https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/Explore expert legal analysis, insights, and product updates on the US LexisNexis Legal Insights blog to stay informed and ahead in the legal tech field.en-USTelligent Community 9https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/lex-machina/b/lex-machina/posts/lex-machina-api-analytics-for-litigation-strategyWed, 11 Mar 2026 19:48:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:30665e2e-c5a6-457f-be58-21cd0a5d58cbVirginie De SmechtWith the Lex Machina® API, litigation analytics can show up inside the systems legal teams already run every day. The API delivers structured, machine-readable data from Lex Machina, the LexisNexis® Legal Analytics® platform, so dashboards, internal applications, client portals, and workflow tools can pull the same trusted insights used in the Lex Machina platform. Related Post: Introducing LexisNexis Protégé™ in Lex Machina® Understanding the Lex Machina API The Lex Machina API (application programming interface) provides programmatic access to on-demand litigation analytics and case-level data, including outcomes and normalized data on attorneys, law firms, judges, and parties. Manual exports and copy-paste steps slow analysis and create version drift. API access places structured results inside practice systems, supporting repeatable reporting and integration across legal operations. “Without being forced to do this type of research manually, you can deliver litigation analytics and insights automatically,” said Tony Minucci, account executive for LexisNexis API solutions. “And if you can provide that data for your office on a regular basis, think of how you can arm your attorneys to be better service providers for your clients.” When a team connects the Lex Machina API, data can arrive where the team needs it and when it matters. That shift reduces time spent gathering data and increases time spent acting on it. Related Post: Get the Big (Analytics) Picture: Lex Machina® Multiplies Coverage with Docket-Level Data Analytics Inside Daily Legal Work The API allows law offices and legal departments to place Lex Machina data inside tools already adopted across the organization. Internal Dashboards and Reporting: Firms and legal departments can build dashboards that refresh automatically with updated litigation data. Lawyers and business users get current results fast, without manual exports or spreadsheet updates. Custom Applications and Client Tools: Many organizations maintain internal applications or client-facing portals. API-connected views can reflect current litigation trends and updates, improving the quality of analysis shared with clients. Workflow Automation: Repeating tasks that once took hours can shift into scheduled API jobs. For example, internal systems can generate recurring litigation trend reports, which leaves more time for interpretation and strategy. Business Development Intelligence: Business development teams can enrich CRM records with litigation analytics tied to clients and prospects, including activity signals, counsel networks, and risk areas. This supports better prepared outreach and client conversations, backed by data. These integrations help legal teams respond with context when decisions move quickly. Related Post: Win New Business with CourtLink® and Lex Machina® Real Time API Alert Datasets Beyond on-demand queries, the Lex Machina API supports alerts that deliver structured datasets when new activity appears in monitored matters. API alerts move past email summaries by pushing machine-readable updates into internal tracking tools and systems. With alerts through the Lex Machina API, clients can: Receive daily or weekly alert datasets via the API Embed structured updates into internal tracking tools Retrieve full result sets or only new additions This supports systems that watch for new filings in key matters and route updates to the right stakeholders without manual triage. Seamless Implementation The Lex Machina API works with standard REST patterns, documented endpoints, and common developer tooling. Lex Machina publishes client libraries for JavaScript (Node) and Python, plus OpenAPI documentation and a Postman setup guide for testing and exploration. Many organizations blend Lex Machina data with internal sources to evaluate litigation risk by client, industry, jurisdiction, or practice area. Teams often route API outputs into knowledge management or reporting layers so practitioners and business professionals reference the same defined dataset. Why Litigation Teams Use Analytics The Lex Machina API puts litigation analytics inside the workflow layer where legal work happens. It supports scheduled reporting, event-driven updates, and custom applications that match an organization’s priorities. It helps teams reduce repeat manual steps and create consistent datasets for decision support. Related Post: Anticipate, Uncover, Deliver – Three Ways Litigation Analytics Bolster Real Workflows Next Steps For API Access If you want litigation analytics in dashboards, client portals, and internal systems, the Lex Machina API offers a practical path. Request a Lex Machina demonstration to discuss Lex Machina API access and integration options.Lex MachinaLex Machina Product LaunchesLex Machina NewsLitigation AnalyticsLegal Analyticshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/counsellink/b/counsellink/posts/when-simple-legal-billing-tools-no-longer-enoughWed, 11 Mar 2026 12:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:5e6e7b8f-2c10-45ce-ad79-d5ee39b7105cJayme SoulatiSimple legal billing tools are often the first step legal operations teams take to bring order to invoicing and payments. Electronic billing replaces paper invoices, speeds up approvals and provides basic visibility into legal spend. For many departments, these tools deliver early wins. Over time, however, legal teams notice limitations that simple billing software cannot address. As workloads increase and scrutiny around legal spend grows, billing alone is no longer sufficient. This is typically the moment when legal departments reassess their approach to financial management and put more governance in place, beyond standardization. Early Signs That Simple Billing Tools Are Falling Short Legal teams often recognize the limits of simple billing tools when they encounter challenges such as: Invoices that require extensive manual review Limited ability to enforce billing guidelines consistently Difficulty tracking spend across matters, vendors, and timekeepers Disconnected data between billing, matters and contracts Reporting that lacks context or forecasting capability While simple billing tools help process invoices, they rarely support proactive financial oversight. Key takeaway: Processing invoices is not the same as managing legal spend. Why Legal Spend Becomes Harder to Control Over Time As legal departments grow, legal spend patterns become more complex. Matters span longer timeframes. Outside counsel rosters expand. Budgets tighten. Leadership expects more frequent and accurate reporting. At this stage, legal ops teams need to answer questions like: Which firms drive the highest costs? Are budgets aligned with matter outcomes? How does staffing mix affect spend? Where do billing exceptions occur most often? Simple billing tools are not designed to answer these questions because they operate in isolation. The Difference Between Billing and Legal Spend Management Legal billing focuses on invoice processing. Legal spend management focuses on financial governance. Spend management requires: Budget creation and forecasting Accrual tracking Vendor performance insight Billing guideline enforcement Analytics tied to matters and contracts Without these capabilities, legal teams are reacting to legal spend after it happens rather than managing it proactively. How Enterprise Legal Management Changes the Equation Enterprise legal management platforms extend beyond billing to connect financial data with the broader legal workflow. In an ELM environment, billing data is no longer standalone. It is viewed alongside: Matter details Contract obligations Vendor performance metrics Staffing patterns Historical trends This context allows legal ops teams to identify cost drivers early and adjust strategy before budgets are exceeded. How CounselLink+ Supports Mature Legal Spend Management LexisNexis® CounselLink+™ includes legal billing as part of an integrated enterprise legal management platform designed for legal departments operating at scale. Within CounselLink+, legal teams can: Enforce billing guidelines automatically Review invoices using rule-based and AI-assisted workflows Track budgets and accruals in near real time Analyze legal spend by matter, vendor, timekeeper, or practice area Connect billing activity to contracts and matters Generate dashboards that support forecasting and leadership reporting This integrated approach allows legal teams to move beyond invoice processing and toward informed financial decision-making. Moving From Simplicity to Control Simple legal billing tools serve an important purpose early on. As legal departments mature, however, they require deeper insight and stronger controls to manage spend effectively. Recognizing when simple tools are no longer enough is a sign of operational maturity. Enterprise legal management platforms support that next stage by bringing financial, operational and outside counsel data into a single environment. To learn how CounselLink+ supports advanced legal spend management, contact our team .Legal Spend Managementhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/lex-machina/b/lex-machina/posts/labor-and-employment-federal-litigation-trendsTue, 10 Mar 2026 21:38:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:a67ca8e0-35ae-4c88-b731-0b31265e4c17Virginie De SmechtAvailable now, the Lex Machina® 2026 Employment Litigation Report delivers a comprehensive analysis of federal labor and employment litigation trends from 2016 through 2025. Drawing on more than a decade of data, the report equips law firms and corporate legal teams with actionable insights to better assess risk, refine strategy, and anticipate outcomes in today’s evolving workplace disputes. Request your copy now on   the Lex Machina Litigation Reports page . “The Employment Litigation Report reveals a rapidly shifting liability risk profile for employers in this decade,” said Eric Wright, senior vice president for Lex Machina at LexisNexis®. “From 2023 to 2025, employee claims on median took 1,021 days – that’s nearly three years – to reach trial, and courts approved nearly $2 billion in settlement awards for employment-related class actions despite reductions in FLSA claims. These findings give practitioners concrete benchmarks for assessing risk, timing, and potential exposure in modern workplace disputes.” Disability Accommodation Cases Reach New Highs Employment lawsuits alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities have risen sharply. In 2025, plaintiffs filed 6,796 disability accommodation cases , a likely record and an increase of about 42% year over year. Long-term health issues associated with Covid-19 continue to influence this trend. In addition, several recent high-damage awards in disability accommodation cases may be contributing to increased plaintiff activity. Discrimination Filings Exceed 20,000 Since 2022, federal claims involving adverse employment actions or unwelcome conduct against protected classes, as well as retaliation claims, have surpassed pre-pandemic averages. In 2025, plaintiffs filed more than 20,000 federal discrimination lawsuits , the first time that filings crossed that threshold since at least 2009. Recent developments in case law that reinforced certain avenues of recovery for discrimination plaintiffs likely played a role in this increase. Rise in Pro Se Plaintiffs Brings Stark Outcomes The proportion of federal employment cases filed by unrepresented plaintiffs has grown steadily from 2021 through 2025. In 2025, more than 16 percent of employment lawsuits were filed pro se, up from under 10 percent in 2021 . The litigation outcomes for these plaintiffs are striking. From 2023 through 2025, pro se