, attorneys were asked to keep track of how long it took to complete the task, record how relevant they believed each result they found to be, and download their search histories. At the end of their research, they were asked survey questions about their experiences researching on each platform.
After examining the results of the research assignment along with the participants’ survey responses, here’s what we uncovered:
- Attorneys finished research projects on average 24.5% faster with Casetext CARA A.I. than through traditional legal research. For the average attorney, switching to Casetext and using CARA A.I. would save them 132-210 hours of legal research per year.
- Attorneys found that their results were on average 21% more relevant with Casetext CARA A.I. than those found doing traditional legal research.
- 45% of attorneys believed they would have missed important or critical precedents if they had only done traditional legal research instead of also using Casetext CARA A.I. to find cases.
- 75% of the attorneys preferred their research experience on Casetext, even though it was their first experience using Casetext’s A.I. technology.
- 100% of the attorneys believed that, if they were to use another research system as their primary research tool, having access to CARA A.I. as well would be helpful.
The results of this study suggest that attorneys might be leaving a lot on the table by sticking with the technology they’re used to. Embracing artificial intelligence could ultimately give them back an extra 210 hours per year and make it even easier to find the authorities they need to provide the best possible representation for their clients.
Click here to read the full study. To try researching with CARA A.I. for yourself, you can take advantage of Casetext’s 14-day free trial here.
This content is advertising.
