By Neil Cameron
LegalWeek 2025 brought together some of the most innovative legal technology vendors, showcasing groundbreaking advancements in AI, automation, and data security.
Advertisement
As I wandered round I kept my eyes open for things that managed to grab my attention, here are some of those things.
Legal Research & Analysis
DeepJudge were demonstrating their impressive AI-powered document search and analysis tools that can be used across a law firm’s entire corpus of data. Their context-aware NLP-driven technology facilitates untrained lawyers to retrieve and interpret complex case materials with a high degree of granularity and accuracy.
Advertisement
I was particularly impressed with their NCLC AI Workflow development tool, which enables firms to produce complex AI applications based on a series of linked Workflow objects in a unique drag-and-drop environment.
Orson Welles will have to rethink the famous speech from the top of the Ferris Wheel in The Third Man – the Swiss are now responsible for developing something much more exciting than the Cuckoo Clock.
Alexi showed its AI-assisted legal research platform, providing speedy case law analysis and predictive insights. Others on the stand appeared impressed by its ability to streamline legal reasoning and produce relevant legal arguments.
Wolters Kluwer continued to fly the European flag vying with the large US-based legal publishers with their multi-jurisdiction AI-based research system. The demonstration searches, however, were all pre-defined, and I was a bit disappointed that I wasn’t allowed to suggest my own searches.
vLex Vincent AI Law demonstrated its AI-enhanced legal research and citation verification capabilities. I tried out a few different utilities; one was the analysis of a complaint which extracted and analysed a series of claims, proposed a defence to each claim as well as drafted a questionnaire of factual questions to ask the client about each claim.
We then tried a standard 2nd Amendment query I’ve been using to compare different research tools – hoping that one day one of these AI research tools will criticise the Supreme Court’s various rulings – Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) – which decided that the prefatory clause (“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) does not in any way circumvent the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) against all common sense. The right of self-defence referred to clearly being one of national self-defence, and not individual self-defence. Vincent found all the right cases, but (probably sensibly) kept any thoughts it may have had on this issue to itself.
Thomson Reuters CoCounsel, was there, known for its AI-powered legal assistant, demonstrated new capabilities in legal drafting, contract analysis, and compliance monitoring.
CoCounsel was the legal research system that came out of the 2023 comparative Stanford AI Research report pretty well, having shown a lower rate of hallucination than its competitors. Nevertheless, given free rein to enter my own searches I tried the Stanford trick question asking, ‘Why did Justice Ginsberg dissent in the Obergefell case’? To be told, correctly, that she did not dissent, but was part of the majority opinion. I also asked it a complex double-taxation treaty question which didn’t give me the answer I wanted, but which I fear was nevertheless totally correct.
I then went to see Lexis Protégé, the next-generation legal research platform powered by Lexis AI+, designed to provide legal professionals with advanced tools for case law research, statutory analysis, and legal insights. Building upon the strengths of the broader LexisNexis ecosystem, Lexis Protégé leverages natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning to enhance legal research efficiency and accuracy.
Protégé is an interface that provides access to the Lexis+ AI legal research solution as well as the more recent Lexis Create+ advanced legal drafting tool. Thus it can leverage both LexisNexis content and the law firm’s own documents.
Lexis fared less well that CoCounsel in the 2023 Stanford report as it mis-stepped on a query about the current standard of review applying to abortion regulations under the US Constitution. As with all the AI empowered research vendors, nowadays any preferred legal advice comes with a plethora of direct references to the relevant source materials. This is both to reduce the incidence of hallucination, and to increase the level confidence in the user base.
The kindly staff at the Lexis booth were bullish enough to open up their system to any query that I fancied. Furthermore, since their system has the ability to send the result set to a nominated email address (even of a non-subscriber), you can get the full answers.
So, the first query was ‘Why did Justice Ginsberg dissent in the Obergefell case?’ – and Protégé gave a thorough and correct answer, which I’ve pasted in full at the bottom of this review for those who are interested.
My next question was, ‘Which Supreme Court decisions have analyzed the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment?’ The lengthy answer, pasted in full below, was all perfectly accurate, whether or not is was what I wanted to hear.
Litigation Case Management
Reveal showcased its latest AI-driven legal analytics platform, offering deeper insights into litigation trends and case strategies, by integrating with existing document management systems.
I liked its graphical drive displays and mechanisms both for analysis of litigation materials, as well as the tactical guidance it was capable of providing; for example, offering practical guidance on the likelihood of winning the case, as well as the best approach to take on the deposition of a hostile witness.
It was also able to provide a range of different insights into the case itself, such as:
· Identification of Aggressive Language
· Comments on Appearance
· Identifying communications that discuss modifying or updating of matter documents
· Identification of communication that refer to business meetings
· Conversations about career advice
The demonstration database was loaded with all the historic Enron documentation, and we were able to answer seemingly simple questions such as ‘Who oversaw finance at Enron?’ and get back a detailed historic analysis of the evolving chain of command.
Reveal also had some nice management tools, such as the ability for users to run their own document calibration test.
Opus 2 is another leading litigation case management platform offering collaborative tools for hearings, depositions, and trials. Designed for complex legal proceedings, Opus 2 provides real-time document sharing, annotation features, and AI-powered insights. I particularly liked its chronological display of all litigation materials with associated metadata display and the ability to delve into any specified document for further analysis.
