https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/5-ways-legal-analytics-strengthen-in-house-litigation-strategiesThu, 30 Apr 2026 17:58:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:bca0d984-151a-455e-99b6-2f6fa1c719e9Virginie De SmechtWhen companies face liability claims, general counsel and corporate legal teams are often asked to ascertain risk, forecast potential outcomes, and justify strategies for resolution before the facts are fully developed. That pressure gets sharper when business leaders want numbers, not instincts. Within the broader use of data and analytics by corporate legal departments, litigation analytics focuses specifically on insights drawn from filed cases. Litigation data analytics and exclusive insights from Lex Machina®, the LexisNexis® Legal Analytics® platform, make it easy for corporate legal professionals to answer those demands by showing what happened in comparable disputes, down to timing, procedural resolutions, and damage awards. With data drawn from millions of lawsuits across the United States, Lex Machina provides a detailed view into how cases unfold. For each relevant matter, users can see which party prevailed, how much was awarded, how the case resolved procedurally, and how long it took. Equipped with those exclusive insights, data-empowered GCs and claim representatives bolster their strategies for risk management, claim assessment, outside-counsel selection, settlement negotiations, and business development. Key takeaways Liability risk assessment improves when you can compare outcomes and motion patterns in similar cases. Claim valuation becomes more precise with visibility into damages, attorney fees, and remedies Settlement strategy benefits from understanding how similar disputes resolve and when leverage shifts. Outside counsel selection becomes more defensible when claims are validated against objective performance data. How do in-house legal departments use litigation data? Companies and their counsel use litigation data to support risk management, claim assessment, matter staffing, settlement negotiations, and business development. Rather than replace lawyers, analytics supplement subjective experience with objective metrics about outcomes, timing, and damages. Five ways legal analytics improve litigation strategy for in-house counsel From risk assessment to settlement strategy, analytics help corporate legal teams make faster, more informed decisions across the litigation lifecycle. 1. Manage risk with confidence Lex Machina transforms raw litigation data into structured, actionable intelligence that helps companies identify risk earlier and respond more effectively. By analyzing millions of federal and state court records, the platform reveals patterns across judges, courts, law firms, and case types. Legal teams can track how specific claims are trending, which jurisdictions are becoming more favorable to plaintiffs, and how damage awards are evolving over time. This level of visibility allows in-house counsel to move from reactive to proactive risk management. Teams can adjust compliance strategies, refine contract language, and make more informed business decisions based on how similar disputes have played out in the real world. Related Post: Humans in the Loop - The People Powering Trusted Legal AI 2. Assess claims with hard numbers When a complaint arrives, early decisions shape the trajectory of the matter. Legal teams must quickly evaluate exposure and determine whether to handle the case internally or engage outside counsel. Lex Machina supports this early triage by grounding legal judgment in data, helping teams estimate a realistic range of potential outcomes. By surfacing comparable cases with similar fact patterns, claims, venues, and parties, the platform enables more accurate benchmarking of exposure. Users can analyze how often similar cases settle versus proceed to trial, how long each path typically takes, and which factors influence outcomes. These insights support more informed decisions around reserve setting, settlement posture, and resource allocation, all aligned with the organization’s broader risk tolerance. 3. Staff matters with confidence As part of an in-house legal analytics strategy ,decisions about staffing and outside counsel selection have significant cost and outcome implications, yet many organizations still rely heavily on relationships or firm reputation. Litigation data insights from Lex Machina help organizations right-size staffing from the outset, balancing efficiency with the level of expertise required. For outside counsel selection, the platform provides transparency into firm and attorney performance, including case volume, outcomes, timing, and experience before specific judges and courts. With side-by-side comparisons and measurable performance indicators, companies can select counsel whose experience aligns with the needs of the matter, improving outcomes while maintaining control over legal spend. 4. Negotiate evidence-based resolutions Settlement discussions are shaped by timing, risk, and each party’s expectations about what comes next. Analytics bring clarity to that uncertainty by showing how similar disputes have resolved in practice. Lex Machina highlights whether cases tend to settle early, resolve closer to trial, or proceed through full adjudication, along with the procedural milestones that often shift leverage. These insights help legal teams approach negotiations more strategically, identifying when pressure points are likely to emerge and when resolution is most advantageous. Rather than relying solely on instinct, counsel can anchor their approach in observed patterns across comparable cases. Analytics also provide a structured framework for deciding whether to settle or continue litigating. Teams can assess whether opposing parties or law firms tend to pursue early resolution or extended litigation, and how those tendencies align with company objectives. Venue-specific differences, including time to trial, likelihood of settlement, and historical damages, further inform the analysis. Together, these factors support a more calibrated settlement strategy grounded in both legal merit and real-world litigation behavior. 5. Develop business for litigation funders, consultants, and expert advisors Litigation funders, consultants, and expert advisors rely on disciplined analysis and repeatable judgment when evaluating opportunities. Their work often hinges on understanding how comparable cases have progressed, including timing, procedural developments, and financial outcomes. Lex Machina provides comprehensive data across millions of cases, enabling professionals to assess claims with greater precision. Users can analyze who prevailed, how much was awarded, how cases were resolved, and how long they took, along with experience metrics for judges, attorneys, law firms, and parties. This level of insight supports more informed decision-making for litigation investments, expert engagements, and advisory strategies, helping firms identify opportunities and evaluate risk with greater confidence. Related Post: AI Privacy Security - The LexisNexis Commitment Visit here to schedule a Lex Machina demonstration today and see the value for your business. FAQs How Can Analytics Help Predict Liability Risk? Analytics can show how similar matters resolved, how often early motions succeeded, and how outcomes differed across venues and judges. How Do You Use Analytics for Claim Valuation? In Lex Machina, start with a defined comparable set, then review case resolutions, timing analytics, damages awards, remedies, attorneys’ fees, and procedural resolution types in prior similar matters. How Do You Use Analytics to Pick Outside Counsel? Compare firms by relevant case volume, outcomes, findings and remedies, and experience within venues and practice areas of interest. Side-by-side comparisons are also available, supporting more defensible hiring decisions. For broader context on legal technology adoption, see the ABA Legal Industry Report 2025 . Learn more about Lex Machina .Lex Machinahttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/professional/b/industry-insights/posts/why-trusted-data-is-new-competitive-edgeThu, 30 Apr 2026 15:18:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:0a29f5ea-e3fd-43a3-87ea-3e06e4d71a8fKristan BarczakAI is everywhere but credibility isn’t. 72% of management consultants say they are confident in their use of AI , yet 54% admit to using AI tools without formal approval. This gap between confidence and control is shifting the conversation about the future of the workforce from a focus on AI capability to AI credibility . Consulting firms, specifically, should focus on whether AI-generated outputs can be trusted to deliver accurate, defensible, and compliant results. That’s because the success of any AI tool ultimately depends on its foundation: Data. Unverified, biased, or randomly gathered web content can produce impressive-sounding results but, unfortunately, unreliable ones. And in consulting, where insights directly shape client decisions, reputations and financial outcomes, reliability is everything. To build a sustainable advantage in the AI era , firms must focus on the credibility of their data as much as the capability of their models. The AI race is now a data-quality race Generative AI has transformed how consultants gather insight , summarize research, and prepare for client meetings. But as adoption grows, firms are discovering that data quality—not model performance—is the true differentiator. AI that relies on unverified content can misinterpret facts, amplify bias, or even generate fabricated information. The cost of an inaccurate client insight or flawed recommendation is both operational and reputational. As highlighted, in October 2025, when Deloitte Australia refunded the Albanese government after using hallucinated, 'non-compliant' AI findings in a $440,000 report. The fallout: financial and reputational damage to the firm. LexisNexis® AI-ready data helps consulting firms reduce the risk of AI-created errors. Through tools like Nexis+ AI™ and Nexis® Data+ , consultants gain access to publisher-approved, rights-managed data that delivers: Transparent , citation-backed outputs they can verify and share confidently Compliant, licensed sources that respect publisher rights Context-rich insight from global news, company, and