Just about a year ago, in news that made me very sad at the time, Thomson Reuters acquired the spunky, upstart legal research company Casetext. I have been a big fan of Casetext since their inception. For almost a decade, they were the bright star in a constellation of new, disrupter legal research companies.
In January of 2019, I wrote a Bar Bulletin column discussing Robert Ambrogi’s musings on whether we were in a “golden age” of legal research innovation. In that column I discussed some of the newer upstart companies that were setting their sights on the hegemony that Westlaw and Lexis maintain over legal research. Not long after that column was published, the dominos began to fall. Ravel Law, a pioneer in harnessing big-data techniques and legal analytics was sold to Lexis. ROSS Intelligence, a pioneer in using artificial intelligence to allow sophisticated, accurate research without complicated queries was decimated by the prospect of financially ruinous litigation with Thomson Reuters, and the merger of Casemaker and Fastcase left only one option for cost effective legal research for bar associations to choose from. Through it all, smart, scrappy Casetext, the fabulous cost-effective AI driven research platform, had not only been able to hang in there but to thrive. Casetext managed to continue to create innovative products while keeping their pricing well within reach of regular joe attorneys.
So yes, I was very sad to see that they had succumbed to the siren song of acquisition by Thomson Reuters. Though, in all fairness, I can’t imagine many people turning their backs on $650 million. I’m a glass half full sort of person, so while I mourn the loss of the old Casetext, I’m super happy to announce that the law library was able to license public access to CoCounsel, Casetext’s AI enabled legal assistant that can review and analyze documents, draft memos, create timelines, analyze contracts and suggest revisions, and even write emails for you in the tone of your choice.
What Can CoCounsel Do for You?
One of the best uses of CoCounsel is to help make sense of complicated (or convoluted) documents. When we were testing CoCounsel, we input a court of appeals brief written by a non-attorney that was a bit hard to follow. CoCounsel’s analysis of a rambling 40-page brief is succinct and outlines the main arguments. CoCounsel allows one to choose either a short summary or a detailed summary. The following is an example of a CoCounsel short summary:
Michael Schreck’s appellant brief argues that he was not given a fair trial, and that the court is not set up to deal with pro se litigants. Schreck references numerous cases and statutes to support his arguments, including cases related to substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection, and race-based admissions systems. Schreck outlines errors made by the bailiff, trial court clerk, Judge Rogers, and Commissioner Judson, and argues that he was not given adequate information or time to understand rule 12(b)(6). Schreck requests a substantive due process ruling, a new trial, a change of venue, and an investigation into the Seattle Restored Program.
Original brief can be found here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A01/851543%20Appellant%20’s.PDF
We also input the City of Seattle’s 30-page response brief. This is an example of CoCounsel’s detailed summary:
Pages 1–9
- Michael Schreck filed a complaint against the City of Seattle, alleging that the “Seattle Restored” program discriminates against certain applicants in violation of state law and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The City argues that Schreck’s complaint should be dismissed for a variety of reasons, including: Lack of standing: Schreck did not apply to the Seattle Restored program, so he cannot claim to have been harmed by it. Mootness: The controversy is no longer relevant. Failure to state a claim: Schreck’s complaint does not state a valid cause of action for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or damages.
- The City also argues that Schreck’s ignorance of the law and court procedures as a pro se litigant is not a valid ground for reversal, and that he cannot raise a First Amendment claim for the first time on appeal.
- The document includes a table of authorities, listing cases and statutes that the City cites in support of its arguments.
Pages 10–18
- Schreck’s complaint seeks an investigation of the Seattle Restored program by an outside organization.
- Schreck served the City with the summons and complaint on November 17, 2022.
- The City moved to dismiss the complaint on December 7, 2022, arguing that Schreck did not have standing to pursue his claims because he never applied to the program.
- Schreck did not file a written opposition to the motion but participated in oral argument on February 24, 2023.
- Schreck acknowledged during oral argument that he never applied to the Seattle Restored program but claimed that he had technical difficulties applying and was discouraged by the program’s preference for BIPOC and artist applicants.
- The superior court dismissed Schreck’s complaint with prejudice on February 27, 2023, ruling that he needed to have applied to the program to have standing.
- Schreck filed a notice of appeal on March 27, 2023, and filed his opening brief on February 9, 2024.
- The City argues that the superior court’s dismissal should be affirmed on the grounds of: Lack of standing: Schreck never applied to the program and therefore does not have a personal stake in the dispute. Mootness: The application period for the Seattle Restored program has ended and there are no current opportunities. Failure to state a claim: Schreck’s complaint does not plead the required elements for injunctive relief.
Pages 19–28
- The City argues that Schreck’s complaint should be dismissed because it does not state an entitlement to declaratory relief.
- The City cites the requirements for a justiciable controversy, which Schreck’s complaint does not meet.
- The City argues that Schreck’s complaint does not state a violation of RCW 49.60.400, which prohibits discrimination in public employment, education, or contracting.
- The City argues that Schreck’s other assignments of error are without merit, as pro se litigants are bound by the same rules as attorneys and Schreck did not raise his First Amendment “chilling effect” argument in the lower court.
- The City requests that the Court affirm the decision of the superior court.
Original brief can be found here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A01/851543%20Respondent%20City%20of%20Seattle’s.pdf
Tip of the Iceberg
CoCounsel is very new to the law library, and we are still putting it through its paces. Having watched several of the training videos, I was impressed with the level of sophistication of CoCounsel’s responses and the types of tasks it can complete. There was a great example of tasking CoCounsel with creating deposition questions for a medical malpractice case, then asking to refine the deposition questions to a particular focus area, and finally to use the deposition topics and questions to draft an email to the client to explain the deposition strategy. We are looking forward to doing a much deeper dive into all that CoCounsel can assist with.
Low Barrier to Entry
You don’t have to be an AI wizard to use CoCounsel effectively. In fact, CoCounsel is designed to be conversational. CoCounsel is centered around a chat box where you tell CoCounsel what you are trying to accomplish and then ask questions as you would to another attorney in a conversational tone. For example, if you need to extract data or information from a contract, you just tell CoCounsel that in the chat box and it will explain how to proceed and will ask follow-up questions if necessary. If the results are not what you are expecting, you can ask CoCounsel to refine the results. There are also examples of specific tasks that CoCounsel can assist with on the home screen if you prefer to use a method other than starting with the chat box.
Come Visit Us at KCLL and Meet CoCounsel, Your New AI Drafting Assistant
We have one CoCounsel seat at the Seattle branch and one in the Kent branch. Come visit us and see what tasks CoCounsel can help you with. Keep an eye on our events calendar https://kcll.org/events/ for upcoming training sessions for CoCounsel or learn about CoCounsel at the Casetext website. https://help.casetext.com/en/collections/3881459-cocounsel