employment plaintiffs lost at a ratio exceeding 40 to 1 in cases decided on the merits. This growing segment of filings presents unique strategic and procedural considerations for both plaintiffs and defendants. Turning Data into Strategic Advantage “The Lex Machina Employment Report 2026 is a rich report with interesting data and insights on trends and developments in employment related claims and lawsuits,” said Daniel A. Cotter, partner with Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa. “The information related to disability accommodations cases growing is something that the report had identified to me to monitor closely.” Related Post: Anticipate, Uncover, Deliver – Three Ways Litigation Analytics Bolster Real Workflows Lex Machina, the LexisNexis Legal Analytics® platform, empowers legal professionals to make data-informed decisions for claim assessment, venue selection, motion strategy, settlement negotiations, trial tactics, business development, lateral hiring, and more. We provide companies and law firms with advanced intelligence on case outcomes in federal courts and an expanding range of state courts – now including  docket-level data for more than 1,300 venues . Is your team ready to make data-driven decisions from complaints through appeal ? Visit the  Lex Machina product page  for more information and sign up for a free demonstration and customized analytical report. Frequently Asked Questions   Which types of claims are driving federal employment litigation trends? The report highlights sharp growth in disability accommodation filings and a record level of discrimination filings. In 2025, plaintiffs filed 6,796 disability accommodation cases, and federal discrimination filings exceeded 20,000 cases for the first time in the report’s tracking period. Claim mix shapes what evidence matters and how early disputes surface.   What do federal employment litigation trends suggest about case timing? Federal employment trends in this dataset point to long timelines, even in ordinary matters. From 2023 to 2025, employee claims on median took 1,021 days to reach trial. That does not mean every case will run three years. It does mean clients need a budgeting plan that assumes long runway, staffing continuity, and periodic re-evaluation of reserves.  Do pro se plaintiffs win employment lawsuits? They can. The odds get harsh once a case reaches merits decisions. From 2023 through 2025, pro se employment plaintiffs lost at a ratio greater than 40:1 in cases decided on the merits in federal district courts.Lex MachinaLex Machina NewsLegal Analytics ReportsLegal Analyticshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/law-books/b/law-books/posts/2026-updates-to-connecticut-and-rhode-island-business-entity-laws-what-practitioners-need-to-knowThu, 05 Mar 2026 15:21:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:4ebe1a53-c762-4d34-8966-87389a3c21bfJoshua LloydBy Eric Geringswald | CSC Key Legislative Changes in Connecticut The 2025 legislative session of the Connecticut General Assembly introduced several changes affecting the business community. Updates include amendments to laws governing service of process on corporations and revisions to securities regulations. The Legislature also enacted a new chapter of the Uniform Commercial Code addressing “controllable electronic records,” including digital assets such as cryptocurrency and NFTs. Our Table of Sections Affected outlines these statutory revisions. In addition, a Legislative Analysis prepared by Nancy A.D. Hancock, Member, Pullman & Comley LLC, provides a detailed overview of the changes and their practical implications. Corporate Tax Changes in Rhode Island In Rhode Island, lawmakers passed two acts affecting corporate taxation. These changes redefine “net income” and require five days’ notice to the Department of Taxation before the sale or transfer of a major portion of business assets. These updates may impact transactional planning and compliance procedures for businesses operating in the state. What’s New in the 2026 Edition The 2026 Edition of Connecticut & Rhode Island Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated incorporates these legislative developments to ensure practitioners are working with current statutory authority. The new edition also includes: Recent case notes from Connecticut and Rhode Island courts interpreting business entity law Tables of New Annotations identifying all newly added cases Gray bar highlights throughout the book to easily identify new material Practical Tools for Business Law Practitioners This edition provides more than statutory updates. It also includes: Up-to-date fee schedules for required state filing fees Online access to business entity forms via the LexisNexis® Bookstore download center Forms for incorporation, formation, qualification, mergers, dissolution, and name reservation A state-specific forms listing included in the appendix These tools support efficient filings and help reduce administrative friction. Available Formats Connecticut & Rhode Island Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated is available as: A softbound volume An eBook compatible with eReader devices, computers, tablets, and smartphones The LexisNexis® Digital Library Exercise Your Options With CSC® Publishing Auto Ship Stay current automatically. Enroll in auto ship to receive new editions upon release without repeating the ordering process. Bulk Savings Volume discounts are available for firms ordering multiple copies. To learn more about auto ship or bulk purchase options, call 800.533.1637. For more information about the 2026 Edition of Connecticut & Rhode Island Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated , call 800.533.1637 or visit lexisnexis.com/csc.CSCStoreLaw BooksBusiness Entitieshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/law-books/b/law-books/posts/what-connecticut-businesses-need-to-know-about-2025-legislative-changesWed, 04 Mar 2026 17:23:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:c81c2914-1a43-4faa-aea7-1b847fe6f52dJoshua LloydBy Nancy A. D. Hancock | CSC, Pullman & Comley Analysis of Selected 2025 Changes in Connecticut Law Governing Business Entities Connecticut did not enact a 2025 public act that directly amended the core entity statutes in Connecticut General Statutes Titles 33 and 34, which govern corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), limited partnerships (LPs), limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and statutory trusts. However, the 2025 legislative session of the Connecticut General Assembly amended certain key Connecticut statutes of interest to the business community that corporations and other business organizations should consider as they begin the new year. The 2025 statutory changes will be operationally significant for certain Connecticut business brokers seeking clarity regarding the availability to them of an exemption from portions of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act applicable to broker-dealers. The Connecticut Uniform Commercial Code has also seen changes that will affect borrowers and lenders perfecting security interests in Connecticut. Read on for summaries of noteworthy laws enacted in 2025 that should be of interest to Connecticut businesses, together with their effective dates and compliance mechanics. Connecticut Securities Law Amendments Public Act No. 25-85 Amendments to the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act Public Act No. 25-85, titled “An Act Concerning the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act” (House Bill 6875), was signed into law on June 23, 2025, and became effective upon passage. § 36b-6 Amended Public Act No. 25-85 amended Section 36b-6 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act to add an exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements under Sections 36b-2 through 36b-34, inclusive, of the act for certain intermediaries who are involved in mergers and acquisitions of “eligible privately held companies.” The amendment creates an exclusion tailored to “merger and acquisition broker-dealers” who facilitate changes of control in certain qualifying private companies. Both terms are defined in new replacement Section 36b-6(f). This new Connecticut law exempts from the Connecticut broker-dealer registration requirements those who limit their activities to specified types of small private company merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions. The new exemption was created to parallel the federal exemption added to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which took effect on March 29, 2023. Section 36b-6 governs the registration of broker-dealers, agents, investment advisers and investment adviser agents under Connecticut law. Before this 2025 amendment came into effect, intermediaries who limited their investment banking and broker-dealer activities to facilitating the purchase and sale of privately held operating businesses often faced the potential requirement to register with the Banking Commissioner as brokers if the transaction involved securities. Recent federal developments recognized a limited exclusion for “merger and acquisition brokers” who limit their business activities in securities to participating in transfers of ownership of privately held companies under defined conditions. Connecticut’s 2025 amendment aligns state law with this federal statute by establishing a state-level exclusion from broker-dealer registration for qualifying M&A transactions, while preserving investor protection through scope limits and disclosure-based safeguards. The amendment introduces an express exclusion from broker-dealer registration for M&A broker-dealers whose activities are confined to securities transactions incident to the transfer of ownership of an “eligible privately held company.” The statute defines an eligible privately held company by reference to its non-reporting status under the Exchange Act and by placing size constraints keyed to the company’s most recently completed fiscal year. Specifically, the company must not have securities registered, or required to be registered, under Exchange Act Section 12 and must not be required to file periodic reports under Exchange Act Section 15(d). In addition, the company must meet at least one of two financial thresholds: the company’s EBITDA must be less than $25 million or its gross revenues must be less than $250 million in the fiscal year immediately preceding the broker’s engagement. A second requirement is that the broker-dealer must reasonably believe that, when the transaction is consummated, any person acquiring securities or assets of the eligible privately held company, acting alone or in concert with others, will control the eligible privately held company or the business conducted with its assets. The broker-dealer must also reasonably believe that the acquirer or acquirers, directly or indirectly, will be active in the management of the eligible privately held company or the business conducted with its assets. “Control” is implicated through the power to direct management and policies, and “active management” is defined with a non-exclusive list of examples, including electing or serving as executive officers, approving budgets or otherwise exercising managerial oversight. These elements are required to differentiate the excluded M&A adviser in business combinations from a broker’s involvement in trading investment securities for passive ownership. The amendment also adds pre-closing disclosure obligations designed to ensure informed decision-making by the acquirer. Before consummating the acquisition, the acquirer must have reasonable access to the target’s most recent fiscal year-end financial statements, a balance sheet dated within 120 days of the exchange offer or sale and material information regarding management, business operations and loss contingencies. The amendment clarifies that qualifying deal brokers for smaller, non-reporting companies can proceed without state broker-dealer registration when the statutory conditions are satisfied. Because the exclusion is based on the activities in which business intermediaries engage, intermediaries should be aware that