financial data Explore how credible, compliant AI tools can support your firm’s risk governance in the Credible AI Strategy Toolkit . Turning credibility into a competitive edge Firms that validate every insight and recommendation can build stronger client trust and higher-value relationships. Partnering with AI systems , grounded in credible, compliant data can accelerate and even amplify that advantage. Credible data builds confidence: Clients can see and trust that insights are sourced from verifiable, authoritative licensed news and company data providers, not just the open web. Compliant data reduces exposure: Every analysis or model output aligns with privacy, copyright, and data-governance standards. Contextual data enhances judgment: Consultants gain nuanced understanding of the forces shaping client markets — not just surface-level summaries — thanks to integration of rich data sources like analyst reports and earning’s call transcripts into generated content By integrating Nexis+ AI into workflows, consultants identify strategic insights 50% faster, and have access to the industry’s largest collection of news data approved by publishers for genAI use*. Accuracy and trust in outputs are now central to how professionals evaluate AI. In fact, 50% of management consultants cite misinformation as their top concern, highlighting the growing importance of reliable, verifiable results. The differentiator in AI adoption isn’t the technology itself but the quality, integrity, and governance of the data behind it. Turning risk into reliability The balance, between being quick, efficient and responsive paired with accuracy is made more difficult when working with AI systems fed unreliable data. Nexis Data+ addresses that challenge head-on by giving consulting firms direct API access to genAI-approved datasets that prioritize compliance and credibility. Available data includes: Licensed global news content — including CBS, CNN, Fox, The Boston Globe, and EuroNews Company and financial data from Morningstar , Dun & Bradstreet , Business Insider, and American Banker Due diligence data such as Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) lists, sanctions, and biographical directories like Marquis Who’s Who® This combination enables consultants to validate insights, manage reputational risk, and deliver outputs that withstand scrutiny, crucial in high-stakes client engagements. Asses how prepared your organization is to manage AI risk, data quality, and governance with the AI readiness quiz. Take the Quiz The future belongs to firms that can prove their data As AI continues to evolve, consulting firms will need to demonstrate not only innovation, but integrity in how they manage and apply data. That means being able to answer three questions clients are already starting to ask: Where does your AI get its information? Can you verify its sources? Does it comply with privacy and copyright laws? If your firm can confidently answer “yes” to all three, you’re not just using AI effectively — you’re using it to create a highly strategic advantage. LexisNexis helps consultants do exactly that, providing the credible, compliant, and context-rich data that allows firms to innovate with confidence and stand behind every recommendation they make. Build your competitive advantage on credible AI With LexisNexis as your data partner, your firm can make trustworthy data a differentiator from other firms in the consulting AI race. Because AI innovation that responsibly reduces compliance risk and strengths credibility is a win-win for firms and clients alike. Download the Credible AI Strategy Toolkit to learn how to strengthen data governance, reduce risk, and use credible AI to build lasting client trust. Download the 2026 Future of Work Report *Based on reports March, 2026Future of WorkNexis+ AIhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/bridging-the-ai-readiness-gap-what-law-schools-and-law-firms-need-to-know-nowThu, 30 Apr 2026 13:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:4657ee84-4f6b-4f73-a6f0-c7fdd0a02f9dbengArtificial intelligence is already reshaping legal practice. The question is no longer if it will impact the profession; it’s whether the next generation of lawyers is ready for it. Our latest research takes a closer look at how law firms, law schools, and students are navigating this shift. What we found points to a growing disconnect—one that has real implications for hiring, training, and long-term success in practice. A Gap You Can’t Afford to Ignore Law firms are moving quickly to integrate AI into daily workflows, setting clear expectations for how associates should use these tools. Law schools, meanwhile, are balancing innovation with academic rigor working to thoughtfully incorporate AI into the curriculum without compromising foundational skills. And students? They’re experiencing AI firsthand, often before they’ve been formally trained on how to use it effectively. Individually, these approaches make sense. Collectively, they reveal something more concerning: A widening gap between education and practice readiness in the AI era. Why This Matters for Both Sides For law firms, the gap shows up in onboarding, training investments, and early associate performance. For law schools, it raises important questions about how to ensure graduates are equipped not just with knowledge but with the ability to apply it in a modern legal environment. And for both, the stakes are rising. AI isn’t replacing core legal skills, but it is redefining how those skills are expected to show up in practice. The Opportunity: Alignment, Not Overhaul Here’s the encouraging part: this isn’t a story of misalignment across the board. In fact, our research uncovered several areas where law schools and firms are more aligned than you might expect, particularly around: The importance of ethical, responsible AI use The continued centrality of foundational legal skills The value of hands-on, experiential learning So the path forward isn’t about starting from scratch. It’s about connecting what already works to what’s changing. The Bottom Line AI is accelerating change across the legal profession, but it’s also creating a moment of opportunity. The schools and firms that come together to define and deliver AI-enabled practice readiness will be the ones that set the standard for the future. The rest will be playing catch-up. Get the Full Picture The full findings, data, and recommendations are explored in our Whitepaper, Bridging the AI Readiness Gap in Legal Education . If you’re thinking about curriculum design, recruiting strategy, or how to better prepare students for practice, this is where the conversation starts. To bring these insights to life, we also convened legal educators and practicing attorneys in our Faculty Webinar Series, including: A session on Responsible AI Use in legal education A panel featuring litigation and transactional attorneys sharing: How they’re actually using AI in practice What they expect from students entering summer roles Access our faculty webinar series here .Lexis+ AIAILegal Trendshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/fr-ressources/b/podcasts/posts/la-jip-no-17-actus-juridiques-de-la-piThu, 30 Apr 2026 12:03:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:713d5036-4b96-4751-9a57-bc660432dc94Jagnid DingaCette semaine, plongez dans un nouvel épisode de « La jIP’ », en partenariat avec R2PI – Le podcast de la propriété intellectuelle et le Centre d’Etudes Internationales de la Propriété Intellectuelle (CEIPI), consacré à l’actualité jurisprudentielle en propriété intellectuelle. Dans cet épisode dédié à l’actualité en droit d’auteur, retrouvez Chloé Piedoie , Stéphanie CARRE et Diogo Costa Cunha pour un décryptage des décisions suivantes : CJUE, 14 avril 2026, aff.C-590/23 Pelham, sur la portée de l’exception de « pastiche » dans le contexte de l’« échantillonnage musical » ( minute 01:19 ) Cass. civ. 1, 9 avril 2026, n° 25-11.711, s Evema v/ Someva, sur l’originalité des objets d'art appliqué ( minute 14:15 ) CJUE, 19 mars 2026, aff. C-649/23 Cālinescu et al., sur la protection par le droit d'auteur d'une édition critique d'une œuvre du domaine public ( minute 26:00 ) Pour de plus amples informations sur les sujets traités lors de cette émission, nous vous conseillons la lecture des fascicules suivants dans les JurisClasseurs #LexisNexis , disponibles sur Lexis+ et Lexis360 Intelligence : Propriété litteraire et artistique : 1134 et 1135 : sur l'objet du droit d'auteur, notion d'œuvre et les règles générales 1155 : consacré aux règles spécifiques aux œuvres d'art appliquées, 1246 : sur les exceptions aux droits exclusifs À écouter sur : - Deezer : https://www.deezer.com/fr/show/5264897 - Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/show/1lsjLGriD1JBxVek6QcEAo - Apple Podcasts : https://podcasts.apple.com/mx/podcast/r2pi/id1649292160 - Ausha : https://podcast.ausha.co/r2pihttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/infopro/b/weeklyupdate/posts/lexisnexis-infopro-weekly-update-april-30-2026Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:30:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:8e7b7f88-8abf-4017-85cf-c857a1d82b80InfoPro Community ManagerKRC Insights: Did You Know? New Content Resource Kits Now Live in All Practice Areas within Practical Guidance What’s New: Product Updates, Thought Leadership, & Practice Area Resources Five ways law firms are turning legal AI into real ROI Chevron Deference Reversal: Practical Impacts on Healthcare Law (Practical Guidance) Global Innovation Leaders: What the 2026 Top 100 Are Doing Differently Trainings & Webinars 2026 KRC Webinar Series: April 15: Protégé Possibilities: ​Using the Vault, 50 State Surveys, and General AI​ View Recording May 6: A Summer Associate Playbook: ​Resources to Ease the Summer Transition Register Now June 11: Litigation Analytics Demystified: A Researcher’s Guide to Choosing the Right Tool ​ (AALL Partner webinar) Register Now ​ Webinars that may be of interest to you and others in your organization: Seeing Isn’t Believing: Litigating in the Age of Deepfakes (May 7) Register Now Cut Research Time, Reduce Risk: Protégé for Labor & Employment Law (May 7) Register Now Reviewing and Drafting Antitrust Provisions in M&A Agreements (May 7) Register Now Corporate Law Quiz Show (May 7) Register Now Lexis Webinar and Training WebpageTOCApril 30 