Conducting an initial case assessment means consuming large volumes of data involving multiple parties and documents obtained from various sources. Lawyers must then unpick who did what and when, and connect the dots. The process is not only incredibly time-consuming, meaning increased write-offs, but work can be error-prone too.
To quantify the value that LitiGate brings its customers – and their clients – for an initial case assessment, we ran the ultimate showdown: lawyer versus machine.
Lucy Moore from Taylor Wessing and Emily McCormack from Hogan Lovells went head to head in a race to conduct a document review and analysis task. The dataset: Hillary Clinton leaked emails mimicking the 2016 case including hundreds of replica documents. The tools: Lucy used LitiGate’s AI-powered litigation platform, Emily reviewed the case manually.
The pair reviewed over 250 pages of raw data and were asked to create a case overview and chronology. They were both tasked with identifying and summarising the salient points, key actors and relevant events from within a wide range of different document types.
90% Time-Saving With LitiGate
90% Accuracy With LitiGate
