Leveraging Everlaw AI Assistant in common workflows

Looking to boost your team's review efficiency? Hoping to get to strategic case insights faster? Everlaw AI Assistant can help. Below are some scenarios that commonly arise in a case, with tips on how to leverage Everlaw AI to tackle them more efficiently and effectively. These examples are not meant to be exhaustive; instead, think of them as templates or ideas for how Everlaw AI can be adapted to your unique needs. Customers in the beta have reported between 30-50% efficiency gains in certain workflows leveraging Everlaw AI Assistant. 

 

🗃️ I received a document set (for example, a production or assignment) and need to figure out what’s in it ASAP.

When you receive a new assignment or production, your team will be eager to know what’s in it. Are there interesting documents or insights in this new set of documents? Is everything we expected to be produced in this set? 

Prior to Everlaw AI Assistant, reviewing and profiling a document set was a manual process, requiring people to devote hours – if not days – to reading the documents, tagging them, and annotating them with notes or summaries. With Everlaw AI Assistant, you can: 

  • Kick off a batch summarization of the documents and review the generated document descriptions right in the results table. This is a much shorter path to understanding what’s in a document set. You’ll free up time to do more strategic analysis of the documents and can better allocate your efforts to only the important and interesting evidence. To learn more about batch summarization, please see this article section.
    • Image 3.png
  • Get coding suggestions for documents in the set. You can create annotated issue codes or codes representing topics requested in a RFP, and use the coding assistant to automatically analyze which codes should be applied to which documents. Based on the suggestion patterns, you can quickly diagnose which aspects of your case the documents are relevant to, and whether there are expected topics that are missing. To learn more about coding suggestions, please see this article section.

    • Image 1.png

📄 My team is getting bogged down with a lot of long and dense documents.

Effectively reviewing long and dense documents can be a challenge, even for seasoned reviewers. Sometimes you need to know a document backwards and forwards; other times you might only need the gist of the contents or are on the hunt for a specific piece of information. Regardless, you’re stuck either devoting a lot of time carefully poring over a document or quickly skimming through at the risk of missing something interesting or important.

With Everlaw AI Assistant, you have access to a diligent helper who can:

  • Create condensed, yet thorough summaries, extract and summarize topics, and answer any question you might have about the document, all with references back to supporting areas within the document. This allows your reviewers to get through longer documents faster, without sacrificing thoroughness.
  • AI insights can also be used as a starter for notes created by reviewers, saving additional time and making it easier to preserve key insights for future reference by the team.

Your reviewers are empowered to use these tools ad hoc in the review window, when they need it. Just make sure they know where these tools live and how to use them. You can send them the feature guide as a reference, found here.

Or you can prepare a set of documents beforehand by running some tasks in batch. This ensures that the insights are available right away when a reviewer goes to look at documents instead of relying on them to remember to kick of tasks in the moment. 

For example, to run the summaries task in batch for documents that are more than 50 pages in length:

  • Open the document set and use the page filter and filter to documents that are more than 50 pages in length
    • Screenshot 2024-01-30 at 5.39.20 PM.png
  • Kick off a batch summary from the batch tool

    • Screenshot 2024-01-30 at 5.39.30 PM.png

To learn more about the various Review Assistant tasks, please see this article

🎙️ I’m preparing to depose someone and need to analyze some related documents in the process of creating my depo strategy and questions.

The core of review is document-level analysis and classification. But, once you get to more strategic aspects of your litigation – like deposition prep – cross-document analysis becomes extremely important. This includes things like extracting facts, analyzing factual patterns and gaps, and brainstorming questions and strategy. 

This is work driven by human judgment, expertise, and intuition. But Everlaw AI can be a partner for you through this process, helping to streamline more manual research and analysis tasks and suggesting interesting ways to analyze or narrate your facts. Instead of spending hours organizing and cross-referencing information across dozens of documents, you can leverage Everlaw AI to create usable analysis in a matter of minutes, keeping you in a productive flow and saving time and energy for higher-value, strategic work

The key to effective use of Everlaw AI Writing Assistant is curating a set of documents to work off of (and Review Assistant can help with that - see above!). For example, with a  deposition, you’ll often have a few dozen documents related to a deponent identified over the course of review. Add these documents to a Storybuilder Draft so that they can be easily referenced by the Writing Assistant. To learn more about adding documents to a draft, see this article

Now, you can use the Writing Assistant to analyze these documents in ways that are helpful to you. You can use the Statement of Facts task to get a narrative summary of all the documents you've curated. Or, you can use the Custom option for more bespoke analysis. For example: 

  • You can ask the Assistant to come up with potential lines of questioning based on the available documents with a prompt like this:
    • "I am about to depose a pharmacy manager employed by CVS. The goal of the deposition is to elicit testimony about how CSV policies about opioids was articulated and understood internally, and gaps in this process that led to poor oversight or lack of adequate controls. Suggest some questions that can be asked during the deposition and give an analysis of each suggested question based on the provided evidence." 
  • Or, ask it for areas where there are gaps in the evidence that testimony should be elicited about using a prompt like this:

    • "I am about to depose a manager at CVS about their policies around the monitoring and control of opioids in their pharmacy system, including any potential gaps or issues in that process. Create an analysis about the potential gaps in the provided evidence that would be useful to elicit testimony about given that our argument is that CVS did not adequately monitor or control opioids." 

    • Screenshot 2024-01-30 at 5.59.46 PM.png

To learn more about Writing Assistant, please see this article.

Have more questions? Submit a request

0 Comments

Article is closed for comments.