2026InfoPro Weeklyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/infopro/b/researchtip/posts/new-content-resource-kits-now-live-in-all-practice-areas-within-practical-guidanceThu, 30 Apr 2026 05:28:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:48747f7b-f280-4cba-a29a-8fc7192f77ccJocelyn SagherianAll Practical Guidance Practice Areas now feature a “New Content Resource Kit” as the first Resource Kit within their Practice Area Resource Kit pods. Replacing the former “Recently Added Resources Trackers,” these kits highlight 2–4 months of newly added content—making it easier for customers to quickly access the latest Practical Guidance resources in one convenient location. Visit the individual Practice Area pages to explore the updated Resource Kits and see how they can support more timely, informed client work: For questions or more information, please reach out to your KRC, account team, or law school representative!April 30 2026InfoPro Weeklyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/trump-administration-s-challenge-to-co-s-ai-law-moreWed, 29 Apr 2026 17:37:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:5c664378-ed34-42b8-a809-c0202af12172Alyzza AustriacoTrump Administration Joins Challenge to CO’s AI Law On April 24, the U.S. Department of Justice joined a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, seeking to block Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination in AI Act from going into effect. The law, passed in 2024 (SB 205) and scheduled to take effect on June 30, was the first comprehensive statute regulating algorithmic discrimination enacted in the United States. It imposes disclosure and risk-mitigation requirements on developers of “high‑risk” AI systems involved with decision-making in education, employment, financial services, healthcare and housing. In its initial challenge to the law, filed on April 9, xAI argued that an AI model is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment and that the Colorado law impinges on that freedom. The DOJ’s filing added a different constitutional argument—based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: The law forces AI companies to make decisions on the basis of race, sex and religion. The Colorado law provides an exemption for AI tools that advance diversity or compensate for historical discrimination. The DOJ argues that this carve-out is an unconstitutional double standard, allowing discrimination for some but not others. The administration’s action is consistent with others it has taken since January 2025 challenging diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives as a form of discrimination themselves. It also represents the administration’s first formal challenge to a state AI law since President Trump issued an executive order in December threatening legal action against state AI regulation. ( HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR , REUTERS ) Maine Gov Blocks Data Center Moratorium Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) vetoed a bill ( HB 207 ) that would have made her state the first in the nation to impose a moratorium on data center development. If she’d signed the measure, it would have frozen approvals for new data centers requiring more than 20 megawatts of power until October 2027 and authorized a council of government officials, experts and other stakeholders to develop plans for future data centers. In a letter to state lawmakers, Mills said she supports a temporary freeze on data centers and would have signed HB 207 if it had included an exemption for a $550 million data center project in the town of Jay that’s expected to provide at least 100 high-paying jobs. ( 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 StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/all-50-states-under-trump-administration-s-medicaid-fraud-microscope-moreWed, 29 Apr 2026 17:35:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:b7eba605-b296-4489-bb2a-e1ce6f6bc0e2Alyzza AustriacoTrump Administration Expands Medicaid Fraud Scrutiny to All 50 States In an effort to fight fraud, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is requiring all 50 states to submit plans for revalidating their Medicaid providers. CMS had already requested information about Medicaid programs in California, Florida, Maine, Minnesota and New York, and halted $243 million in Medicaid payments to Minnesota because of fraud concerns. ( ASSOCIATED PRESS ) PBM Pharmacy Ownership Bill Passed in TN Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill ( SB 2040 ) that would ban pharmacy benefit managers from owning or controlling pharmacies in the state. The bill would apply to just one company, CVS Health, since it’s the only one that owns both types of businesses in the state. The company said it plans to file a lawsuit to block the measure, as it did last year against a similar bill enacted in Arkansas ( HB 1150 [2025 ]). ( TENNESSEE LOOKOUT, 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/b/product-features/posts/ai-simplifies-legislative-regulatory-trackingWed, 29 Apr 2026 15:45:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:581c92df-fcdf-46c4-a58f-6d4b2e7e0bb1Virginie De SmechtLegal and compliance teams are under increasing pressure to keep pace with a rapidly evolving policy landscape. With thousands of bills and regulations introduced across jurisdictions each year, organizations need faster, more efficient ways to stay informed. AI-powered legislative and regulatory summaries are emerging as a critical tool to help professionals quickly understand what matters and take action. The growing challenges of high-volume legislative and regulatory tracking Legal, compliance and government affairs professionals are drowning in proposed legislation and regulations across the 50 states, and the flood waters keep getting deeper. With more than 150,000 legislative and regulatory measures introduced and monitored each year, organizations are navigating an increasingly complex, fast-moving policy landscape. As activity accelerates across jurisdictions, legal and compliance teams are under greater pressure to identify what matters and act quickly. Timing challenges in state legislative tracking The timing compounds this challenge. Most state legislative sessions convene in January, with thousands of new bills introduced within the first several weeks of the new year, then many bills are amended frequently with new versions of text as legislatures are in session This creates what government relations professionals sometimes refer to as the “legislative avalanche” — a compressed timeframe where critical decisions must be made based on the best information available. Regulations complicate tracking Alongside this surge of proposed bills, state agencies are continuously publishing proposed, adopted and emergency regulations that carry equal weight for compliance professionals. Organizations must track not only what legislatures are debating, but also what regulatory agencies are enacting . Manual l egal document r eview is no longer sustainable For teams tasked with tracking and interpreting this surge of legislation and regulations, the traditional approach has meant hours spent wading through dense legal text to identify key provisions and affected entities. But a new AI-powered tool introduced by LexisNexis State Net ® service transforms that time-intensive workflow. Information overload in legislative and regulatory tracking The traditional approach to legislative bill review — manually reading through the full text and abstracts — isn’t just time-consuming, it’s becoming mathematically unrealistic. If a government affairs professional spent just 10 minutes reviewing each of the state bills proposed last year, it would require 22,583 hours of work. That is equivalent to roughly 11 full-time employees working year-round on nothing but state legislative bill review. Add to that the continuous flow of proposed and adopted state regulations, covering everything from healthcare pricing to environmental standards to data privacy. Regulatory changes can carry the same compliance oblig ations as enacted legislation, but they often receive less systematic attention simply because teams lack the bandwidth. The consequences of this information overload extend beyond compromised workflow and missed opportunities. A single overlooked bill or regulation can result in an organization being unprepared for new state requirements, which can result in compliance costs or fines, especially in heavily regulated industries such as healthcare and financial services. Enter legal AI transformation LexisNexis State Net has introduced a solution that fundamentally changes this equation: AI-generated summaries that appear at the top of bills and regulations. These summaries provide key requirements, targeted entities and penalties for most versions of legislative and regulatory text, including proposed rules, adopted rules, final rules and emergency rules. The transformation is immediate and measurable. What previously required extensive manual review is now efficient and straightforward. The AI-powered summaries highlight three critical elements that compliance professionals need most: What the bill or regulation requires, including key changes Who it affects What happens if organizations do not comply This isn’t just automation, it’s intelligent analysis that allows human experts to focus their valuable time on strategy — rather than document review and processing. Product visual: AI summaries in State Net. Experience LexisNexis State Net As state legislatures continue their trend toward increased bill volume and state agencies continue to issue regulations at a corresponding pace, the question isn’t whether organizations will adopt AI-powered legislative and regulatory tracking — but how quickly they will recognize it as a competitive necessity. State Net’s AI-generated summaries demonstrate that the future has arrived, transforming an avalanche of bills and regulations from an overwhelming burden into a manageable stream of actionable insights. LexisNexis State Net can help executive teams monitor emerging developments regarding legislation and regulation by providing access to a comprehensive database of state-level legislative and regulatory activity, as well as in-depth analysis that helps executives better understand the potential impact of new