if they stray beyond the permitted scope, such as by engaging in general solicitation for passive investors, taking custody of customer funds or securities or arranging financing in a manner inconsistent with the statute’s boundaries, they risk losing the protection of the exclusion. § 36b-15 Amended The Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Banking may censure or impose a bar for the same reasons existing law allows the Commissioner to deny, suspend or revoke a registration or restrict or condition securities or investment advisory activities, such as statutory noncompliance, certain criminal convictions, federal orders, insolvency or supervision failure. The Commissioner’s expanded authority also covers registrants’ partners, officers and directors and any person who directly or indirectly controls them. § 36b-31 Amended The legislation created a filing requirement for securities offerings made pursuant to Regulation A Tier 2. Regulation A, promulgated under the federal Securities Act of 1933, provides a federal exemption from securities registration. Under Securities and Exchange Commission rules, offerings made pursuant to Tier 2 of Regulation A to “qualified purchasers” are preempted from state review under Section 18(b)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933. However, states retain authority to impose notice filing requirements and fees for Tier 2 offerings. The Connecticut legislation added notice filing and fee requirements for offerings made pursuant to Tier 2 of federal Regulation A. An issuer that wishes to rely on the Regulation A Tier 2 exemption must file, within 21 calendar days before the initial sale of the securities in Connecticut: A Regulation A – Tier 2 notice filing form and, if requested by the Commissioner of the Department of Banking, copies of all documents filed with the SEC related to the form A Consent to Service of Process A $250 filing fee Initial filings are effective for 12 months and may be renewed. For each additional 12-month period that continues the same offering, the issuer may renew its notice by filing a renewal notice filing form and paying a $250 renewal fee by the notice filing expiration date. Connecticut Uniform Commercial Code Public Act No. 145, §§ 86–101 Adding Amendments to the Connecticut Uniform Commercial Code Connecticut’s 2025 adoption of new Article 12 to the Uniform Commercial Code aligns Connecticut law with the 2022 UCC amendments that modernize commercial rules for digital assets and related payment rights. “Controllable electronic records” are digital assets, including cryptocurrency and nonfungible tokens. A new article in the Connecticut UCC was created in 2025 establishing rules for transactions involving these assets related to negotiability, transfer and payment rights and secured lending. New Article 12 articulates a comprehensive framework for transactions in a class of digital assets called “controllable electronic records” (CERs) and for certain payment rights tethered to such records. Article 12 coordinates with Article 9 on secured transactions. It defines the asset class, establishes a control standard, sets rules for good-faith acquirers and provides choice-of-law rules intended to reduce title and priority uncertainty in digital asset commerce. A CER is defined as an electronic record susceptible to control. The definition also expressly states what assets are not CERs. CERs do not include controllable accounts, controllable payment intangibles, deposit accounts, electronic copies of records evidencing chattel paper, electronic documents of title, electronic money, investment property or transferable records as defined under certain federal or Connecticut laws. The amendment excludes asset types already comprehensively covered elsewhere in the UCC. This definition captures assets such as virtual currencies, tokenized instruments and nonfungible tokens where technical features enable exclusive control. The act also revises the rule for control of chattel paper to align with a revised definition of that term. “Control” is defined as the digital analog to possession. A person has control of a CER if the person can derive substantially all benefits from the record, exercise exclusive power to prevent others from enjoying those benefits and to transfer control and be readily identifiable as the person with those powers, such as by name, identifying number, cryptographic key, office or account number. The framework recognizes custodial structures, smart contracts and multi-signature arrangements and clarifies that embedded protocol constraints do not defeat exclusivity. The act provides that a purchaser of a CER, controllable account or controllable payment intangible acquires all rights that the transferor had or had the power to transfer. A qualifying purchaser, meaning one who buys in good faith, for value, with control and without notice of adverse claims, takes the CER and, in some cases, linked payment rights free of property claims. Persons who acquire a CER unlawfully or in bad faith are excluded from this take-free treatment. If an account or payment intangible is evidenced by a CER and the account debtor agrees to pay the person in control, the right becomes a controllable account or controllable payment intangible. Transfers of control of such a right to a qualifying purchaser may also carry take-free benefits for the embedded payment right. The addition of CERs as Article 9 collateral may benefit secured lenders. CERs remain within existing collateral categories as general intangibles, but Article 12 and revised Article 9 expressly permit a lender to obtain perfection by control as an alternative, and often superior, method to filing. Before Article 12, most digital assets were considered general intangibles perfected by filing. The revisions authorize and prioritize perfection by control, similar to deposit accounts and investment property. A secured party’s priority generally follows first to control, with control prevailing over filing. The amendments include a hierarchy of choice-of-law rules for CERs and related take-free, perfection and priority issues. The act generally applies the local law of a CER’s jurisdiction to matters covered by Article 12 but allows another jurisdiction’s law to apply if there is an effective agreement for a CER that evidences a controllable account or controllable payment intangible in matters involving an account debtor’s discharge of an obligation. If a conflict exists between Article 9 and Article 12, Article 9 controls. A transaction subject to Article 12 is also subject to any other law that sets a different rule for consumers, laws regulating rates, charges, agreements and practices for loans, credit sales or other extensions of credit and consumer protection laws or regulations. For more information on how these legislative updates may affect your organization, check out CSC publications on the LexisNexis StoreCSCConnecticutStoreLaw Bookshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/counsellink/b/counsellink/posts/evaluating-elm-software-what-high-performing-legal-teams-prioritizeWed, 04 Mar 2026 13:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:4c741e62-5bdd-4dda-aaa9-38afbffb18fcJayme SoulatiLegal departments evaluating enterprise legal management (ELM) software are no longer asking whether they need the technology. They are asking which platform will support the way their team works today and where it needs to go next. High-performing legal teams approach ELM evaluation with a clear set of priorities. Rather than focusing on individual features, they look at how a platform supports visibility, consistency and long-term operational maturity. This article outlines the criteria that legal operations teams prioritize when evaluating ELM software. Prioritization: Integration Over Point Solutions Legal teams that perform at a high level avoid fragmented systems. They recognize that managing matters, legal spend, contracts, and vendors in separate tools leads to inefficiency and gaps in visibility. When evaluating ELM software , they ask: Can matters, contracts and legal spend be viewed together? Does the platform reduce tool switching? Are workflows connected across functions? Integrated platforms support better context, collaboration, efficiency, and reduce administrative overhead. What this signals: Integration is not a “nice to have.” It’s foundational. Expectation: Real-Time Visibility Into Legal Spend Budget awareness is no longer a quarterly exercise. High-performing legal teams want to understand legal spend as it happens so they can respond quickly and accurately. During the evaluation of enterprise legal management software, they look for: Near real-time invoice and accrual visibility Budget tracking at the matter and department level Clear reporting without manual data manipulation Platforms that delay insight limit a team’s ability to manage cost proactively. What this signals: Legal spend visibility is essential for credibility with leadership. Operations Requirement: Configurable, Governed Workflows No two legal departments operate in exactly the same way. At the same time, high-performing legal teams want structure, not chaos. They evaluate whether an ELM platform supports: Configurable workflows for intake, approvals and matter management Consistency without excessive customization Predictable routing and accountability A balance between flexibility and governance supports adoption and scale. What this signals: Process maturity matters as much as configurability. Value: Analytics That Drive Decisions Dashboards alone are not enough. High-performing legal teams evaluate whether analytics actually support decision-making. They ask: Can reports be tailored by role? Are trends easy to identify? Can data be used to explain decisions to leadership? Advanced analytics help legal teams justify resourcing, vendor selection and budget planning. What this signals: Reporting should answer questions, not just display numbers. High-Performing Legal Teams Evaluate Support of Outside Counsel Management Outside counsel represent a significant portion of legal spend. Teams with strong operational maturity evaluate how ELM software supports vendor oversight. Key considerations include: Visibility into timekeeper mix and staffing patterns Ability to enforce billing guidelines Performance comparison across firms Data that supports informed selection decisions Outside counsel evaluation and management are not separate from ELM, they are central to it. What this signals: ELM should strengthen how legal teams manage external relationships. Assessment: How AI Is Applied in Practical Ways High-performing legal teams approach AI with caution and clarity. They look for applications that save time and surface insight without replacing legal judgment. When evaluating ELM software, they consider: Where AI is applied in the workflow Whether AI outputs are transparent and reviewable How governance and controls are handled AI that supports summarization, prioritization and review efficiency is often viewed as most valuable. What this signals: Practical AI beats experimental AI. Selection Criteria: Platforms Supporting Long-Term Maturity ELM evaluation is not just about current needs. Teams consider how the platform will support them as the department evolves. They look for: A clear product roadmap Ongoing enhancements Support for additional capabilities like CLM or advanced analytics A vendor that understands legal operations, not just software delivery What this signals: ELM is a long-term investment, not a quick fix. How LexisNexis CounselLink+ Aligns With These Priorities High-performing legal teams often look for platforms that unify operations rather than adding more tools. LexisNexis® CounselLink+™ integrates enterprise legal management and contract lifecycle management in a single environment. Within CounselLink+, teams can: Connect matters, budgets and contracts in one workspace Monitor legal spend, budgets and invoicing in context Manage and evaluate outside counsel using performance and billing data Draft contracts using the Word add-in with access to LexisNexis Practical Guidance® contract templates and in-depth clause and terms