The Legal Analytics market is booming, projected to reach $2.72B by 2025, with a 15.92% CAGR. Discover key trends, drivers, and restraints shaping this rapidly evolving industry, including insights into predictive analytics, cloud adoption, and top players like Wolters Kluwer and Thomson Reuters. Explore market segmentation by tools, deployment, and industry, and get a comprehensive overview of this lucrative sector. Recent developments include: February 2023 - Aderant, a software provider for law firms, collaborated with Apperioa London-based legal analytics company. This partnership will provide clients with critical insight into billing status and faster returns on payment, thereby improving billing transparency and reducing invoice friction. The clients will have visibility into the work in process that will strengthen the trust and overall business relationship with Apperioa., May 2022 - Thomson Reuters launched AI-powered Legal Tracker to analyze and manage expenses and operational efficiencies for corporate legal departments. Legal departments can provide legal services by exploring the Legal Tracker's network of over 66,000 law firms, extensive price data, and sophisticated analytics., April 2022 - Lex Machina, part of LexisNexis and a provider of legal analytics, launched an analytics platform called Appellate Analytics that will deal with legal appeals. Close to 0.4 million circuit court cases from all 13 federal circuits will be accessible to clients using Appellate Analytics. Users will gain insights, including judge reversal rates, appeals resolutions, and appealability rulings.. Key drivers for this market are: Growing Demand for Automation in Legal Analytics for Data-Driven Decision Making, Increase in Productivity and Revenue of Law Firms. Potential restraints include: Growing Demand for Automation in Legal Analytics for Data-Driven Decision Making, Increase in Productivity and Revenue of Law Firms. Notable trends are: Contract Management Offers Potential Growth.

A specific feature of many competition law infringements is that they would cause harm to multiple injured parties (e.g. large businesses, small and medium-size enterprises, consumers). This means that related claims which raise common issues of law / fact and which arise out of the same infringement are bound to arise. The complex issues concerning the case-management of multiple and related claims were exposed in Interchange Fee litigation as well as in the Trucks litigation.

It is hypothesised that existing procedural deficiencies inflate litigation costs, which in turn adversely affect private parties’ access to justice in competition law cases. New empirical data was brought together to test the relevant hypotheses. On the basis of the newly collected data, it is possible to identify the challenges in relation to quantification of damages and case management of multiple related claims arising out of the same infringement.

The research methodology is developed around litigants’ strategies. An analysis of the litigants’ strategies is important to ascertain how the private antitrust litigation regime is functioning in England and Wales. The relevant data was collected through: 1) Self-completion surveys: Law firms and litigation funders were surveyed with a view to collecting quantitative data concerning the number and value of the claims, litigation costs and relevant outcomes (e.g. judgments / settlements). Whereas data from law firms could help the factors which promote and / or hinder settlements. Data from litigation funders could also be indicative about the relevant proportion of funded / non-funded claims as well as about the major aspects which impact on the funders’ decision to fund private antitrust damages. 2) Semi-structured interviews were conducted with legal practitioners. The collected qualitative data the aspects of the enforcement regime (e.g. disclosure rules, case-management mechanisms) along with the relevant attributes of the claims (e.g. value of the claim and exposure to damages; prospects of success; related proceedings) which impact on the litigants’ strategies and which affect the litigants strategies and any settlement dynamics (influencing the case outcome).

An analysis of collected data should demonstrate how the uncertainty about the outcome would affect the litigants’ strategies that would impact on the settlement dynamics, undermining the effectiveness and efficiency of the current private antitrust litigation regime. On that basis, it should be possible to consider practical solutions which are aiming to address (or at least reduce) the identified deficiencies with a view to improving the injured parties’ timely access to effective legal remedies.

The project advances an argument that devising a mechanism, which enables judges to deal with numerous related claims arising out of the same competition law infringement, is central to improving access to legal remedies for multiple injured parties (consumers, small and large businesses) bringing private antitrust damages claims in England.

The project paper draws on an empirical study which was carried out in 2022. New quantitative and qualitative data was collected from law firms, litigation funders and legal practitioners. The newly collected data demonstrates how the current private antitrust enforcement regime is functioning. The collected data goes further to capture the factors affecting settlements which remain the most desirable and common outcome in competition law claims.

The data analysis enables the author to identify the major legal aspects along with the main attributes of the claims which shape litigants’ strategies. Since the high litigation costs - which are fuelled by the existing uncertainty about the outcome - are major considerations, it is suggested that devising an effective and efficient case-management mechanism may be necessary for judges to be able to award appropriate legal remedies within reasonable time and at proportionate cost. Such a mechanism should foster settlements and further incentivise litigation funders to finance competition law claims.

The relevant journal article is to be published in the Global Competition Litigation Review - issue 3/2024.