regulations. Learn more about how State Net monitors legislative activity in all 50 states to keep you updated on individual bills as they progress through committee as well as new laws that are enacted in each jurisdiction. To learn more about how LexisNexis leverages the power of AI to help legal professionals achieve better outcomes, or to follow along for the latest in Legal AI educational content, please visit www.lexisnexis.com/ai .State Nethttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/state-legislators-widen-focus-on-medical-debtWed, 29 Apr 2026 13:43:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:dca79ea1-9904-4b6f-a20d-ae95acd2f39dMary Anne PeckOn Jan. 7, 2025, two weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration issued a new rule barring credit reporting agencies from reporting medical debt and prohibiting creditors from considering medical debt when making credit eligibility decisions. Industry trade groups challenged the rule, arguing that the CFPB had exceeded its authority. After the Trump administration took office, the CFPB joined with the industry groups in asking the court to vacate the rule. On July 11, 2025, a federal judge for the Eastern District of Texas granted their request . States Lead Way on Medical-Debt Reform With the federal rule now vacated, the fight over medical debt has shifted back to the states, where legislators have broadened their focus from credit reports, which we covered a couple of years ago , to wage garnishment. Lawmakers in at least eight states have considered legislation this year to ban or limit creditors from garnishing wages to pay medical debts, a practice that had been entirely banned in only six states—Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia—according to a July 2025 report by the Commonwealth Fund . Shortly before the Commonwealth Fund released its report, Rhode Island actually enacted a bill ( SB 169 2025) barring wage garnishment for judgments based on medical debt, bringing the number of states with such bans to seven. Maine joined those ranks in early April, 2026 when Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed LD 2129 by Sen. Donna Bailey (D) which bans medical-debt collectors from placing liens on debtors' homes or garnishing wages. “No one should lose their home or their paycheck because they got sick,” Mills said in a press release announcing the bill signing. “We need to do much more to bring down the cost of health care in this country. But in Maine, we’re not waiting for the Federal government to act. We are taking action to protect Maine people and to make sure that illness or accident never costs someone their home or their livelihood.” Similar proposals are still pending in Michigan ( SB 702 ) and Ohio ( HB 257 ), while a measure in Hawaii ( SB 2165 ) appears to be stalled, not having moved since being referred to committee at the end of January. Bills in Colorado ( HB 1267 ), Florida ( HB 1489 ), Indiana ( SB 85 ) and Washington ( SB 6105 ), meanwhile, are either officially or effectively dead for the session, with Colorado’s having been postponed indefinitely, Florida’s having died in subcommittee and the Indiana and Washington measures having failed to advance before adjournment. Scott Purcell, chief executive of ACA International , an association of credit and collection professionals, has argued that such measures are unnecessary. “The wage garnishment process is already highly regulated at the federal and state level and includes many consumer protection measures,” he said, according to a report by KFF Health News . Bridget Frazier, a spokesperson for the Colorado Hospital Association , said the day after HB 1267 was introduced that it “could drive up costs and financial risk for health care providers, making it harder to keep hospitals sustainable and ensuring Coloradans have access to care when they need it most.” But the garnishment legislation reflects the reality that under the second Trump presidency, states “now more than ever” have taken “the lead role” in shielding residents from “crippling medical debt,” according to a trio of Georgetown University researchers who wrote earlier this year for the Commonwealth Fund , a private foundation that advocates for an equitable healthcare system. “In 2026, the pressures that generate medical debt are likely to intensify as enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits expire and funding for Medicaid and the marketplaces is reduced, and with the federal government retreating from earlier efforts to establish consumer protections,” they wrote. “The responsibility for protecting patients rests with states.” Medical-Debt Considered in Nearly Half of States At least 24 states have considered bills referring to medical debt this year, according to the LexisNexis State Net legislative tracking system. Measures in 11 of those states deal with wage garnishment. Two of them have been enacted. Many Medical-Debt Bills Considered This Session In March, the Michigan Senate passed a package of five bills championed by Sens. Sarah Anthony (D) and Jonathan Lindsey (R) to combat medical debt in the Great Lakes State. All of the measures were introduced in 2025. SB 449 and SB 450 would create statewide hospital financial-assistance requirements and reporting obligations. SB 451 would prohibit credit reporting agencies from including medical-debt on credit reports. SB 701 and SB 702 would prohibit healthcare providers and medical debt holders from charging more than 3% interest or late fees on medical debt; prohibit the use of liens or foreclosures to collect medical debt; prohibit wage garnishment for individuals who qualify for financial assistance; and prohibit providers from delaying, denying or requiring payment before providing emergency services to individuals with medical debt. Taken together, the measures indicate that state lawmakers are still focusing on credit reports and other concerns, in addition to wage garnishment. “The Senate passing these bills marks a significant first step in delivering real relief for our state’s medical debt crisis,” Lindsey said in a press release . “Right now, too many Michiganders are burdened by medical-debt with limited opportunities to escape it. Senator Anthony has been a leader on this issue, and our partnership on these legislative packages will ensure transparency in charity care and strengthen our state’s laws on medical debt.” Anthony added: “When medical debt can follow someone around for the rest of their life—hurting their ability to buy a home, forcing them to forgo essential expenses like food and rent, and keeping them from getting back on their feet—we know the system is broken.” Since the beginning of the year, at least 148 bills referring to medical debt have been considered in 24 states, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Seventeen of those bills deal with wage garnishment. The legislative attention comes as many Americans struggle with healthcare costs. According to a summary of recent KFF polling, nearly half of U.S. adults say it is challenging to afford medical care, and about three in 10 say they or someone in their household had trouble paying for healthcare in the past year. With federal medical-debt protections stalled and health care costs continuing to strain household budgets, state lawmakers appear likely to remain the primary source of new consumer safeguards. Whether those efforts center on wage garnishment, credit reporting or hospital financial-assistance requirements, the next phase of the medical-debt debate is likely to be shaped less in Washington than in state capitols. —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 JournalHealthcareSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/counsellink/b/counsellink/posts/rethinking-outside-counsel-evaluationWed, 29 Apr 2026 12:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:37dd38ed-d2f7-4488-af56-7b05701a0112Jayme SoulatiThis is the third of three articles in the GC Leadership Series, examining how modern General Counsel align strategy, data and governance to lead high-performing legal departments. Outside counsel relationships have long been built on trust. General Counsel and in-house lawyers rely on firms they know: lawyers who understand the business, respond quickly and deliver quality work. Institutional knowledge matters. Judgment matters. Responsiveness matters. But as legal departments become more operationally sophisticated, another dimension has entered the conversation: performance patterns. The question is no longer simply whether outside counsel performs well on individual matters. It is whether performance across the portfolio supports enterprise goals. CounselLink 2026 Trends Report: Big Law Share of Wallet Climbing The LexisNexis CounselLink 2026 Trends Report features benchmarking data from actual invoices paid to law firms by corporate legal in 2025. The 13th annual report shows that average partner rates increased 5.1% in 2025, tying for the second-highest level recorded since CounselLink launched its annual Trends Report in 2013. The largest law firms maintained a significant pricing advantage, with median partner rates 40% higher than those of the next tier, down from 61% in the prior year, reflecting faster rate growth among mid-sized firms. Law firms with 750+ lawyers continued to lead share of wallet, capturing more than half of total legal spend and a majority of new matters in 2025. This trend signals continued consolidation, particularly in high-value practice areas that command the highest billing rates. The report indicates that corporate legal departments continue to pay the higher prices that Big Law demands, regardless of the cost of legal spend. A free copy of this year's report is available here . The Matter View vs. the Enterprise View Individual lawyers evaluate firms through a matter-level lens: Quality of advice Responsiveness Strategic thinking Relationship strength Legal operations teams, however, often see a broader picture: Spend trends across similar matters (see the CounselLink 2026 Trends Report) Rate growth over time Staffing leverage ratios Budget predictability Cycle time variability Portfolio-level outcomes Both perspectives are valid. But they are not interchangeable. A firm that performs exceptionally on a complex matter may still show inconsistent budgeting discipline across similar engagements or, broadly, in