Parallel Legal Search

«Dr. Smith is not qualified to testify about biomedical research because he has virtually no training or experience in the field.» Long-time readers of SCOTUSblog are now familiar with Casetext`s legal research tool. It responds to a pervasive need of our team: to find opinions from all levels of the justice system for our articles and case pages. Practitioners reading this blog, on the other hand, have a different need in their daily work with the law. Instead of searching cases by name, lawyers need a way to search case law to find support for specific proposals. This task is difficult not only because the common law is broad, but also because judges use different articulations for the same proposition or principle. The most advanced search technology built into the most effective briefing workflow. Please also see the library`s Virginia Legal Materials Research Guide for information on Virginia`s free resources. Javed is both a programmer and a lawyer. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and has been programming since childhood. Prior to joining Casetext, he spent two years at a Silicon Valley law firm and three years at IBM`s Watson Group, where he helped develop machine learning-based tools for the legal industry. is defective.

Any reading of these reports shows that it is directly the type of bodily injury that would or would not result from the mechanical forces generated by the accident, which are biomechanical witness statements related to injuries. Dr. Stallbaumer is not qualified to give such opinions because he has no background in biomechanics or kinematic studies. He is not qualified to testify about the forces involved in this accident. During Dr. Stallbaumer, 15 hours of crash reconstruction training from the Spine Research Institute, various crash reconstruction courses and some studies. Casetext meets this major challenge with its new tool: Parallel Search. Unlike simple keyword research, the limitations of which most of us are intimately aware, parallel search uses machine learning technology to match sentences and complete sentences with those with similar meaning in case law, even though the results and query have almost no words in common. Do you need a federal appeals court for a protest case? Look for an argument like «The right to protest is fundamental to American democracy» and you`ll get jurisdiction-specific results you`ll never find through traditional research: opinions that say that «the right of citizens to ask their government to remedy grievances is fundamental» or «A fundamental principle of the First Amendment, that citizens have the right to express their opposition to government policies.» Please refer to the Library`s International Law Research Guide under «Other Online Resources» for additional resources. These sources limit web search to legal resources. There are many up-to-date online legal research guides, many of which have been written by librarians at universities and public law libraries.

In addition to the George Mason Law Library`s research guides, other recommended sources for research guides include: The services listed below offer a variety of plans that help improve the search for primary legal documents, but fewer search features than premium legal databases. Also, although these products offer Citators, the update features are not the same as Shepards, Keycite, or BCite. Traditional search technology finds matches based on words and synonyms. This only takes you to a certain point in law where arguments are based on concepts and analogies. Parallel search uses complete sentences to find results with matching concepts, even if they don`t have the same language. Jean O`Grady is a knowledge strategist/librarian/lawyer with over 30 years of experience transforming research and knowledge services at Am Law 100 law firms. She is the author of the Dewey B Strategic Blog, which observes the changing landscape of technologies and businesses transforming business and legal practice. Parallel Search was developed in-house by Casetext`s team of experienced data scientists and machine learning engineers. Naum is possible under such conditions and/or if something else is more likely to have caused the alleged neurological injury. What Dr.

Shepek can rightly be forbidden, however, is the «biomechanics» of the accident itself; that is, if the mechanics of the accident were sufficient to generate a certain force and if this force would cause an occupant to hit his head on the roof of the car. Dr. Shepek is qualified, an expert opinion on Dr. Naum`s alleged neurological injury. He is not qualified to give expert advice in biomechanics. The secret lies in the application of cutting-edge machine learning technology to the law through case law. Transformers are artificial neural networks that «learn» by being trained on a pre-selected set of data. Parallel Search uses two layers of transformers, each pre-formed across all U.S. forensic evaluations. The result is not only accurate.

It`s fast and, most importantly, affordable. Write a sentence indicating a suggestion you`d like to find support for, and Parallel Search will adopt it from there. Side-by-side search matches the concepts so you can find what you were looking for, even if the result has no keywords in common with your query. Parallel Search was launched as part of Casetext`s letterwriting solution, Pose, and has proven so popular with users that it is now available as a standalone solution. Interested? A free trial is available, along with full pricing information and a demo for practicing lawyers. It`s so powerful that users call the technology «direct witchcraft» and «almost.» like fraud» (although this is certainly not the case). Martin Gajek was previously an R&D engineer at a solid-state memory startup, where he developed energy-efficient memory architectures and algorithms for AI accelerators. Martin holds a PhD in applied physics from Sorbonne University and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in physics at the University of California, Berkeley. Our discovery does not mean that only a neurosurgeon can testify about the actual cause of death from brain injury, or that an emergency physician could never testify to it. What is required is for the party offering the question to prove that the expert has «knowledge, skills, experience, education or training» relevant to the specific issue before the court that enables him or her to give an opinion on that particular matter. A graduate of Georgia Tech with a bachelor`s degree in computer engineering, Gabe has over 20 years of experience developing software for a variety of companies and industries.