library Use LexisNexis Protégé™ in CounselLink+ AI document, matter and invoice summaries to surface key information efficiently Generate custom dashboards that support capture of analytics, reporting and decision-making This integrated approach helps legal teams operate with greater clarity while maintaining control and governance. Making a Confident ELM Decision Evaluating ELM software requires more than comparing feature lists. High-performing legal teams focus on integration, visibility, workflow maturity and decision support. Platforms that align with these priorities help legal departments operate more effectively and support the business with confidence. To learn how CounselLink+ supports enterprise legal management for modern legal teams, contact our team . You Might Like: How to Implement ELM Software Best Legal Spend Software Explained Enterprise Legal Management Software for Corporate Law DepartmentsEnterprise Legal Managementhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/three-pillars-of-trustworthy-ai-in-legal-workflowsFri, 27 Feb 2026 19:17:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:5ff6953f-cc99-47fe-88f6-a19eff5ca93eVirginie De SmechtThe legal profession stands at a crossroads in which AI tools have been adopted rapidly for the unprecedented efficiency gains they promise, yet lawyers continue to wrestle with how to harness AI’s power in a way that respects the integrity, confidentiality and accuracy that define legal practice. As legal workflows evolve from manual processes to AI-powered systems, three non-negotiable pillars have emerged as the essential foundation for any trustworthy legal AI platform : privacy, security and authoritative content. Need for Purpose-Built Tools Legal work has always demanded precision — generations of lawyers have been taught that a single citation error can undermine an entire argument, for example — and this unique professional culture has been spotlighted in the past two years since AI chatbots have entered the mainstream. The lesson that many legal professionals have learned is that generic AI tools designed for casual consumer use simply don’t meet the bar for legal workflows . Legal professionals need AI tools that are purpose-built for the demands of legal practice, including systems constructed with the base understanding that convenience cannot come at the expense of confidentiality and automation cannot sacrifice accuracy. This is where the fundamental architecture of legal AI matters. The question isn’t whether to adopt AI-powered workflows, but rather which systems can be trusted with sensitive client matters, privileged communications and the serious responsibility of legal representation. Privacy: The Foundation of Client Trust Attorney-client privilege isn’t just an ethical obligation, it’s the bedrock of the legal system. When lawyers integrate AI into their workflows, every document analyzed, every brief drafted and every legal strategy discussed must remain absolutely confidential. This requires AI systems built from the ground up with legal-specific privacy protections . Trustworthy AI for legal workflows means that client data never trains generic models, never mingles with other users’ information and never leaves the protected environment of the legal platform. It means that when you’re researching a sensitive merger, drafting discovery responses in a high-stakes litigation or analyzing confidential employment matters your work product remains yours alone. This level of privacy protection should be a fundamental requirement for any AI tool touching legal work. Security: Protecting What Matters Most Privacy and security work hand in hand, but security addresses a different dimension of protection. While privacy concerns who has access to information, security ensures that unauthorized parties can’t breach the system to obtain it. For lawyers handling sensitive corporate transactions, confidential litigation matters or high-stakes regulatory compliance documents, security failures aren’t just inconvenient … they are potentially catastrophic for their clients. Secure legal AI workflows require enterprise-grade protection : encrypted data transmission, rigorous access controls, audit trails, and infrastructure that meets or exceeds industry standards. These systems must be designed to withstand sophisticated cyber threats while remaining seamlessly accessible to authorized users. Security in legal AI isn’t about adding lawyers of friction, it’s about building trustworthy systems that lawyers can rely on without second-guessing every interaction. Authoritative Content: The LexisNexi s Advantage Here’s where legal AI diverges most sharply from general-purpose tools. A chatbot might offer helpful suggestions for writing emails or summarizing articles, but legal workflows demand something entirely different: authoritative content backed by trusted legal research databases and validated through rigorous citation checking. This is where an integrated platform such as Lexis + ® with Protégé ™ w orkflows demonstrates its value. Rather than generating plausible-sounding legal analysis that requires manual verification, our system draws from established legal authorities — case law, statutes, regulations and secondary sources — that lawyers already trust. More importantly, built-in citation validation through the reliable Shepard's ® Citations Service ensures that every authority cited remains good law, automatically flagging overruled cases or superseded statutes before they make it into any work product. LexisNexi s® P rotégé™ workflows transforms legal work because the platform was purpose-built for legal professionals and designed for the multi-faceted nature of how lawyers work today. Instead of drafting in one system, researching in another and citation-checking in a third, lawyers can work within a unified environment where authoritative content is embedded from the start. The AI doesn’t just help lawyers work faster, it helps them work better and with confidence that every citation is current, every legal proposition is properly supported. Choosing Wisely As AI-powered legal workflows evolve, the profession will likely continue to wrestle with the choice between trustworthy, purpose-built legal AI and the generic, consumer-facing tools that require constant workarounds. It is important for legal professionals to choose wisely. The choice should not be between convenience and quality or between automation and accuracy. The real power of legal AI emerges when three pillars work together: Privacy protects your work; Security safeguards your data; and Authoritative content ensures your output meets professional standards. The question is not whether to adopt AI, but which AI systems deserve to be at the center of your legal workflows. Experience Protégé™ Protégé ™ is our personalized legal AI assistant with agentic AI technology that intelligently powers productivity, drives next-level work quality, and enables legal and business professionals to unlock new economic value. L earn more about Protégé’s workflow capabilities or request a free trial today.Lexis+ AIProtégéAIWorkflowshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/context-windows-in-legal-ai-and-why-content-still-determines-qualityFri, 27 Feb 2026 16:30:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:a0022f62-b226-45f6-9dfa-5330bcbe1408Virginie De SmechtBy Greg Dickason, Chief Technology Officer, LexisNexis Legal teams ask a practical question. If large language models are so capable, why does legal AI still depend on curated content, and why does surfacing that content matter so much? Context windows in legal AI are a key part of the answer. A model can only consider a finite amount of text in a single run. If the system passes too much material, the model can miss what controls. If the system passes too little, it can miss the facts and procedural posture that make an authority relevant. The result is not a cosmetic error. It is the difference between an answer that reads well and an answer that holds up in a filing or in front of a judge. Related Post: Humans in the Loop: The People Powering Trusted Legal AI Why Legal Context Is Harder In law, there is a lot of conflicting material. A legal AI system can struggle to separate arguments inside an opinion from the holding, distinguish dicta from binding reasoning, or explain why one judgment carries more weight than another on a specific issue in a specific jurisdiction. Lawyers do this instinctively. They identify controlling authority, focus on the key facts, and connect reasoning to the client’s posture and forum. That nuance is the point. The right authority has to match the right proposition, in the right court, at the right stage, for the right purpose. Facts are not just facts. They are facts anchored in precedent that a judge will respect. So yes, content matters. Serving the right content at the right moment matters more. Related Post: How LexisNexis® is Building Trust in AI for Legal Research with Shepard’s® Citation Validation Enhancements Context Windows In Legal AI Limits Large language models have a context window, often described as working memory. Performance can drop as inputs get longer. Information placed in the middle of a long prompt can be missed even when it is present, a pattern studied as “lost in the middle” ( Lost in the Middle ). Recent work also describes “context rot,” where model reliability varies across input length as token counts rise ( Context Rot ). Bigger context windows help, yet they do not solve relevance. If retrieval pulls in extra documents, the model can overweight what it sees last, or rely on a persuasive passage that is not controlling for the question at hand ( AI’s limitations in the practice of law ). That is why more text is not automatically better. Legal AI needs the right amount of information, well linked, well structured, and tightly relevant to jurisdiction, issue, and procedural posture. How Curated Legal Content Helps One way to manage context is to build deeply connected legal data. Citations, authorities, treatment, procedural posture, jurisdictions, judges, issues, and the relationships between them can be encoded and updated as new decisions arrive. That work is continuous. A new ruling can reshape an argument, shift how precedent is read, or change what courts treat as persuasive. Context selection has to adapt at the same pace. This goes beyond a generic model provider, or a thin wrapper over an API. It requires sustained editorial and engineering discipline: ingesting raw material, normalizing it, linking it, validating it, tracking treatment over time, mapping facts to issues, and surfacing only what is relevant for a given question. Related Post: How Lexis+ AI Delivers Trustworthy Linked Legal Citations Why Context Precision Drives Workflows Correct context powers more than research. It supports workflows, the steps lawyers must take under procedural rules that vary by court and can impose hard deadlines. Take a motion to dismiss. You need authority to support the substantive argument. You need the process the court will follow: standards, local rules, page limits, required components, and timing. If the system misses one of those constraints, the output can be unusable when the legal discussion sounds plausible. Much of that material is not reliably available on the open web in a form that is complete, current, and actionable. Building and maintaining it requires investment over time. Practical Context Engineering Signals In practice, high-quality context management in legal AI often depends on: Source fidelity: every citation resolves to an authoritative source. Structured connections: authority, treatment, posture, and jurisdiction are encoded, not guessed. Relevance filters: retrieval narrows to what controls, not what is merely related. Continuous updates: new decisions and amendments refresh links and metadata. Right-sized prompts: the model sees what it needs, no more. Where To Go From Here Context windows in legal AI are a real constraint. Long or poorly scoped inputs can cause models to miss controlling authority, misread what matters, or fail to connect precedent to the facts that make it relevant. That is why output quality depends on content quality and content structure such as authoritative sources, jurisdictional specificity, and citation-grounded relationships delivered in the right scope for the question. Evaluate legal AI on whether it can surface controlling law, explain application, and show its work with citations that stand up to review. To learn more about how Lexis+® with Protégé™ can work for you, book a demo today.DraftingProtégéWorkflowsLegal AIhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/law-books/b/law-books/posts/top-corrections-litigation-risks-for-2026-and-how-prison-leaders-can-prepareWed, 25 Feb 2026 14:36:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:254afa05-2e4a-4c37-9698-e31364053c4cLorella BainCorrections litigation continues to evolve as courts scrutinize whether facilities operate systems that reliably protect constitutional and statutory rights—especially when staffing shortages, documentation gaps and communication breakdowns exist. In a recent webinar hosted by the American Jail Association and sponsored by LexisNexis® , retired superintendent and special sheriff Gerard Horgan outlined five areas driving frequent court involvement in 2026: medical and mental health care, suicide precautions, use-of-force standards, religious accommodations and access to courts, including ADA and language access considerations. This post offers a high-level field guide to help correctional leaders identify vulnerabilities and strengthen daily operations. For deeper analysis, case examples and implementation strategies, you may access the on-demand webinar recording. 