Retrieves case information instantly across legal databases, matter management systems, and document repositories. Natural language queries with context-aware results. 70% reduction in research time.
"I timed our associates last month. Simple legal question: 'What's the standard for preliminary injunction in trademark cases in the 2nd Circuit?' Average time to answer: 47 minutes. That's not because they're slow—that's because they have to search Westlaw, cross-reference with Lexis, check our internal brief bank, look for prior memos, and synthesize everything. And here's the thing—we've answered that exact question at least 20 times in the past 5 years. We have a motion template. We have winning briefs. We have internal research. But nobody can find any of it when they need it. Our knowledge isn't organized; it's scattered across a dozen systems that don't talk to each other. We're paying associates $350/hour to do the same research we've already done."
— Managing Partner, 200-Attorney Litigation Firm
Deploy an AI that unifies all your legal information—external databases, internal documents, matter files, and institutional knowledge—into a single natural language interface that delivers answers in seconds.
One query searches everything: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER, your document management system, internal memos, brief banks, and matter files. No more tab-switching between a dozen systems.
Ask questions like you'd ask a colleague: "What's the 9th Circuit's view on software patents after Alice?" No Boolean operators. No complex search syntax. Just questions and answers.
Not just cases—complete context. Procedural history. Subsequent treatment. Key holdings. Related internal work. Everything you need to understand and use the result, delivered together.
Find relevant cases across all jurisdictions with natural language queries.
Navigate statutes, regulations, and agency guidance with plain language.
Surface institutional knowledge from matter files, memos, and prior work.
Find specific documents across all repositories and matter files.
Find who in the firm has relevant experience for staffing and pitches.
Understand how cases relate, cite, and distinguish each other.
Partner needs quick answer during client call: "What's the standard for preliminary injunction in trademark cases?" Agent searches all sources and delivers synthesized answer instantly.
"In the Second Circuit, preliminary injunction in trademark cases requires: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm absent injunction, (3) balance of hardships favoring movant, and (4) public interest not disserved. Key case: Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010), which modified prior presumption of irreparable harm post-eBay. Recent application: Tiffany v. Costco, 971 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2020), affirming need for actual confusion evidence. Internal note: We successfully obtained PI in the Williams matter (2022) using consumer survey evidence—brief available in matter file. Would you like the full case summaries or the Williams brief?"
New matter requires research on force majeure in supply contracts. Agent discovers firm already has comprehensive memo, motion practice, and favorable ruling from similar case 2 years ago.
"Force majeure research: Found significant internal resources. Matter: GlobalSupply v. TechManufacturing (2022). Partner: Sarah Chen. Associates: Michael Roberts, Jennifer Liu. Key documents found: (1) Research memo on force majeure interpretation under UCC and common law (47 pages, comprehensive 50-state survey). (2) Motion for summary judgment on force majeure defense (granted). (3) Opposition to plaintiff's motion to strike force majeure clause. (4) Expert report on supply chain disruption. (5) Settlement agreement with force majeure carve-out language. Outcome: Favorable summary judgment, settlement at 20% of claimed damages. External research: Also found 12 new cases since 2022 memo addressing COVID-related force majeure claims. Recommendation: Start with Chen memo, supplement with recent case law. Estimated time savings: 40+ hours of associate research. Would you like me to compile the internal documents and new cases into a research package?"
Associate needs to draft motion to compel discovery. Agent finds relevant rules, key cases, prior firm motions, and opposing counsel's typical arguments—all in one search.
"Motion to compel research package compiled. Applicable rules: FRCP 37(a), Local Rule 37.1 (SDNY—requires meet and confer certification). Key cases for proportionality argument: (1) Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt., 2016 WL 616386 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)—leading proportionality case post-2015 amendments. (2) Optiver v. Amazon, 2022 WL 17345623—recent SDNY application of cost-shifting. (3) In re Bard IVC Filters, 317 F.R.D. 562—limits on ESI discovery scope. Internal resources: Found 7 prior motions to compel filed by our firm in SDNY since 2020. Most successful: Johnson v. MegaCorp (2021)—granted in full, includes proportionality analysis. Opposing counsel research: Patterson & Associates (opposing counsel) has filed 3 discovery motions in similar matters. Their typical arguments: (1) burden/proportionality, (2) privilege log adequacy, (3) search term disputes. We prevailed against them on similar motion in the TechData matter. Would you like me to generate a draft outline based on the Johnson motion structure?"
Litigation team needs to find all cases where opposing expert (Dr. Williams) has testified and been challenged. Agent searches across all databases and internal files.
"Expert witness analysis: Dr. Robert Williams, PhD (Economics). Testimony identified in 23 matters across federal and state courts (2015-present). Daubert/expert challenges: Found 7 challenges to Dr. Williams' testimony. Excluded: 2 cases—(1) Smith v. PharmaCo (N.D. Cal. 2019)—methodology deemed unreliable, regression analysis flawed; (2) Jones v. TechCorp (D. Del. 2021)—opinions outside scope of expertise. Admitted with limitations: 3 cases—courts limited testimony on specific topics. Fully admitted: 2 cases. Key vulnerabilities identified: Opposing counsel in Smith v. PharmaCo (brief available in Westlaw) successfully argued his damages model failed to account for confounding variables. Internal intelligence: Our firm deposed Dr. Williams in the Anderson matter (2020). Deposition transcript available. Partner notes indicate he was 'unprepared on statistical methodology' and 'defensive when challenged on assumptions.' Would you like the full case summaries, the Smith v. PharmaCo brief, or our deposition transcript?"
Ask questions in plain English. No Boolean operators or complex syntax required.
One search across Westlaw, Lexis, PACER, DMS, and internal files simultaneously.
Results prioritized by relevance to your specific question and practice context.
Key holdings, procedural history, and subsequent treatment at a glance.
See how cases cite, follow, distinguish, and overrule each other.
Surface prior memos, briefs, and work product from your own files.
Find who in your firm has relevant experience for any matter or issue.
Index stays current as new cases, filings, and documents are added.
Respects matter-level permissions and ethical walls automatically.
Reports to: Knowledge Management / IT
Availability: 24/7
Scope: All legal information
Complete specification including source configurations, access rules, and search optimization.
Download .docxConfigure source connections, customize relevance weighting, and define practice-specific search profiles.
Pay once. Own the asset. Full source code. Deploy, modify, extend.
All queries, results, and usage patterns never leave your infrastructure.
New source connectors, search improvements, and model updates.
Configure sources, tune relevance, and define practice-specific profiles.
Deploy the Case Lookup Agent on your infrastructure. One search. Every source. Instant answers.
Book a Demo