matter management . A trusted relationship may mask structural rate increases that compound over time. The enterprise view does not replace the matter view. It complements it. When Familiarity Becomes Inertia Legal departments, like any organization, are influenced by familiarity. Long-standing outside counsel relationships can continue by default, not because performance is poor, but because performance has not been systematically evaluated. Without structured analysis: High-cost firms may persist without scrutiny Efficiency gains may go unrecognized Rate growth may outpace internal awareness Vendor concentration risk may go unnoticed This is not a question of trust. It is a question of visibility. Data as a Governance Tool Mature legal departments increasingly use structured scorecards, performance analytics and spend pattern analysis to inform vendor oversight. This does not mean reducing outside counsel relationships to spreadsheets. It means introducing consistency into evaluation. Portfolio-level visibility enables: Evidence-based rate discussions Clear performance expectations More disciplined panel management Transparent tradeoff conversations with finance When aligned, legal operations provides structured analysis, while the GC and legal team apply judgment informed by that insight. Governance strengthens relationships. It does not undermine them. In-House Expansion and Vendor Discipline As more work moves in-house, vendor management becomes more strategic, not less. Legal departments must determine: Which matters justify premium firms Which work can be managed internally Where alternative fee arrangements align with risk profile How vendor mix supports long-term cost discipline These decisions require both legal judgment and operational visibility. The GC may assess complexity and business risk. Legal operations may identify patterns across cost, staffing and predictability. Together, they ensure that vendor selection reflects both relationship strength and enterprise priorities. From Relationship to Resilience The strongest legal departments do not abandon trusted firms in pursuit of cost reduction alone. Nor do they rely solely on historical comfort. They balance: Experience and evidence Relationship and accountability Judgment and data Outside counsel evaluation, when approached thoughtfully, becomes part of a broader outside counsel governance framework, one that strengthens credibility with the board, finance and executive leadership. Because in the modern legal department, vendor oversight is not just about managing invoices. It is about aligning legal investment with enterprise resilience. You Might Like: Data Maturity and Modern GCs: Credibility Through Insight GC/Legal Ops Partnership: Alignment is the New Advantage From Standardization to Governance in Outside Counsel EvaluationGeneral CounselOutside Counsel Evaluationhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/law-books/b/law-books/posts/health-care-in-corrections-why-intake-continuity-of-care-and-documentation-matterTue, 28 Apr 2026 19:32:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:5311ca70-9e91-4c47-be81-d6c3dd91f543Lorella BainHealth Care Is Also an Operational Issue In correctional settings, health care is often framed as a clinical responsibility. But in practice, we know that it is also deeply operational. It affects staffing, communication, risk management and increasingly, litigation exposure. As recent cases make clear, many lawsuits do not stem from a single dramatic event. More often, they grow out of routine breakdowns that build over time: missed symptoms, delays in evaluation, interruptions in medication, failures to accommodate disability-related needs, poor follow-up or gaps in communication between custody and clinical staff. Recent correctional litigation shows that medical and mental health care failures remain a major source of court involvement, including delays in care, ADA-related issues and broader systemic deficiencies. For correctional professionals, that pattern is not surprising. Facilities are responsible for large populations with complex medical and mental health needs, all while operating under constant pressure and limited resources. In that environment, everyday processes carry weight. Intake, medication verification, sick call follow-up, specialty referrals, housing decisions, and documentation all play a critical role. When those processes work, they support both patient care and facility stability. When they break down, they can quickly become central issues in litigation. Intake as the First Point of Risk Identification One of the clearest lessons from recent cases is that intake and admission often provide the first opportunity to identify risk. That is the stage where staff begin to determine whether an individual has chronic medical conditions, active symptoms, withdrawal concerns, mobility limitations, mental health needs, medication dependencies, or disabilities that may require accommodation. If those issues are missed at the outset, the consequences can extend well beyond the medical unit, affecting housing, discipline, programming, and day-to-day operations. That is why intake should not be viewed as a routine checkpoint. It sets the stage for continuity of care. Recent litigation has included claims involving the alleged denial of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. In Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. , for example, the allegations centered on denial of medication and inadequate screening for incarcerated individuals with OUD. Cases like that underscore a larger operational reality: when someone enters a facility already relying on medication, treatment, or monitoring, any delay in verification or continuation of care can create immediate risk. It can also lead to destabilization, grievances, emergency transport, or more serious outcomes. Delays in Care Can Become Serious Liability Several recent cases have centered on delayed diagnosis and follow-up. In one Oregon case review, the presentation described claims that medical staff waited months to order imaging for an incarcerated person reporting persistent complaints, debilitating pain and weight loss. An outside review also found a backlog of nearly 600 medical appointments, with some incarcerated women reportedly waiting six months or longer for routine tests, screenings, referrals and initial health assessments. The lesson is difficult to ignore: in corrections, liability does not arise only from emergencies. Routine delays can also become the basis for serious claims. Tanner v. Colorado Department of Corrections reinforces that point. Tanner alleged that staff failed to send him to the hospital for roughly 36 hours despite a dangerously high fever, low oxygen levels, vomiting, and repeated pleas for help. By the time he arrived at the hospital, he was in septic shock and the delay allegedly resulted in catastrophic, permanent injuries, including the amputation of his left hand, partial amputation of his right hand and loss of large portions of both feet. The case later led to an $8 million settlement. Whether the issue is delayed emergency treatment or slow follow-up on chronic symptoms, the core question is often the same: did the facility recognize the seriousness of the situation, respond reasonably and document its actions? Communication Between Custody and Clinical Staff This question brings communication into focus. In a correctional environment, health care does not happen in isolation. Officers are often the first to notice when someone is struggling to breathe, unable to eat, limping, vomiting, confused, unable to get off a bunk, or repeatedly complaining of worsening pain. Medical staff may understand the clinical implications, but they depend on timely and accurate information from the housing unit. When communication between custody and clinical teams is inconsistent, informal or incomplete, serious concerns can be missed. A practical response is to strengthen cross-functional review and communication. Consider doing a weekly high-risk medical and mental health review team that includes security, operations, disciplinary leadership, shift command, medical and mental health staff, and legal representatives. That process can be further strengthened by meeting summaries, documented action plans for each high-risk inmate and more structured communication between custody and clinical teams. These are not simply sound administrative practices. They are systems that help facilities identify problems earlier, clarify responsibility and demonstrate that known risks were taken seriously. Documentation as an Operational Safeguard Documentation is equally important. In correctional litigation, actions that are not documented may be treated as actions that never happened. If an individual repeatedly complained of symptoms, was referred for evaluation, had medication concerns reviewed or was placed on a follow-up plan, the record should clearly reflect it. Good documentation is not only useful in defending claims after the fact. It also strengthens operations in real time by helping supervisors understand what has already occurred, alerting staff to unresolved concerns and reinforcing accountability for follow-through. Health Care and ADA-Related Obligations Recent cases also show that health care-related risk increasingly overlaps with disability law. The California case highlighted in the presentation included allegations of inadequate medical and mental health care alongside ADA-related failures, including insufficient accommodations and barriers to programming access. That distinction matters. The legal standard is not limited to whether care was constitutionally adequate. Facilities must also consider whether individuals with medical or mental health limitations have meaningful access to movement, services, housing and programs. Questions Correctional Leaders Should Be Asking For correctional leaders, the broader takeaway is not simply that care should improve in general terms. It is that the operational systems supporting care deserve close attention. Some questions to consider as you are assessing this: Are intake screenings thorough enough to identify urgent needs? Are medications verified and continued without unnecessary interruption? Are chronic complaints escalated when symptoms persist or worsen? Are officers and clinicians sharing information