1) Medical and mental health care: Delays, systemic failures and ADA exposure Medical and mental health claims remain a leading driver of corrections litigation. Many cases center on delayed care, systemic breakdowns and ADA-related access failures. Recurring themes include inadequate care systems, delayed diagnostics and follow-up, and disability-related barriers to services and programming. Risk indicators leaders should monitor Backlogs delaying routine care, specialty referrals, screenings or intake health assessments Breakdowns in continuity of care for serious or chronic conditions, including medication access and monitoring ADA accommodations not consistently integrated into operations and program access Operational checklist Do we have a weekly high-risk medical and mental health review team that includes custody, clinical leadership and legal? Are meeting minutes documented with clear action plans for high-risk individuals? Is communication between custody and clinical teams structured and standardized rather than informal? 2) Suicide precautions: Early-custody risk and communication failures Suicide prevention litigation often centers on what staff knew, how information moved between teams and whether precautions matched the identified risk—particularly during the earliest days of custody. DOJ data shows a concentration of jail suicides shortly after admission, with most incidents involving hanging or self-strangulation. High-risk triggers frequently cited in claims First incarceration, intense shame or guilt After court appearances or receipt of bad news Overnight hours, holidays or birthdays Restrictive housing placements Fear for personal safety, including PREA-related concerns Operational checklist Do we conduct a multidisciplinary after-action review following any completed suicide or serious attempt? Are security and mental health teams aligned on risk mitigation goals and communicating consistently? Are periodic high-risk review meetings held, and decisions clearly documented? 3) Use of force: Objective standards, documentation and duty to intervene Use-of-force litigation focuses on whether force was justified under the correct constitutional standard and whether reports demonstrate proportionality, de-escalation efforts and oversight. Key legal standards include: Graham v. Connor—Objective reasonableness standard for arrestees Hudson v. McMillian—Malicious and sadistic standard for convicted prisoners Kingsley v. Hendrickson—Objective reasonableness for pretrial detainees Operational checklist Does training clearly differentiate legal standards based on population status and constitutional framework? Do incident reports consistently document the need for force, amount used, efforts to temper the response, perceived threat, resistance and injuries? Do we reinforce de-escalation practices and emphasize the duty to intervene? Is the review team structured to identify patterns and coaching opportunities rather than simply checking compliance? 4) Religious accommodations: Diet and worship claims expanding Religious rights and dietary accommodation claims continue to expand. Courts evaluate whether facilities apply consistent standards and avoid unnecessary barriers that create unequal treatment. Key legal frameworks include: Turner v. Safley—Reasonably related to legitimate penological interests RLUIPA—Compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means Operational checklist Do we maintain access to multi-denominational religious staff or a documented plan to seek guidance? Are non-mainstream religions addressed through a consistent and neutral process? Can we demonstrate Turner and RLUIPA-informed reasoning with documentation when limitations are imposed? 5) Access to courts: Language access, digital access and ADA considerations Access-to-courts claims increasingly involve language limitations, restricted tablet or legal research availability and ADA accessibility for individuals who are visually or hearing impaired. Operational checklist Do incarcerated individuals have meaningful access to grievance systems and legal research tools regardless of language needs? Are technology tools accessible to individuals with disabilities and is support documented? Are tablet use policies workable in special management settings? LexisNexis corrections solutions support these efforts through customizable inmate law libraries and plain-language resources for the incarcerated delivered in secure online or offline formats to align with facility needs. How Jail Leaders Can Prepare in 2026: Systems Beat Policies Across all five categories, courts look for reliable systems, not just written policies. That includes documented communication loops, structured review teams, training aligned to governing standards and technology that supports meaningful access. Ready for a deeper dive with case examples and implementation guidance? Watch the on-demand webinar recording . Watch the On-Demand Webinar: Practical Litigation Insights from Gerard Horgan Want the full breakdown of the cases, risk patterns and operational lessons discussed above? In this on-demand webinar hosted by the American Jail Association and sponsored by LexisNexis®, Gerard Horgan shares practical insight drawn from more than three decades in corrections leadership. He walks through real-world litigation examples, highlights where facilities commonly fall short and outlines steps leaders can take to reduce exposure. You’ll learn: Where courts are focusing their scrutiny in 2026 How documentation gaps turn operational issues into legal liability What multidisciplinary review teams should be evaluating now Practical system improvements that strengthen defensibility If you’re responsible for jail operations, policy oversight or risk management, this session delivers actionable guidance you can implement immediately. Watch the on-demand webinar recording About Gerard Horgan, Esq., CJM Gerard Horgan brings more than 30 years of corrections experience. He served as Superintendent of Jail Operations at the Norfolk Sheriff’s Office beginning in 2013, supervising uniformed staff, programs, medical, human resources, fiscal operations, legal, classification and administrative functions. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston, where he teaches courses in corrections and criminal justice.Legal TrendsCorrectionshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/counsellink/b/counsellink/posts/legal-operations-fee-governanceWed, 25 Feb 2026 13:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:5b866b79-0f95-431d-93f1-edc79c62c3a0Jayme SoulatiOutside counsel fees remain historically elevated, even as the pace of year-over-year increases has moderated. Legal operations teams are now operating in an environment where cost pressure is persistent, leadership scrutiny is high, and expectations for financial discipline continue to grow. In this environment, managing outside counsel fees is no longer about reacting to individual rate increases. It requires governance, a structured, repeatable approach that enables legal departments to make informed decisions, maintain consistency and protect budgets over time. We'll explore how legal operations build governance to manage outside counsel fees in this article. In Brief Legal operations teams manage outside counsel fees most effectively by establishing governance supported by enterprise legal management technology. When evaluation standards, spend visibility and negotiation workflows are centralized in platforms like LexisNexis® CounselLink+™ , legal departments gain the structure needed to manage fees consistently, justify decisions to leadership, and engage outside counsel from a position of preparedness rather than reaction. Why Fee Governance Matters Now Recent CounselLink trends analyses show that while rate growth has softened from record highs, partner fees remain well above pre-2022 levels. The gap between the largest law firms and the next tier of firms persists, and rate behavior continues to vary significantly by practice area. This reality creates two challenges for legal operations: Fee pressure is ongoing, not temporary One-off responses do not scale across firms, matters or years Legal departments that rely solely on ad hoc negotiations or manual tracking struggle to sustain control. Governance programs provide the foundation for long-term fee management. Governance Comes Before Negotiation Effective fee management begins inside the legal department, not at the negotiation table. Governance establishes: Clear evaluation standards for outside counsel Consistent budget expectations and staffing guidelines Visibility into historical spend and performance Alignment between legal, finance and leadership Without this foundation, negotiations become reactive and inconsistent. With governance in place, discussions with law firms are grounded in data and shared expectations. In practice, governance is often confused with standardization. Standardization defines shared rules and guidelines, such as billing standards or evaluation criteria. Governance is what ensures those standards are applied consistently, exceptions are handled intentionally and decisions remain defensible over time. Core Governance Capabilities Legal Operations Need Standardized Evaluation Frameworks Legal operations teams need defined criteria for evaluating outside counsel across quality, cost discipline, staffing behavior, and outcomes. When expectations are clear, firms understand how success is measured and legal departments maintain consistency across matters. Spend and Matter Visibility Fee governance requires connecting cost data to matters and outcomes. Legal operations teams must be able to see: Budget variance over time Spend by firm and practice area Staffing patterns that influence blended rates Trends across similar matters Enterprise legal management platforms provide this visibility without manual reconciliation. Invoice and Billing Insight Invoice behavior is a leading indicator of fee discipline. Patterns such as unauthorized timekeepers, staffing sprawl and repeated guideline violations often surface before budgets are exceeded. Within CounselLink+, SmartReview® automatically flags and corrects billing errors, while LexisNexis® Protégé™ in CounselLink+ summarizes invoices to surface anomalies, trends, and risk signals quickly. This insight strengthens governance by turning invoice review into actionable intelligence. Fee Offer Governance and Negotiation Inside the ELM Platform Governance is most effective when fee discussions are embedded within the same system that houses matter