Executive Summary

  • This study explores the effect that using artificial intelligence (A.I.)-powered legal research platforms has on the efficiency and quality of research results.

  • The study compared attorneys using a traditional legal research platform, LexisNexis®, and Casetext CARA A.I. to complete actual legal research exercises.

  • The study was conducted by 20 lawyers from the National Legal Research Group, the country’s premier provider of legal research and writing services for law firms and attorneys. The attorney participants from the National Legal Research Group focus almost exclusively on legal research. These attorneys had an average of 25 years in practice.

  • Attorneys using Casetext CARA A.I. search finished research projects on average 24.5% faster than attorneys using 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 using Casetext CARA A.I. to search also found that their results were on average 21% more relevant than those found doing traditional legal research. Indeed, results found on Casetext were on average better in every dimension of relevance judged in the study, including legal relevance, factual relevance, similar parties, jurisdiction, and procedural posture.

  • Nearly half (45%) of the 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.

  • Three quarters (75%) of the attorneys preferred their research experience on Casetext over LexisNexis®, even though it was only their first experience researching with Casetext.

  • Every attorney in the study (100%) believed that, if they were to use another research system as their primary research tool, having access to Casetext as well would be helpful.

Download Study

Receive a copy of the study

The real impact of using artificial intelligence in legal research

©2018 Casetext

A study conducted by the attorneys of the National Legal Research Group

Fix the following errors: