Artificial Intelligence in Litigation: Streamlining deposition summarization and analysis
Nicole Black.
Generative artificial intelligence tools for legal professionals have been a large part of my focus in this column. Since 2017, I’ve written about all different types of software and have been covering AI tools. After the general release of ChatGPT in November 2022, one of my top priorities has been to include generative AI products designed for legal professionals.
Some of those articles have included coverage of AI tools for litigation practices, including AI software for creating pleadings and managing discovery, legal research and brief writing and analysis. There’s no shortage of AI-powered software that promises to streamline litigation, reduce tedium and increase overall productivity.
I haven’t yet discussed one essential litigation task where AI functionality can save significant time, and as we near the final quarter of the year, several programs and products are or will be available to help with what has long been one of the most labor-intensive tasks for trial attorneys out there: deposition summarization and analysis.
The benefits of AI-powered deposition review software
Using AI-driven algorithms, this technology reduces the time required to review deposition transcripts and extract essential insights. Automating these processes streamlines transcript review, enabling attorneys to focus on more strategic trial preparation tasks.
Some tools in this category can even identify key themes, witness inconsistencies and critical facts, offering deeper insights into the testimony without the need for manual review. In addition to speeding up the process, AI deposition tools can flag important sections, allowing lawyers to dive deeper into relevant issues and improve the overall accuracy of their litigation strategy.
These tools save time by enhancing the speed and precision of deposition analysis, enabling litigation teams to focus more on case preparation and ultimately deliver better outcomes. But to achieve that goal, you must first choose the right software for your law firm.
Key factors in selecting AI for deposition review
When investing in new software, the first step is to determine your goals and identify workflow challenges that have to be solved. Conduct a tech audit beforehand, and identify gaps in your firm’s IT stack. Make sure to obtain feedback from everyone who will be using the software to ensure that you fully understand their needs and preferences.
The next step before researching AI deposition summary and analysis tools is to examine the tools that your firm is already using and ascertain whether the companies have indicated that they plan to incorporate deposition review features into their software in the near future, either through partnerships with other software companies or the addition of these features into their software. After all, why waste time and resources researching and investing in new software if a trusted vendor will soon solve the problem for you?
If you decide that moving forward with new software is the most viable option, you must carefully research your options and choose a tool that meets your firm’s unique needs. The solutions listed below are a great place to start. Once you’ve narrowed it down to one or two tools that are of interest, utilize demos, free trials and any other opportunities to test-drive the software.
But before you do that, there are a few caveats to keep in mind. First, because AI tools are typically cloud-based, you will be entrusting your firm’s confidential client data to a third party. Your ethical obligations require that you thoroughly vet the tech provider hosting and storing your firm’s data. You must identify how your firm’s data will be handled; where the servers on which the data will be stored are located; who will have access to it; and how often and when it will be backed up, among other things.
Additionally, as with all AI software, you’ll want to explore accuracy rates; determine how the company protects your data; and whether your team’s data inputs are used to train AI models to improve responses, among other issues.
Now, let’s explore AI-powered deposition review software. Only publicly released options are included below; the list is not all-inclusive. If available, pricing will be provided.
AI products for deposition review and analysis
First, let’s focus on single-purpose AI tools with document workflows that include deposition summarization and analysis features.
We’ll start with LegalMation, which provides a suite of products that automate litigation tasks. Its Deposition Assistant solution enables the summarization and comparison of multiple deposition transcripts, along with the ability to query against uploaded documents to locate key facts, contradictions and more. Pricing is not available on the website.
Next, Lexlink AI utilizes AI algorithms to streamline the review of documents by automatically identifying, categorizing and extracting information from uploaded legal documents, including deposition transcripts. It assists in identifying and analyzing deposition summaries, timelines and inconsistencies in testimony. Pricing is not available on the website.
Another option is Depo IQ, which analyzes individual or multiple deposition videos and transcripts for sentiment, contradictions and inconsistencies. Summaries can be created, and the ability to query a document is also available. Pricing is not available on the website.
Automatise’s Cicero touts the security of its private platform designed for legal professionals, which can be used with many types of documents, including deposition transcripts. It automates document summarization, chronology preparation and investigative research. Pricing is not available on the website.
Clearbrief is tool that operates as a Word add-on and, among other features, can summarize and analyze documents, including depositions. Timelines can also be created, and multiple deposition transcripts can be compared. Pricing starts at $142 per user per month if paid annually.
CaseMark provides AI capabilities that support several different types of documents, including depositions, with a particular focus on summarization. The product offers multiple summary output formats and includes the ability to query the transcript to locate specific testimony or facts. Pricing starts at $25 per summary.
Finally, the major legal research companies also offer AI tools that provide deposition review functionality, along with many other legal workflow tools. These include vLex’s Vincent AI, Lexis+ AI and CoCounsel, a Thomson Reuters company.
If your firm is already using these platforms for legal research or is in the market for a legal research tool and AI-powered deposition review software, one of these platforms could be a good fit.
Wrapping up
As AI continues to reshape litigation workflows, selecting the right AI deposition review software can enhance your firm’s efficiency. By thoroughly vetting potential tools, ensuring compliance with ethical obligations, and leveraging free trials or demos, you can make an informed decision that fits your specific needs.
With the right AI-powered deposition tool, your firm will save time, improve accuracy and ultimately provide better legal services. Now, it’s time to explore your options to see how these advancements can benefit your practice.
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].
This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.