data, historical spend and evaluation standards. CounselLink+ enables in-app negotiation of fee offers, allowing legal operations teams to manage rate discussions directly within the enterprise legal management platform. By centralizing submitted and approved fee offers in one place, legal departments gain clearer visibility into rate changes, improved tracking across matters, and reduced administrative burden associated with email-based negotiations. This approach delivers greater transparency and control for both clients and law firms. In addition, LexisNexis Protégé in CounselLink+ summarizes fee offers submitted by outside counsel, helping legal operations teams quickly understand proposed rates, key changes and potential budget impact. These AI-generated summaries provide context and clarity, enabling more informed and consistent decision-making while supporting productive, professional engagement with outside counsel. Together, in-app fee offer negotiation and AI-powered fee offer summarization transform negotiation from an ad hoc activity into a governed, repeatable workflow aligned with established evaluation standards. Why Technology Is Essential to Sustainable Fee Governance Manual processes and spreadsheets cannot support long-term governance. Fee management at scale requires technology that: Centralizes data Automates review and analysis Supports evaluation and negotiation workflows Provides transparency for leadership Enterprise legal management solutions make governance operational and defensible. What This Means for Legal Operations Managing outside counsel fees is no longer about individual negotiations. It is about building governance that enables legal departments to operate with confidence in a high-cost environment. Governance establishes consistency and discipline Data enables informed decision-making Technology makes governance scalable Negotiation becomes an outcome of preparation Legal operations teams gain credibility with leadership To learn how CounselLink+ enables fee governance within a unified ELM platform, contact our team . To Learn More, Explore: Measuring ELM Value: Key Metrics and Maturity Benchmarks When Should In-house Counsel Hire Outside Counsel? How to Measure Partner Performance with 15 MetricsLegal Operationshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/proposed-stock-buyback-ban-for-tax-break-recipients-in-miWed, 18 Feb 2026 16:50:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:d6e68291-be15-4103-b9bd-a999d74e5ecbAlyzza AustriacoMI to Weigh Ban on Stock Buybacks for Companies Receiving Tax Breaks Michigan Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) introduced a bill ( SB 783 ) that would prohibit publicly traded companies receiving economic incentives through the Michigan Strategic Fund from repurchasing their own stock. Violators would have to repay any incentives they received and pay a 10% penalty. ( YAHOO! FINANCE , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/va-s-paid-sick-leave-billWed, 18 Feb 2026 16:49:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:f6796cba-4fba-41d2-9d05-6ac549eb9bbeAlyzza AustriacoVA House Passes Paid Sick Leave Bill Virginia’s House of Delegates approved a bill ( HB 5 ) that would expand the state’s current paid sick leave law, which applies only to a small segment of workers, to include all public and private sector employees. If enacted, workers could earn an hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work. ( VIRGINIA MERCURY , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesLabor & Employmenthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/va-prescription-drug-affordability-board-measure-moreWed, 18 Feb 2026 16:47:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:0b6e7d36-2d8a-498b-b504-b49d639c3194Alyzza AustriacoVA Lawmakers Okay Prescription Drug Affordability Board Virginia lawmakers have passed legislation ( SB 271 / HB 483 ) that would create a prescription drug affordability board to review drug prices and set limits on how much state-regulated health plans can pay for drugs. The legislation is similar to that enacted in other states, but Virginia’s would be the first linking the board’s activity to drug price negotiations between manufacturers and Medicare mandated by the federal Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. ( PLURIBUS NEWS , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) Federal Government Targeting Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising After decades of debating whether to restrict direct-to-consumer drug advertising, the Trump administration and federal lawmakers appear to be moving in that direction. Last February, U.S. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) introduced a bill (SB 483) prohibiting drugs from being advertised directly to consumers for three years after they receive FDA approval. The measure is still pending. In September President Trump issued a presidential memorandum calling for the reversal of a 1997 policy change that allowed drug advertising on television. On the same day, the FDA announced that it was “sending thousands of letters warning pharmaceutical companies to remove misleading ads and issuing approximately 100 cease-and-desist letters to companies with deceptive ads.” ( NEW YORK TIMES ) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/new-privacy-concern-for-state-lawmakers-geolocation-data-privacyWed, 18 Feb 2026 13:07:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:4af2af42-0d4a-4407-9a54-12957964dfdeMary Anne PeckGeolocation data has become a new frontier in privacy protection. This year, Virginia could join Maryland and Oregon as the first states to prohibit the sale of information that provides the precise geographic location of a device, object or user through GPS , IP address tracking , Wi-Fi triangulation or cellular network signals , among other means . Maryland’s and Oregon’s bans were only recently enacted in the past four months (SB 541 [2025] and HB 2008 [2025], respectively). Virginia’s SB 338 , by Sens. Russet Perry (D) and David Suetterlein (R), would ban geolocation data sales in the Old Dominion starting in July. Consumer Reports, the nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization that publishes an investigative journalism magazine with the same name, has announced its support for the Virginia bill. “Location data is among the most sensitive information companies can collect, potentially revealing visits to reproductive or mental health clinics, political rallies, places of worship, and other potentially sensitive locations,” said Matt Schwartz, policy analyst at Consumer Reports. “At a time when location tracking is increasingly being weaponized against consumers, stopping the commercial sale of consumers’ location data is one of the most effective steps lawmakers can take to safeguard consumer privacy.” In a January letter to the chair of the Virginia Senate General Laws and Technology Committee, Consumer Reports joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Public Interest Research Group and Tech Equity Action in urging passage of SB 338. “The location data market is a multi-billion-dollar industry centered on collecting and selling people’s everyday comings and goings, often collected from people’s mobile devices and often without their knowledge or explicit consent,” they wrote. “Location data is an extremely sensitive form of personal data. Researchers have shown that 95 percent of individuals can be uniquely identified from just four spatio-temporal points; most companies that collect this information have orders of magnitude more data than that.” SB 338 was unanimously passed by both the committee and the Senate as a whole , and it has now moved on to the House of Representatives where a similar bill also supported by Consumer Reports floundered last year . The organization, which has developed model legislation for stopping the sale of geolocation data , said it expects other states to at least consider bans in 2026, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington. Other Bans Under Consideration According to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system, over 80 bills referring to “geolocation data” and “privacy” have been introduced in 26 states this year. Only five of those measures, however, including Virginia SB 338, focus directly on geolocation data privacy, according to their bill summaries. Hawaii Sen. Chris Lee (D) introduced two bills to ban the sale of both geolocation data and internet browser data. SB 3017 and SB 1163 both bar selling geolocation information without explicit, opt-in consent, while the latter bill adds exemptions for law enforcement investigations, Customer Proprietary Network Information and telecommunications carriers operating according to federal CPNI rules. Maryland SB 569 by Sen. Arthur Ellis (D) seeks to strengthen the state’s online data privacy laws by establishing stricter limits on geolocation information and other personal and sensitive data. The bill targets the sensitive data of consumers under the age of 18. New Jersey AB 441 , by Assemblyman Michael Venezia (D) would bar businesses that track or sell precise geolocation data from disclosing any information about someone at or near a reproductive health care facility. Two years ago, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) reported that an anti-abortion group used mobile phone location data to send misinformation to people who visited 600 reproductive health clinics in 48 states. Industry Opposition to Bans In a letter to Oregon lawmakers considering HB 2008 last year, a coalition of advertisers provided a “non-exhaustive list of concerns” they had with the bill. Noting first that the state’s privacy law already required companies to obtain consumers’ consent before processing or selling their location data, the officials from the Association of National Advertisers, American Association of Advertising Agencies, Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation and Digital Advertising Alliance said HB 2008 would deprive Oregon residents of “access to critical services and benefits that depend on location data.” One of those benefits was receiving “relevant content and ads.” “Without the ability to disclose location data for advertising purposes, subject to consumers’ opt-in consent, businesses will have a more difficult time, and face higher costs, reaching individuals with relevant marketing, and Oregonians will not be alerted to products and services they desire that are near to them,” they wrote. The groups also argued that the measure could impede emergency notifications. “Oregonians may lose access to emergency alerts for floods, wildfires, and other community emergencies, as these important, real-time alerts rely on disclosure of location data to function,” they stated. In addition, they argued the bill could hinder “effective fraud prevention.” “The responsible disclosure of location data allows anti-fraud and identity protection services to flag suspicious behavior and protect vulnerable communities,” they wrote. “For example, companies can more easily detect credit card theft or fraud if they or their service providers have access to location data showing that a consumer is not in the location where a purchase is being made. If passed, HB 2008 would impede entities’ ability to responsibly use and disclose location data to prevent fraudulent activity and reach out to consumers to confirm their purchases.” Bills Dealing with Geolocation Data Privacy Introduced in Half of States Bills referring to “location data” and “privacy” have been introduced in at least 26 states this year, according to the LexisNexis State Net legislative tracking system. Bills in five of those states focus directly on geolocation data privacy, according to their bill summaries. Start of Trend? The advertisers’ objections didn’t stop Oregon lawmakers from passing HB 2008. And in mid-February, Bloomberg Law ’s privacy reporter Tonya Riley wrote that at least a half dozen unidentified states “without comprehensive privacy laws” are considering bills to ban the sale of geolocation data, highlighting “an evolution in lawmakers’ understanding of consumer privacy since California passed its first-in-the-nation law nearly a decade ago.” Riley noted that attorneys general in both California and Texas have also raised concerns over geolocation data. This certainly appears to be an emerging legislative trend. It wasn’t on our radar when we published our forecast of the top issues for 2026 —but it is now. —By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalTechnologySpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/counsellink/b/counsellink/posts/why-law-department-governance-mattersWed, 18 Feb 2026 13:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:0dc92f9c-2828-42bd-86d4-ab8a5d7e738eJayme SoulatiMany legal departments have invested time in standardizing processes, documenting guidelines and defining expectations. Yet even with these efforts, inconsistency often remains. Decisions vary by matter, by reviewer or by circumstance. Costs fluctuate unexpectedly. Leadership asks questions that are difficult to answer with confidence. This is where law department governance becomes essential. Governance is not about adding process or oversight. It is about creating the structure that allows legal operations to apply standards consistently, make defensible decisions and deliver predictable outcomes over time. In Brief Law department governance defines how decisions are made, applied and reviewed across matters, vendors and legal spend. While standardization establishes shared rules, governance ensures those rules hold up under pressure. When governance is in place, l egal operations shifts from reactive problem-solving to proactive, data-informed management that builds credibility and trust across the enterprise. The WHY: Why Is Governance Necessary? Legal departments operate in environments where pressure is constant and visibility is required. Governance exists because standardization alone cannot withstand that reality. Governance becomes necessary when: Similar matters receive different treatment without clear rationale Exceptions accumulate and quietly become precedent Outside counsel relationships drift from original expectations Budgets require explanation, not just reconciliation Leadership expects clarity, not after-the-fact justification Without governance, legal operations is often forced to respond after issues arise. Governance enables teams to anticipate issues before they escalate. Standardization Is Not Enough Standardization is an important foundation. It defines what should be done. But it does not determine how decisions are made when conditions change. Legal operations teams often discover that: Standards are interpreted differently across teams Enforcement varies depending on who is reviewing the matter Exceptions are granted without documentation or review It is difficult to explain why one firm or approach was chosen over another Governance is what bridges this gap. It ensures standards are applied consistently, exceptions are intentional and decisions can be explained with confidence. The RESULT: What Does Governance Change for Legal Departments? Decisions Become Defensible With governance in place, legal operations can articulate why decisions are made, not just what is done. Decisions are supported by defined criteria, historical context and consistent application rather than individual judgment. This defensibility matters when: Finance asks about cost variance Leadership questions vendor selection Audit or procurement seeks transparency Legal Spend Becomes More Predictable Governance changes how spend behaves over time. Patterns are identified earlier. Deviations are addressed sooner. Budget volatility decreases. Instead of reacting to overruns, legal operations can manage trajectories and expectations. Outside Counsel Relationships Improve Governance does not weaken outside counsel relationships. It strengthens them. Clear standards and consistent evaluation: Remove ambiguity Set shared expectations Reduce friction caused by surprises Encourage accountability without confrontation High-performing firms benefit from governed environments because success is clearly defined. Legal Operations Gains Organizational Credibility Perhaps most importantly, governance changes how legal operations is perceived. Legal operations moves from process administrator to decision authority. This shift enables legal operations to engage with leadership as a strategic partner rather than a reactive function. Why Governance Requires Enablement Governance cannot be sustained through spreadsheets or disconnected tools. Applying standards consistently across matters, vendors and time requires structure. Enterprise legal management platforms support governance by: Centralizing data and decisions Making standards visible and enforceable Providing continuity across personnel changes Enabling transparency and reporting Technology does not create governance, but it enables governance to scale and endure. What This Means Going Forward Law department governance is not an abstract concept. It is the mechanism that allows legal operations to protect budgets, manage risk and operate with confidence in complex environments. Governance turns standards into outcomes It replaces reaction with preparation It supports better decisions before problems arise It builds trust across the enterprise This is why governance matters and why it changes what legal departments can deliver. To Learn More, Explore: Benefits of Outside Counsel Governance How Legal Operations Manages and Evaluates Outside Counsel What is ELM SoftwareLegal Operationshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/lex-machina/b/lex-machina/posts/federal-appellate-litigation-analytics-powered-by-big-dataFri, 13 Feb 2026 12:15:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:17ae1da8-ca4d-4099-a1b4-aa9dd48cc483Claire RussellLex Machina ®, the LexisNexis® Legal Analytics® platform, delivers comprehensive data and exclusive insights for hundreds of thousands of civil appeals to the federal circuit courts. For each appeal, Lex Machina shows companies and law firms which party prevailed, how long the appeal took, and key experience metrics for the judges, lawyers, and law firms involved. As of January 2026, this includes detailed insights into more than 500,000 appeals. The Legal Analytics Platform for Civil Appeals Lex Machina covers the full universe of civil cases filed in the U.S. federal courts of appeals since 2012. Our appellate data begins with records from PACER for all thirteen federal circuit courts. Although most of those cases originate in federal district courts, the dataset also includes civil appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other administrative tribunals. Using a variety of technologies along with expert human review, Lex Machina cleans, enriches, and structures basic information received from PACER. This process includes correcting errors that range from minor spelling issues to complex data inconsistencies, extracting records not reliably captured in basic PACER filings, and carefully tagging and categorizing cases, docket entries, and documents. Lex Machina provides companies and law firms with crucial intelligence for the outcomes of appeals to federal circuit courts. Beyond appellate resolutions, Lex Machina also has comprehensive and dynamic analytics on three different types of appealability rulings in federal circuit courts: Permission to Appeal: For many interlocutory appeals and in certain other circumstances, the circuit court must grant permission before an appeal may proceed. Certificate of Appealability: A certificate must issue before a party may appeal the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petition for Review: Parties may seek circuit court review of administrative decisions issued by U.S. government agencies. Lex Machina provides comprehensive and dynamic analytics on appealability rulings in federal circuit courts. Analytics for Appellate Litigation Specialists For appellate practitioners , analytics covering more than 500,000 federal civil appeals directly translates into better appellate strategy and stronger client advice. Lex Machina enables firms to evaluate how each district judge’s decisions have fared on appeal and assess how often appellants or appellees prevail in comparable cases. These insights allow firms to set realistic client expectations and make data-informed decisions about which arguments to pursue on appeal. For law firm administrators and business development professionals , appellate analytics enable data-informed lateral recruiting and more credible pitches to prospective clients. By grounding marketing materials and client proposals in objective appellate performance data, firms can distinguish their experience and competitive strengths in a way that resonates with discerning clients. For companies and in-house legal teams , analytics from Lex Machina support more informed decisions about whether to pursue an appeal, how long it may take, and what it may cost. The data also helps organizations identify outside counsel with proven appellate experience. By grounding appellate strategy in objective data rather than anecdote, companies can manage risk more effectively, align legal decisions with business priorities, and communicate clearer expectations to internal stakeholders. Comprehensive Coverage Across Courts Federal circuit court analytics in Lex Machina complement comprehensive outcome information for millions of lawsuits in federal district courts  and an expanding range of  state courts  – now including  docket-level data for more than 1,300 venues . Is your team ready to make data-driven decisions from complaint through appeal? Visit the  Lex Machina product page  for more information and to sign up for a free demonstration and customized analytical report.Lex MachinaLitigation ReportLegal Analyticshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/controversial-insurance-bill-in-fl-moreWed, 11 Feb 2026 18:47:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:4d17c802-84f0-4fb3-86f2-d56071481ae9Alyzza AustriacoInsurance Bill Raises Concerns in FL A fast-moving bill ( SB 1028 ) in Florida, sponsored by Sen. Joe Gruters (R), chairman of the Senate’s Banking and Insurance Committee, would require Citizens Property Insurance, the state’s insurer of last resort, to set up a clearinghouse for commercial property coverage. But Florida Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworsky said setting up a clearinghouse could cost $40 million, and some brokers and agents say the measure would benefit one company — Ryan Turner Specialty, part of one of the nation’s largest wholesale brokerages — while costing them more in fees and surcharges. ( INSURANCE JOURNAL , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) Ruling on Anti-ESG Investing Law in TX Could Spur More Challenges A federal judge struck down a 2021 Texas law requiring state and local government agencies to divest from financial firms that use environmental, social or governance, or ESG, factors in investment decisions, saying the law violated First Amendment free speech protections. Bryan McGannon, managing director of the U.S. Sustainable Investment Forum, said the ruling paves the way for legal challenges to similar laws in other states, including Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee and Utah and West Virginia. ( INSURANCE JOURNAL ) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/pbm-reform-bill-in-ms-moreWed, 11 Feb 2026 18:45:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:097c7215-1aed-49c1-be92-39d59d05e43fAlyzza AustriacoMS House Passes PBM Reform Bill Mississippi’s House of Representatives passed a bill ( HB 1665 ) that would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers from employing clawbacks when patients’ copayments exceed the actual cost of their drugs. The bill would also require PBMs to reimburse independent pharmacists within 7 days of receiving electronic claims from them. ( MAGNOLIA TRIBUNE ) NM Enacts Interstate Doctor Compact New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed a bill ( SB 1 ) making it easier for out-of-state doctors to become licensed in New Mexico, making the state the 42 nd to join the interstate physician compact. The state’s House has also passed six other interstate medical compacts, including those covering physician assistants and emergency medical services personnel. ( SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/momentum-around-data-center-legislation-growsWed, 11 Feb 2026 15:15:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:5e8d884e-2083-4ed0-b0a3-9b5bbb39344fMary Anne PeckIn June, Kansas became the 37th state to offer tax incentives to data centers, underscoring how the massive warehouse-like facilities that support the internet have become a priority for states and state legislators across the country. Indeed, the National Conference of State Legislators predicts that a litany of issues surrounding data centers will be big in 2026, from tax incentives and prevailing wage requirements to energy usage and nondisclosure agreements. Meanwhile, data centers have been in the news all over the nation. Maryland Matters reported that more data center regulations could be coming to the Terrapin State. Texas is projected to become the top market for data centers in just two years, said The Texas Tribune . The Georgia Recorder wrote about a wave of bipartisan bills concerning data centers introduced in the Peach State after an electric utility asked to expand its capacity to meet rising demand. And The Florida Phoenix described a bill to regulate data centers in the Sunshine State . The Wisconsin Examiner reported that the lower house of the Badger State Legislature approved data center regulations . And The Daily Yonder, also in Wisconsin, said rural residents have organized opposition to data centers. Colorado Newsline wrote about a Centennial State bill to provide tax breaks to data centers . The New York Times compared President Trump’s embrace of data centers with Alabama residents’ opposition to them . “States are campaigning to attract the data centers AI companies will need, and bracing for impacts on energy grids and the environment,” said Governing magazine, while asking, “ Which States Are Leading the Data Center Race? ” late last year. “Data centers will continue to be a big policy issue moving forward in 2026,” said Alex McWard, NCSL senior policy specialist for environment, energy & transportation, on a recent podcast . “However, the direction states will move could vary quite a bit.” Legislators Not Just Looking at Tax Incentives McWard said on the NCSL podcast that, for a while, state legislators have been focused on attracting data centers. And that sort of activity will continue, he said. Indeed, state lawmakers in West Virginia were so intent on incentivizing data center development there last year that they passed a bill (HB 2014) that, among other things, prohibited local governments from imposing noise, lighting, land use and other restrictions on such facilities. “Data centers have significantly, or can significantly, benefit the local economies through job creation, attracting investment,” said Del. Clay Riley (R), one of the measure’s sponsors, as The Associated Press reported . “This bill, as it sits, could facilitate that development and boost economic growth.” But McWard said concerns about data centers’ energy and water usage are also now “leading to some pushback.” He said a “great example” of that was in Virginia’s election this past November, in which “data center development was one of the primary points of contention.” He noted that “Virginia is a unique example, as it has the highest rate, highest concentration of data centers in the country. But regardless of whether a state is looking to increase data center development or not, they’re likely going to be paying greater attention to the energy usage of their data centers.” In regard to that particular issue, McWard said what we’re likely to see is states continuing to “consider specific utility rate schedules for data centers and other large loads.” “The price of electricity is the primary concern for most legislators’ constituents,” he said. “So, regardless of state energy or economics, not wanting data centers to ramp up electricity rates is something I think most legislators will agree on.” According to State Net® data, at least 100 bills dealing substantially with data centers have been introduced in 25 states since the beginning of November. The bills cover the range of issues predicted by NCSL, namely tax incentives for data centers, efforts to rein in their energy and water usage, and attempts to conceal their activities behind NDAs. The number of bills introduced in some states suggests data centers may be of particular concern there. In Illinois, for example, 10 such bills have been introduced. In both Arizona and New Jersey, 11. In Tennessee, 13. And in Virginia, 32. Data Center Bills Introduced in At Least Half of States Over 170 bills dealing substantially with data centers have been introduced in 31 states this year, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. More than 30 of those bills were introduced in Virginia, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the nation. Attention to Data Centers May Still Just be Starting Despite all the legislative and media attention data centers have been drawing lately, we may still be seeing just the beginning of activity on this issue. With data centers’ growing impact on energy grids — a Bloomberg analysis found wholesale electricity costs rose as much as 267 percent over the last five years near data center hubs — leaders at all levels are taking notice. U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said in December they are investigating whether big tech companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta are passing along the utility costs of data centers to typical Americans. “Utility companies have spent billions of dollars updating the electrical grid to accommodate the unprecedented energy demands of AI [artificial intelligence] data centers and appear to recoup the costs by raising residential utility bills,” the senators wrote in letters to several Big Tech companies . “Through these utility price increases, American families bankroll the electricity costs of trillion-dollar tech companies. To add insult to injury for hard-pressed consumers, they are forced to pay higher prices while many data centers receive discounted rates as the utility companies are trying to attract their business. The contracts between data centers and utility companies that underlie these arrangements are almost always confidential, leaving the public in the dark on why their electric bill keeps going up.” Late last year, we forecast that data centers would be a hot issue for 2026 . It looks like the temperature is starting to get cranked up. —By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.Capitol JournalTechnologySpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/counsellink/b/counsellink/posts/standardization-to-governance-outside-counsel-evaluationWed, 11 Feb 2026 13:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:b502f9a7-07c3-413f-9a65-1c1a63b97b3bJayme SoulatiMany legal operations teams have made meaningful progress toward standardization. Billing guidelines are in place. Evaluation criteria exist. Budget expectations are documented. Yet despite these efforts, inconsistency persists in how outside counsel is selected, evaluated and managed. This disconnect often signals the need to move beyond standardization and toward governance. In outside counsel evaluation, governance is what ensures standards are applied consistently, decisions are defensible, and outcomes align with business expectations over time. In Brief Standardization defines shared rules and expectations for outside counsel evaluation. Governance is what applies those standards consistently across matters, firms and decisions. Legal operations teams that make this shift gain greater control over cost, performance and accountability, especially as outside counsel fees remain elevated. The LexisNexis® CounselLink® Trends Report shows indicators of rising outside counsel fees annually. What Standardization Achieves Standardization is a critical foundation in legal operations. It establishes consistency in how work is approached and evaluated and which processes are added to structure. Common examples of standardization include: Billing guidelines Evaluation criteria for outside counsel Budget templates and approval thresholds Matter scoping requirements Checklists for firm selection Standardization answers the question: What should be done? For many legal departments, this step alone represents significant progress. It replaces ad hoc practices with shared expectations and brings greater consistency to day-to-day decision-making. Where Standardization Breaks Down Despite its importance, standardization alone does not ensure consistent outcomes. Legal operations teams often encounter challenges such as: Standards applied differently depending on the matter or reviewer Exceptions handled inconsistently or without documentation Difficulty explaining why similar matters were assigned differently Budget and staffing discipline eroding over time Reactive responses to cost overruns or performance issues When pressure increases, standards without governance are easily bypassed. What Governance Adds to Outside Counsel Evaluation Governance builds on standardization by introducing decision structure and accountability. In outside counsel evaluation , governance addresses: How evaluation standards are applied across matters Who makes decisions and under what conditions How exceptions are approved and reviewed How performance trends inform future firm selection How decisions are explained to finance and leadership Governance answers the question: How are decisions made and sustained over time? Governance Is an Operating Model, Not a Policy In legal operations , governance is not a static document or committee process. It is an operating model that guides daily decisions. Governance is visible when: Outside counsel are evaluated using consistent criteria across matters Budget expectations are enforced, not just documented Staffing patterns are monitored and adjusted Performance data informs future assignments Legal operations can articulate why decisions were made This operating model becomes increasingly important as organizations face sustained cost pressure and greater scrutiny. How Legal Operations Move from Standardization to Governance Legal operations teams typically progress through three phases: Establish Standards - Define evaluation criteria, budget expectations, staffing assumptions, and communication norms for outside counsel. Apply Standards Consistently - Ensure standards are used across all matters and firms, regardless of who manages the engagement. Review and Adjust Using Data - Analyze performance trends, budget variance and outcomes to refine standards and improve decisions over time. These phases transform standardization into governance. Why Technology Enables Governance at Scale Governance becomes difficult to sustain when processes rely on spreadsheets, emails or individual memory. Technology provides the structure that governance requires. Enterprise legal management platforms help legal operations teams: Centralize matter, legal spend and vendor data Enforce workflows and evaluation standards Track decisions and outcomes consistently Provide transparency and reporting for leadership Platforms such as LexisNexis CounselLink+™ enable legal operations teams to operationalize governance across outside counsel evaluation, legal spend and performance management. Contact our team to take a tour of CounselLink+ . What This Means for Legal Operations Moving from standardization to governance is a sign of legal operations maturity . It allows teams to manage outside counsel more confidently, consistently and defensibly. Standards provide the baseline Governance ensures consistency and accountability Technology makes governance repeatable Decisions become easier to explain and defend Legal operations gains credibility as a strategic function To Learn More, Explore: How to Choose the Best ELM Platform for Legal Departments Boost Legal Ops: Year-end Planning is Any Time Planning How to Implement ELM SoftwareVendor ManagementOutside Counsel Evaluation