in a consistent, structured way? Are accommodations being considered and documented? Are high-risk cases being reviewed across disciplines instead of remaining siloed? Those questions matter because many of the most significant vulnerabilities are not hidden in rare or unusual events. They arise in ordinary moments such as a sick-call request that sat too long, a medication that was not restarted promptly, a symptom that was noted but never escalated, or a concern one department assumed another was handling. In corrections, those routine moments often determine whether care holds together or begins to fail. Contact Us Learn how LexisNexis® can help your organization support legal access with current, authoritative legal resources designed to help correctional teams navigate evolving legal requirements with greater confidence. Contact us at lexisnexis.com/corrections . The Broader Lesson If we’ve learned anything from the aforementioned cases, it is that correctional liability often takes shape in the gaps between policy and practice . Intake, medication continuity, follow-up, communication, accommodations, and documentation may seem routine, but they are often where the greatest risks emerge. When those systems function well, they support timely care, safer operations and stronger decision-making across the facility. When they fail, the consequences can be serious for both incarcerated individuals and the facility. That is the final takeaway: in corrections, health care is not sustained by clinical care alone, it is sustained by the operational discipline behind it.CorrectionsLaw Bookshttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/product-features/posts/product-spotlight-erodTue, 28 Apr 2026 14:18:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:942dedd2-2b77-40ac-80de-e4634098faadVirginie De SmechtThere’s a moment that most litigators dread: you’re preparing to depose the other side’s expert witness, or your own expert is about to be deposed, and a damaging detail surfaces that you never saw coming. A prior inconsistent opinion buried in a transcript from eight years ago, a disciplinary action from a licensing board or testimony in a dozen similar cases that cuts directly against the position your expert is now being asked to defend. These aren’t hypotheticals, they happen every day. And given that the vast majority of civil disputes settle before trial, the deposition is often the highest-stakes moment in the entire case for shaping damages, hardening positions or triggering deals. An expert who gets shredded in deposition often doesn’t get a second chance; the damage is already done. Related Post: What Is Legal Analytics The expert witness blind spot Whether a case settles or goes to trial, expert witnesses can make or break the outcome in a dispute. This is why expert witness vetting isn’t just a trial preparation task, it’s a core litigation strategy tool that matters from the moment that an expert is identified. The problem often isn’t lack of diligence; it’s lack of access. Expert witnesses accumulate histories across years of testimony, hundreds of cases and multiple jurisdictions. That history lives in court records, deposition transcripts, unpublished rulings on motions to exclude, and disciplinary databases scattered across dozens of sources. No attorney has time to run all of that down manually … but the consequences of not running it down can be severe. This challenge runs in both directions: Litigators need to know whether their own expert is bulletproof before opposing counsel finds a crack in deposition; and Litigators need to know everything possible about the other side’s expert before they sit down across the table from them or before they take the stand at trial. “Expert witness research is central to litigation strategy. Critical expert history can significantly impact outcomes but is often difficult to access. EROD surfaces this information efficiently, delivering actionable insights that help attorneys evaluate experts with confidence and avoid surprises during deposition, motions, or trial.” - Eric Wright, Senior Vice President, LexisNexis This is the research problem that Lexis®️ Expert Research On-Demand (EROD) was built to solve. Related Post: Product Spotlight: Lexis Verdict Settlement Analyzer Beyond the CV: What a real vetting process looks like EROD is a professional research service, not a database subscription, that puts experienced research analysts to work on a litigator’s specific request. The lawyer is not handed a login and left to search on their own, they submit a request and receive a packaged, curated report from LexisNexis. These reports draw on a proprietary database of more than 488,000 expert witnesses, combined with access to more than 40,000 news sources and 92 billion public records through exclusive LexisNexis content holdings. That breadth is what makes the service capable of surfacing information that simply doesn’t show up in conventional research, such as unpublished rulings, hard-to-find deposition transcripts and disciplinary actions that never make headlines. Types of expert witness reports available The core report types address the most common litigation needs: A Testimonial History Report maps an expert’s prior casework (e.g., how many times they have testified, in what types of cases and for which side); Enhanced Challenge Reports leverage proprietary algorithms to compile and analyze the record of motions challenging that expert’s admissibility under Daubert , Frye or other standards; and Disciplinary Action Reports surface professional sanctions and licensing board actions. EROD can also compile articles and published writings by the expert, which can be valuable for identifying statements that cut against their anticipated opinions at deposition or trial. Related Post: Casemap AI Delivers Time-Saving Transcript and Document Summarization for Litigators The litigator’s strategic weapon Most attorneys instinctively think of expert research as a tool for going after the other side’s witness. To be sure, that is a primary use case, but experienced litigators use it equally to protect their own experts. Consider what opposing counsel is doing to prepare for your expert’s deposition. If there are inconsistencies in your expert’s prior testimony, gaps between their published writings and their anticipated opinions, or professional disciplinary history that could be exploited during deposition or trial, you want to know about it before opposing counsel does. EROD’s research capabilities work the same way regardless of whose expert you are examining. The service is also particularly valuable in jurisdictions that limit discovery. In those situations, identifying who the opposing party has retained as an expert can itself require serious investigative work. EROD is a strategic weapon for identifying opposing experts even when disclosure has been restricted, giving litigators a meaningful head start on preparation. Expert witness resources for litigators Expert Research On-Demand is a transactional “pay as you go” service from LexisNexis that allows litigation teams to find and evaluate expert witnesses with the help of dedicated research analysts. Legal professionals request specific information about an expert and a LexisNexis research team will explore potential weaknesses, conflicts or other vetting criteria established in a confidential discussion. EROD was recognized as a TechnoLawyer “Hot Product” for 2025. For pricing information or to register for a new account, get started here . Expert witness research and vetting FAQ’s How do you research an expert witness effectively? Research goes beyond a CV and includes prior testimony, case history, and deposition transcripts. Review this record helps identify inconsistencies and potential risk. The goal is to be fully prepared before deposition or trial. What should be included in an expert witness vetting process? A strong vetting process includes testimonial history, admissibility rulings, publications, and disciplinary actions. This helps assess credibility and identify patterns that could impact performance. It ensures the expert can withstand scrutiny. Why is expert witness research important in litigation? Expert witnesses can influence strategy, settlement, and case outcomes. Missing a prior inconsistency or credibility issue can weaken your position. Early research helps avoid surprises and strengthens preparation. Where can you find expert witness information? Information is spread across court records, deposition transcripts, regulatory filings and new sources. These sources are often fragmented and time-consuming to search manually. Comprehensive research requires pulling from multiple data sets. How do attorneys identify weaknesses in an opposing expert witness? Attorneys analyze prior testimony, published work, and admissibility challenges. They look for inconsistencies, exclusions, or disciplinary history. These insights support stronger cross-examination and motion strategy.Expert Research On-DemandERODhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/pressroom/b/news/posts/relx-group-enters-into-agreement-to-acquire-french-legaltech-company-doctrineTue, 28 Apr 2026 12:15:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:ab111021-74fe-497a-a418-80114afa3878JillNRELX Group is planning to acquire Doctrine, strengthening authoritative legal AI workflows in France and across Europe. Paris, France / New York, NY – RELX Group, which owns LexisNexis® Legal & Professional , a global leader in information, analytics, and AI-powered legal workflow solutions, today announced it has offered to acquire Doctrine , France-based Legal AI platform recognized for its advanced AI tools in legal search, analysis, drafting and practitioner workflows, including Flow Litigate and Flow Counsel. This proposed acquisition would accelerate the delivery of enhanced, trusted, intuitive and authoritative legal AI workflow solutions in France and across key European jurisdictions, including Germany, Spain and Italy and should assist customers to improve productivity and achieve better outcomes. Sean Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer, Global Legal, LexisNexis Legal & Professional, said: "We are excited about the prospect of welcoming Doctrine, so that we can serve customers in France, across Europe, and beyond in even greater ways. Doctrine’s customer-centric