Among divorcing and separating parents referred by family courts to mediation to resolve issues, over half report intimate partner violence (IPV). Whether family mediation can be safely offered to cases with a history of IPV is a major controversy that has not been examined previously with empirically sound research. This study was a randomized controlled trial, the "gold standard" for assessing interventions, of family mediation cases with levels of IPV that would, historically, be considered inappropriate for mediation at our study site, a court-attached mediation center in Washington, D.C. Study cases were randomly assigned to one of three study conditions: traditional court-based litigation (n=67), shuttle mediation (n=49), or videoconferencing mediation (n=50). Researchers conducted a randomized control trial to compare immediate and one year outcomes for three dispute resolution processes (i.e., traditional court-based litigation, shuttle mediation, and videoconferencing mediation) among family law cases seeking to resolve parenting related issues and self-reporting a level of IPV history that would typically prohibit joint mediation as an option at the court-annexed mediation program where the study was conducted. The mediation intake interview included an IPV screening measure, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC; Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, and Applegate, 2010). There is initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the MASIC (Pokman et al., 2014) and research demonstrating that the MASIC leads to higher levels of detection of IPV among parents seeking mediation than other methods of IPV screening (Rossi, et al., 2015). The MASIC is a behaviorally specific measure, listing a series of abusive behaviors on subscales (e.g., psychological abuse, coercive control, physical violence, sexual violence, stalking) and consequences of abuse (e.g., fear of the partner, injury). Each item is assessed for occurrence twice-- ever in the relationship and in the past year. The questions ask the party about their victimization from the other party. Based on party responses to the Multi-Door intake interview, including the MASIC, the DRSs identified cases as being potentially eligible for the study if the level of IPV reported by either or both parties was at a level that the case was considered inappropriate for joint mediation. No specific level of IPV for study eligibility was set, for two reasons. First, no previous empirical data are available to guide decisions regarding what level of IPV would make joint mediation inappropriate. Second, the DRSs were well trained and experienced and wanted to retain the right to use their clinical judgment. However, the Multi-Door staff and research team agreed that DRSs would pay particular attention to level and types of IPV, presence of risk factors empirically related to lethality (e.g., weapons), whether IPV was escalating in frequency or severity, IPV-related injuries, and whether a party was fearful of the other party or expressed IPV-related concerns about participating in mediation.

Charitable donations are an important manifestation of corporate social responsibility. Current research focuses on the economic effects of corporate donations while ignoring their legal effects in the litigation field. This paper utilizes litigation and arbitration data from A-share listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2008 to 2021 to investigate the impact and mechanism of charitable donations on the litigation duration of listed companies. The study finds that: (1) Charitable donation behavior can significantly shorten the litigation duration of listed companies. (2) This effect is particularly significant when listed companies are plaintiffs, but not significant when they are defendants. (3) The negative relationship between charitable donations of listed companies and litigation duration is achieved through reputation mechanisms. (4) This effect is more significant for listed companies located in the Northeast region and regions with a lower degree of marketization when facing civil and arbitration cases. (5) Additionally, by constructing panel data on whether companies are involved in litigation and as defendants, it is shown that corporate charitable donations not only have the function of "compensating" reputation but also serve as a kind of "insurance" for reputation. After robustness tests and overcoming endogeneity issues, the above conclusions still hold. This paper clarifies the implicit interaction mechanism between listed companies and judicial departments, enriches research in the field of organizational reputation theory, and is of significant importance for deeply understanding the motivation of corporate charitable donations.

The data was gathered through: 1) Self-completion survey questionnaires (which were sent to the Heads of litigation departments and family law firms from there relevant sampling frames drawn from the legal directories). The primary quantitative data (from the self-completion survey) should provide information about the statics of the cross-border litigation pattern (e.g. volume; type of cases). 2) Semi-structured interviews which were conducted with legal practitioners in England and Wales. The primary qualitative data (from the semi-structured Interviews) should provide information about the parties’ strategies (i.e. the dynamics of the cross-border litigation pattern).

The purpose of this pilot study was to measure the expected initial impact of Brexit on parties’ strategies which would in turn have a bearing on the litigants’ access to legal remedies (as well as on settlement dynamics) in cross-border disputes. The newly generated data should enable researchers to consider the correlation between a possible change in the legal landscape and the parties’ alternative strategies as well as to analyse the relationship between the litigants’ tactics and private parties’ access to justice in cross-border cases before the English and Welsh courts. On this basis, it would be possible to identify the main issues which would need to be addressed by the UK policy-makers as priority with a view to setting up a well-functioning private international law regime in a post-Brexit context.

Charitable donations, types of cases and litigation cycles.

Charitable giving, market-based indices and the litigation cycle.

Charitable donations are an important manifestation of corporate social responsibility. Current research focuses on the economic effects of corporate donations while ignoring their legal effects in the litigation field. This paper utilizes litigation and arbitration data from A-share listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2008 to 2021 to investigate the impact and mechanism of charitable donations on the litigation duration of listed companies. The study finds that: (1) Charitable donation behavior can significantly shorten the litigation duration of listed companies. (2) This effect is particularly significant when listed companies are plaintiffs, but not significant when they are defendants. (3) The negative relationship between charitable donations of listed companies and litigation duration is achieved through reputation mechanisms. (4) This effect is more significant for listed companies located in the Northeast region and regions with a lower degree of marketization when facing civil and arbitration cases. (5) Additionally, by constructing panel data on whether companies are involved in litigation and as defendants, it is shown that corporate charitable donations not only have the function of "compensating" reputation but also serve as a kind of "insurance" for reputation. After robustness tests and overcoming endogeneity issues, the above conclusions still hold. This paper clarifies the implicit interaction mechanism between listed companies and judicial departments, enriches research in the field of organizational reputation theory, and is of significant importance for deeply understanding the motivation of corporate charitable donations.