Startup Plans to Rate Lawyers Based on Court Records and Win-Loss Stats

legalist

Two Harvard University undergraduates are preparing to launch a website that will rate lawyers based on publicly available court records. The site, called Legalist, will mine and analyze court records in order to match clients with lawyers who win similar cases based on details and location. It will also profile litigators’ win-loss records.

The site is currently in beta testing and its developers hope to launch it in late summer or early fall. The testing phase is using only Massachusetts cases and the initial launch will start with Massachusetts lawyers. The developers plan to then begin rolling out the service to other states, beginning with the most-populous ones.

The developers, Eva Shang and Christian Haigh, are Harvard undergraduates who decided to develop the site after Haigh needed to hire a lawyer and realized how difficult it is to evaluate a lawyer’s effectiveness.  Haigh, who has a background in data science, is developing the product while Shang is leading business development.

The website explains how the product will work:

  • Step 1: Docket data is collected from trial courts.
  • Step 2: The data is then cleaned and analyzed so that it can be transformed into easy-to-read statistics. Legalist will then use machine learning algorithms to mine the data for novel insights on how a lawyer compares.
  • Step 3: Each lawyer will receive an automatically generated profile with the information a potential client would use to make a decision, including win-loss statistics.
  • Step 4: The data will be continually updated and analyzed in order to be up-to-date.
  • Step 5: The site’s Legal Marketplace will tell potential clients which lawyers win cases like theirs. Potential clients will be able to contact lawyers directly through the platform.

I recently spoke with Shang and Haigh and asked them how their algorithm will handle all the cases that never go to trial, where the docket would not show a winner or loser. All of those cases will be factored into the overall experience rating, they said, in that if a lawyer has handled a high number of a certain type of case, even if all the cases settled, the algorithm would presume that the lawyer is better at those cases than one who’d handled only one or two.

Another concern I see is that winning or losing is not a reliable measure of lawyering skill. Top-notch lawyers lose cases. It is often the best lawyers who are willing to take on the toughest matters with the lowest odds of success.

Still, there is a lot to be said for arming consumers with more information on which to evaluate a potential lawyer. Other services that rate lawyers, such as Avvo and Yelp, do not use actual case records, but instead rely on published articles, client reviews, disciplinary records and the like. I would hope that a consumer would not rely exclusively on a lawyer’s win-loss record. But it would be useful to have that information within the totality of factors available to the consumer.

 

Posted in:
Updated:
  • Jordan Schuetzle

    I 100% agree that win/loss record is not a good indicator of skill. The best lawyers may prevent you from going to trial, or even having a lawsuit filed against you in the first place. If this site grows in prominence, would an attorney be motivated to advise against a clients best interest in order to boost their calculated score? Would they turn away a client who desperately needs representation but has a slim chance of “winning” in their jurisdiction?

  • avon

    I agree too.
    But my equally strong concern is that court records – even with text of electronically docketed documents – do not reflect the peculiar facts that allow a skilled observer to judge what cases actually are similar as opposed to crucially different. I mean, the facts that jurors say after their verdict were decisive ones. Just as they’re necessary to judge how skilled the lawyer was, they’re necessary to judge even the relevance of the outcome to any other case.
    I’m sorry, Mr. Ambrogi, but adding misleading factors to the totality that a consumer can consider is not “useful” at all, but a disservice. Maybe someday this kind of algorithm can rise to the level of “useful,” but by then Yelp will be equally useful – and lawyers will probably have been replaced by fully autonomous robots.

  • Bob Ambrogi

    Like I said, it’s often the best lawyers who take on the toughest cases. You’re one of them.

  • Not a laywer Grock

    It also doesn’t address getting your client who would have been convicted of a more serious charge, instead being convicted or pleading to a lesser charge. It doesn’t address getting a case dismissed and expunged. It doesn’t address bad laws that need to be changed. It doesn’t address DAs, prosecutors, or cops that fail to provide exculpatory evidence. It assumes every case a lawyer takes is actually winnable. They’re not. And by rating based on win rates, it encourages lawyers to only take easy cases that can be won, ultimately to the detriment of defendants with difficult cases who need a good attorney the most. I could go on with the examples but what is the point. This is a really bad idea.

  • DB Cooper

    And cases go to trial for all sorts of reasons totally unrelated the facts/merits. Even stuff like, “I’d rather pay a verdict next fiscal year than a settlement (for 1/3 as much) this quarter.”

  • Joyce Glucksman

    Naive students misleading naive lay people about what is a lawyer’s job. A lawyer’s job is to resolve a problem, not win a case. The vast majority of cases never go to trial. How will they factor in summary judgment, mediated settlements, successful motions to dismiss or unsuccessful motions to dismiss? How about cases that are appealed and remanded? This is just a bad idea.

  • Pingback: Want Your Win/Loss Stats Marketed to Potential Clients?()

  • Pingback: Site That Planned to Rate Lawyers Pivots Focus to Litigation Finance - Robert Ambrogi's LawSites()

  • Pingback: Briefs: Bill Your Clients for Interns, 25% of Texas Grads Don't Have Law Jobs, Etc.()