innovation approach, powerful platform, and expert talent, complement LexisNexis’s global capabilities in authoritative legal AI workflow solutions, and we look forward to delivering even more value to customers." Guillaume Carrère, Chief Executive Officer of Doctrine, said: "From the start, we have been obsessed with one thing: building cutting-edge AI solutions for legal professionals across Europe. Joining RELX is the natural next chapter for that mission. LexisNexis brings unparalleled depth of content, global reach and a shared conviction that AI, applied responsibly, will transform how legal work gets done. For our customers, this means faster access to a richer set of capabilities; for our team, it means joining a company that recognises and will invest behind the technical and product excellence we have built." Founded in 2016 and headquartered in Paris, Doctrine combines a comprehensive corpus of case law, legislation and regulatory content for civil law jurisdictions with a suite of AI-powered research, drafting and analytics tools. The platform is used daily by 27,000 legal professionals across France, Italy, Germany and Spain, including law firms ranging from solo practitioners to top-tier Anglo-American firms, multinational corporations and public entities including French ministries, local authorities, and universities. The proposed acquisition is subject to the completion of applicable information and consultation procedures with the relevant employee representative bodies and customary regulatory consents. The terms of the transaction have not been disclosed. The two companies will continue to operate separately in the interim. About Doctrine Doctrine is a leading legal AI and intelligence platform for civil law jurisdictions in Europe. Founded in 2016 and headquartered in Paris, Doctrine combines a comprehensive corpus of case law, legislation and regulatory content with AI-powered research, drafting and analytics tools. The platform is used daily by legal professionals at law firms, corporates and public institutions across France, Italy, Germany and Spain. For more information, visit www.doctrine.fr . About LexisNexis® Legal & Professional As part of RELX, LexisNexis® Legal & Professional provides AI-powered legal, regulatory, business information, analytics, and workflows that help customers increase their productivity, improve decision-making, achieve better outcomes, and advance the rule of law around the world. As a digital pioneer, the company was the first to bring legal and business information online with its Lexis® and Nexis® services. LexisNexis Legal & Professional serves customers in more than 150 countries with 11,900 employees worldwide. It has a long tradition in the French market, grounded in the ownership of JurisClasseur since 1993. About RELX RELX is a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers. RELX serves customers in more than 180 countries and territories and has offices in about 40 countries. It employs more than 37,000 people, around 40% of whom are in North America. The shares of RELX PLC, the parent company, are traded on the London, Amsterdam and New York Stock Exchanges using the following ticker symbols: London: REL; Amsterdam: REN; New York: RELX. The total market capitalization is approximately £47.7bn, €55.1bn, $64.4bn. Media Contact Jill Van Nostran VP, Communications & Global PR jill.vannostran@lexisnexis.comPress Releasehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/espace-presse/b/nouvelles/posts/relx-accord-acquisition-doctrineTue, 28 Apr 2026 12:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:51401084-d371-4bce-a4c2-47f251da1928Ezechiel TotouomLe G roupe RELX prévoit d’acquérir Doctrine, renforçant s es workflows juridiques d’IA de référence en France et dans toute l’Europe. Paris (France) / New York, NY (États-Unis) – 28 avril 2026 – Le Groupe RELX (propriétaire de LexisNexis ® Legal & Professional, leader mondial dans le domaine de l’information, de l’analytics et des solutions de workflows juridiques enrichies par l’IA) annonce avoir conclu un accord en vue d’acquérir Doctrine, plateforme française d’IA juridique reconnue pour ses outils avancés d’IA appliqués à la recherche juridique, à l’analyse, à la rédaction et aux workflows destinés aux praticiens, notamment Flow Litigate et Flow Counsel. Cette acquisition projetée accélérerait le déploiement de solutions de workflows juridiques d’IA renforcées, fiables, intuitives et fondées sur des contenus de référence en France et dans plusieurs juridictions européennes clés, notamment l’Allemagne, l’Espagne et l’Italie, et aiderait les clients à gagner en productivité. Eric Bonnet-Maes, Chief Executive Officer, LexisNexis Continental Europe Middle East and Africa , poursuit : « En quelques années, Doctrine a construit une solution de référence pour les professionnels du droit en France. Accueillir Doctrine au sein du Groupe RELX a beaucoup de sens et permettrait de répondre encore mieux aux besoins et aux attentes des professionnels du droit en Europe et au-delà. Leur ambition rejoint la nôtre : créer des solutions juridiques associant une excellente maîtrise des technologies, et fondées sur des contenus de grande qualité. » Guillaume Carrère, Chief Executive Officer de Doctrine , conclut : « Depuis nos débuts, nous n'avons eu qu'une seule ambition : construire des outils d'IA juridique de pointe pour les professionnels du droit à travers l'Europe. Après avoir réalisé 5 acquisitions et s’être implanté dans trois nouveaux pays en trois ans, rejoindre le groupe RELX et LexisNexis, avec qui nous partageons une vision commune de l'IA appliquée au droit, est la suite naturelle de notre trajectoire. Pour nos clients, cela signifie un accès plus rapide à des capacités toujours plus riches ; pour nos équipes, cela signifie rejoindre un groupe qui reconnaît et investira dans l'excellence technique et produit que nous avons solidement construit. » Fondée en 2016 et basée à Paris, Doctrine combine un corpus complet de jurisprudence, de législation et de contenus réglementaires pour les juridictions de droit civil avec une suite d’outils de recherche, de rédaction et d’analytics alimentés par l’IA. La plateforme est utilisée quotidiennement par 27 000 professionnels du droit en France, en Italie, en Allemagne et en Espagne, notamment des cabinets allant du praticien individuel à des cabinets de grande taille, des entreprises multinationales et des organismes publics, dont des ministères français, des collectivités territoriales et des universités. La réalisation de l’opération reste soumise à la finalisation des procédures applicables d’information et de consultation des instances représentatives du personnel concernées ainsi qu’aux autorisations réglementaires usuelles. Les termes de la transaction n’ont pas été divulgués. Les deux sociétés continueront d’opérer séparément dans l’intervalle. À propos de Doctrine Founded in 2016 and headquartered in Paris, Doctrine combines a comprehensive corpus of case law, legislation and regulatory content for civil law jurisdictions with a suite of AI-powered research, drafting and analytics tools. The platform is used daily by 27,000 legal professionals across France, Italy, Germany and Spain, including law firms ranging from solo practitioners to top-tier Anglo-American firms, multinational corporations and public entities including French ministries, local authorities, and universities. For more information, visit www.doctrine.com À propos de LexisNexis® Legal & Professional As part of RELX, LexisNexis® Legal & Professional provides AI-powered legal, regulatory, business information, analytics, and workflows that help customers increase their productivity, improve decision-making, achieve better outcomes, and advance the rule of law around the world. As a digital pioneer, the company was the first to bring legal and business information online with its Lexis® and Nexis® services. LexisNexis Legal & Professional serves customers in more than 150 countries with 11,900 employees worldwide. It has a long tradition in the French market, grounded in the ownership of JurisClasseur since 1993. À propos de RELX RELX is a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers. RELX serves customers in more than 180 countries and territories and has offices in about 40 countries. It employs more than 37,000 people, around 40% of whom are in North America. The shares of RELX PLC, the parent company, are traded on the London, Amsterdam and New York Stock Exchanges using the following ticker symbols: London: REL; Amsterdam: REN; New York: RELX. The total market capitalization is approximately £48.4bn, €55.9bn, $65.5bn. Contact LexisNexis Cécile Chapeland-Ponzio cecile.chapelandponzio@lexisnexis.fr +33 6 20 28 33 54https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/ai-for-practice-of-lawMon, 27 Apr 2026 14:19:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:7df98885-a858-4bed-bbe7-7cb45cf5cd6fVirginie De SmechtHow AI is transforming the practice of law for attorneys Ask any lawyer what the practice of law involves on a day-to-day basis and you will get an answer that goes far beyond writing briefs or reviewing contracts. You are likely to hear about a variety of judgment calls that involve deciding how to approach a matter, choosing which legal strategies to deploy, determining the best way to tackle a specific task, or how to make sure that legal work can withstand scrutiny from clients, opposing counsel, courts and regulators. Understanding that range of daily activity is more important than ever right now because the technology entering legal workflows is increasingly powerful — but that tech needs to be aligned with how legal work actually gets done. This is the second post in a four-part series exploring how LexisNexis is redefining the standard of legal practice in the age of AI. The first post introduced the series and outlined three pillars shaping that new standard. Here, we take a deeper look at the importance of building AI that is purpose-built for how lawyers actually work. How the practice of law is changing with AI The core of legal practice has always been built on a progression: a lawyer assesses the situation, applies the relevant expertise and data, follows a structured legal process, and then delivers a defensible work product. Whether the task is drafting a motion, analyzing a contract or preparing for