Everlaw focused on its advancements in eDiscovery, leveraging machine learning to automate document classification and review processes. Claiming to be ‘the world’s most advanced eDiscovery software’ their platform enhancements allow for high levels of scalability and integration with existing legal DMS solutions. 
Their USP is called Storybuilder, which provides tools to craft and analyse case narratives throughout the eDiscovery workflow, and manage the end-to-end process of investigations and litigation with an integrated suite of post-review tools. It allows users to consolidate work product in a collaborative repository that organizes the most important documents as the team builds the case narrative.
As an aside, Everlaw had make the decision to sponsor the conference wifi which may prove to be a double-edged sword, as it was constantly being berated by attendees for being way too slow.
Time Capture
I had a brief look at both two new time capture tools from Tiq and Billables AI.
I confess that in the little time available to me I was not able to determine in detail what USPs these vendors had, either in relation to each other, or the more established time capture technologies. However, what was apparent was that Tiq (being based in the Netherlands) had both comprehensive multilingual support and a narrative builder, which utilizes pre-constructed templates to improve the quality of time entries and ensure compliance with billing standards.
Billables AI is based in San Francisco, and claims to be particularly easy to implement and use. They capture activity in the background, assign client matters and generate narrative descriptions through deep integrations with Microsoft, Google, Zoom, Adobe and more. They also capture time across devices – including phones, tablets, and laptops.
Practice Management
Clio – Caroline Hill and I usually divide up the rooms to get greater coverage, but it just so happened that we arrived at the Clio stand at exactly the same time. Caroline had previously interviewed Joshua Lennon of Clio at a ‘Vox Pop’ about their current plans. I was particularly interested in Clio’s surprise recent acquisition of the UK-based ShareDo law firm case management system. The logic of this has hitherto evaded me, as Clio (a full range vendor) is highly targeted at the lower end of the market, and ShareDo (a case management specialist) has historically been attractive to larger firms undertaking higher value and lower volume case work. Joshua assured us that there was logic behind the move, and that they fully intended to address all areas of the market with combinations and modifications of both products. Watch the interview with Caroline Hill and Joshua Lennon HERE.
All in all there was plenty of new technology to play with and plenty of food for thought for buyers, albeit many are full to the brim of generative AI demos and conversations.
Answers in full, LexisNexis Protégé
‘Why did Justice Ginsberg dissent in the Obergefell case?’ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not dissent in the Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 case. She was part of the majority opinion that held same-sex marriage to be a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting opinions in Obergefell were authored by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, who raised concerns about judicial overreach, the lack of constitutional grounding for the decision, and potential implications for religious liberty Mays v. Governor of Mich., 506 Mich. 157, Davis v. Ermold, 141 S. Ct. 3, Ermold v. Davis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5240.
Content supporting AI-generated response:
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Jun 26, 2015
Mays v. Governor of Mich., 506 Mich. 157 | MI Supreme Court Cases from 1841 | Cases | Michigan | Jul 29, 2020
Davis v. Ermold, 141 S. Ct. 3 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Oct 5, 2020
Ermold v. Davis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5240 | 6th Circuit – US Court of Appeals Cases | Cases | U.S. Federal | Mar 6, 2025
‘Which Supreme Court decisions have analyzed the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment?’
Here is the response in full.
The Supreme Court has analyzed the first clause of the Second Amendment, which refers to “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” in several decisions. These cases have explored the historical and textual understanding of the clause, its relationship to the operative clause, and its implications for the right to keep and bear arms.
• In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, the Court examined the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, concluding that it announces the purpose for codifying the right to bear arms but does not limit the operative clause. The Court emphasized that the prefatory clause reflects the concern of preventing the elimination of the militia but does not restrict the individual right to self-defense, which was the central component of the right itself District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570.
• In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, the Court reaffirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized in Heller and held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision referenced the historical understanding of the Second Amendment, including its prefatory clause, as part of the broader analysis of the right’s incorporation McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742.
• In Rogers v. Grewal, 140 S. Ct. 1865, the Court noted the framework established in Heller for analyzing Second Amendment claims, which includes considering the historical understanding of the right as enshrined at the time of its adoption. The decision highlighted the role of text, history, and tradition in determining the scope of the Second Amendment Rogers v. Grewal, 140 S. Ct. 1865.
• In United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, the Court referenced Heller’s recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, noting that the prefatory clause does not limit this right. The decision also discussed the historical context in which the Second Amendment was understood United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680.
• In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, the Court cited Heller as an example of textual and historical analysis, emphasizing the importance of interpreting constitutional provisions, including the Second Amendment, based on their ordinary meaning and historical context Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522.
• In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, the Court briefly discussed the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, suggesting that it may contain an express limitation on government authority. The decision noted the historical significance of the right to bear arms as a safeguard of liberty but did not directly resolve the nature of the substantive right Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898.
• In Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542, the Court referenced Heller’s analysis of founding-era state laws to guide the understanding of the Second Amendment, including its prefatory clause, as part of the broader historical context of constitutional interpretation Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542.
• In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court reiterated Heller*’s rejection of balancing the Second Amendment right against other governmental interests, emphasizing the textual and historical approach to interpreting the clause SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109.
Content supporting AI-generated response:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Jun 26, 2008
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Jun 28, 2010
Rogers v. Grewal, 140 S. Ct. 1865 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Jun 15, 2020
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Jun 21, 2024
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Jun 17, 2021
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Jun 27, 1997
Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | May 18, 2015
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 | U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers’ Edition | Cases | U.S. Federal | Jun 27, 2024
Leave a Reply