Can a Small Startup Take on the Legal Research Goliaths?
A recent study comparing legal research platforms found that attorneys using Casetext’s artificial intelligence (A.I.) enhanced research, CARA A.I., finished their research 24.5% faster, required 4.4 times fewer searches to accomplish the same research task, and rated the cases they found 20.8% more relevant than those found on a legacy research tool.
For us, the study validated empirically what we’ve been hearing anecdotally since introducing CARA A.I. two years ago: researchers using artificial intelligence on Casetext have a serious edge over those using older approaches.
But the study raises a bigger question. For decades, two giant companies have dominated legal research. With results this stark, is it possible for us, a newer, smaller company taking a new approach, to credibly challenge the status quo—to play David to their Goliath?
We are a newer and smaller company taking on multibillion-dollar goliaths—how can we compete?
We get asked this question all the time. How can we possibly take on the goliaths in the industry?
We know we’re not one of the “big guys.” We haven’t been around since the 1860s. We’re smaller—by over 1,000 employees. You probably didn’t learn about us in law school.
Yet we believe that being smaller and younger is one of our strengths. When you’re smaller, you try harder—or else. We know we’re the underdog; David, going up against Goliath. We know we’ll be smashed if we don’t outdo, outwork, and outserve.
As a result, you’ll never feel like you’re using decades-old technology on Casetext. We can’t afford to offer anything but the cutting-edge.
That’s why we introduced CARA A.I. In the most recent comparison study referenced above, researchers using this technology are 24.5% faster, only needed an average of 1.5 searches to find relevant cases instead of 6.6 on the legacy provider, rated the cases found 20.8% more relevant. The vast majority of participants (75%) preferred the research experience using CARA A.I. over the researching on the legacy provider. The average attorney spends between 16% and 35% of their time doing research, so can expect to save 132 to 210 hours every year while finding dramatically better results. (Perhaps because these results were so stark, the legacy provider set its PR machinery into action to bury the study, only to make the story and intrigue around it even bigger.)
And because we’re newer, we know we must do as well or better as the other guys in functionality and content, including cases, statutes, and regulations. Fast, accurate search. Red flags on cases. Copy with a cite. Over 500,000 articles written by attorneys on every topic of law. Two-column PDFs. The key passages in cases highlighted for you. Briefs.
It’s nice not to work with a company that’s not a monopoly.
The other guys have had a near-monopoly for decades. High prices, complex contracts, NDAs, multi-year lock-ins, out-of-plan charges…
We’re the new guys, and we couldn’t do all that even if we wanted to (and we don’t want to).
On Casetext, our plan is transparent, all-inclusive, and at an unbeatable price—just $65 a month for an annual subscription, $89 for month-to-month. No exceptions, gotchas, exclusions, or out-of-plan fees.
We can’t hide behind an army of slick salespeople; the product needs to speak for itself. That’s why we have a free 14-day trial you can sign up for yourself online.
And we’re not a mega-company, so we get to do customer service right. Need training? You’ll get one from a Casetext specialist for free, and can book a time on our calendar whenever works best for you. Have a question? Start a chat on any page of the site. Have a request for a feature or to expand our content database? Let us impress you with how quickly we add it.https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/10/casetext-legal-research/