trial, that sequence is what has always separated competent legal work from guesswork. What has changed in recent years is the speed and scale at which these steps can be augmented by technology, with a sea change occurring since the widespread availability of artificial intelligence tools. Seven in 10 attorneys now use AI at least once a week in their legal practice, according to a Law360 Pulse report in March 2026, with double-digit growth in use for research, document summarization and drafting. But adoption alone doesn’t tell the full story. The Law360 Pulse survey also revealed a rising discomfort that many of them share over whether the necessary safeguards around those tools have kept pace, with 44% saying they now see both the pros and cons of AI adoption in the legal industry. That was in sharp contrast to last year’s survey, where 73% of frequent AI users held a positive view of the technology. “Attorneys who frequently use artificial intelligence tools are starting to feel less positive and more neutral about the technology’s adoption in the legal industry,” reported Law360 . Why generic AI falls short in legal work Legal work requires tools that understand the difference between a first draft and a defensible document. It demands technology that can Shepardize a citation, extract a clause in context or validate an argument against secondary sources — not just produce text that reads like it might be correct. The ongoing list of risks assumed by attorneys who placed their trust in work product created by general-purpose AI tools is serious. This mismatch isn’t just organizational, it’s architectural. Most AI tools available today were built for use by individuals and small businesses who need assistance with answering questions, drafting emails or summarizing text. They are impressive at generating language. But generating language is not the practice of law. This is where purpose-built legal AI separates itself from the pack. Rather than retrofitting general-purpose models to handle legal tasks, purpose-built tools are designed from the ground up around the key aspects of the practice of law. The best of these tools were developed according to a time-tested understanding of specific skills, data requirements and workflows that define how lawyers actually do their jobs. Three key elements of AI built for the practice of law At LexisNexis, we have focused on three core concepts that mirror how legal work gets done: 1.Legal skills in AI for lawyers These are the discrete capabilities required to handle specific tasks with trusted data. For example, they might include summarizing a deposition transcript, extracting key terms from a contract, Shepardizing a citation or running a conflict check. These are not generic writing tasks, they are specialized functions that require domain-specific training and access to authoritative legal content. 2.Legal workflows and AI automation These are repeatable, multi-step legal processes that chain those skills together. Drafting a legal memorandum, for example, isn’t a single action so much as it is a sequence of actions: research the issue, analyze the relevant authorities, draft the argument, review and validate the citations. A technology platform designed for the practice of law understands that sequence and supports it end to end. 3.AI agents for legal tasks These are goal-driven systems that can take on a request, figure out the steps required, and use the available skills and workflows to complete it. For example, when a lawyer asks an AI assistant to analyze a contract and redraft several clauses based on their organization’s playbook, the system needs to plan the work, execute each step in the right order and refine the output. It’s not good enough to use an AI tool to produce a block of text and then hope for the best. This layered architecture of Skills, Workflows and Agents is what makes AI feel less like a chatbot and more like a capable associate who understands how legal work actually gets done. What’s next for AI in the legal industry In the next post in this series, we’ll explore the second pillar of the standard of legal practice in the age of AI: why trust in legal AI must be built on authoritative data … and what happens when it isn’t. Experience Lexis+® with Protégé™ Lexis+ with Protégé delivers purpose-built, end-to-end legal AI workflows with an intuitive user interface designed to make trusted legal work possible with one prompt. New workflow capabilities within Lexis+ with Protégé automate drafting, review, analysis and citation checking into scalable and repeatable legal processes that simplify complex legal work and deliver consistent, high-quality results across teams. Learn more about Lexis+ with Protégé’s capabilities or request a free trial today. or request a free trial today.Lexis+ AIProtégéLexis+ with ProtegeProtegeLexisNexis Protegehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/fr-ressources/b/webinaires/posts/prompting-juridique-replay-du-webinaire-bonnes-pratiques-de-prompting-exploitez-l-ia-en-toute-securiteFri, 24 Apr 2026 20:18:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:121fbc92-ea32-4f98-9e8d-bb4fd2aaa7ecJagnid DingaL’intelligence artificielle transforme en profondeur les métiers du droit. Recherche juridique, rédaction, analyse de contrats, préparation d’arguments… les outils d’IA générative offrent des gains de temps considérables. Mais une question reste essentielle : savez-vous vraiment utiliser l’IA efficacement dans votre pratique juridique ? Nos experts LexisNexis vous expliquent comment maîtriser le prompting juridique et en faire une compétence clé pour vous, professionnel du droit. Découvrez le replay du webinaire pour vous aider à maîtriser le prompting juridique. Téléchargez le Replay du webinairehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/standard-of-legal-practice-in-aiFri, 24 Apr 2026 13:25:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:21a0410d-712c-4ab2-9e37-7b4d79d53959Virginie De SmechtA majority of lawyers are now using AI tools in their work, but trust in the technology has not kept up with the speed of adoption. Firms are investing, experimenting and, in many cases, struggling to reconcile AI’s promise with the very real risks of unreliable outputs from the patchwork of general-purpose AI tools that don’t speak the language of law. Against this backdrop, LexisNexis is making a bet that the future of AI isn’t just about faster text generation. Our view is that it’s about building technology that mirrors the way lawyers actually work : grounded in authoritative data, structured around legal processes and designed to earn the kind of trust the profession demands. AI in Law Today: Adoption vs. Trust Big Tech companies are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into AI infrastructure. These general-purpose large language models are remarkable at producing fluent, confident prose. But legal professionals have learned the hard way that these tools are far less reliable at producing accurate legal citations, jurisdiction-specific analysis or work product that will survive scrutiny from a partner, opposing counsel or federal judge. For example, a chatbot can summarize a contract, but it doesn’t know your firm’s standard clause language. It can draft interrogatories, but without awareness of jurisdiction-specific rules or the particulars of your case. And critically, it can’t verify whether its citations are accurate or whether the law it references is still good law. These problems with general-purpose AI tools have led legal professionals to be skeptical of AI outputs. Indeed, s urveys show that most firms have begun formally using some form of AI in their workflows, but firm leaders remain deeply concerned about reliability. The takeaway isn’t that AI is failing to deliver results for legal professionals, it’s that AI without the right foundation presents important risks to law firms. The message for the moment in which we find ourselves as a profession is that the standard of practice needs both AI fluency and trustworthy data underneath it. Three Pillars of Modern Legal AI Practice LexisNexis is framing our approach around three interconnected ideas, each of which will be explored in greater depth in upcoming posts on this blog: 1. AI Built for Legal Workflows Generic AI tools were not designed with legal workflows in mind. Lexis+ with Protégé is built around how lawyers actually work : drafting, analysis, validation and citation checking. The platform introduces a layered architecture of legal skills (e.g., discrete tasks like summarization or clause extraction), workflows (multi-step processes like research-to-memo) and agents (goal-driven legal AI assistants that plan, execute and refine complex requests). The idea is that when a lawyer asks Protégé to analyze a contract and redraft clauses against their organization’s playbook, the system doesn’t just generate text — it mirrors the decision-making process a lawyer would follow. 2. Trusted Legal AI Powered by Authoritative Data Lawyers don’t trust AI outputs on blind faith. Rather, they trust citations, precedents and their own verified work product. LexisNexis seeks to come alongside legal professionals by delivering trustworthy AI-powered tools that are private, secure and authoritative. Our 200 billion-plus document repository (with four million new documents added daily) connects with our customers’ own work product uploaded into secure vaults and — where appropriate — general web data to enable the creation of finished, verifiable legal work within a private and secure environment. Our conviction is that high-quality AI-powered outcomes require grounding from authoritative sources, not just a large language model’s best guess. 3. AI-Powered Draf ting as a Legal Process Perhaps the sharpest distinction that we draw in our vision for the standard of legal practice in the age of AI is between text generation and legal drafting. Drafting in law isn’t just writing, it’s building a structured and supportable legal argument. Protégé is designed to treat drafting as a legal process , not an output, with tools that extend across Microsoft 365 and Copilot to support defensible AI-powered drafting wherever lawyers are already working. The emphasis is on producing work that can withstand scrutiny, not just save lawyers time. What’s Next for AI in the Legal Practice This post is the first in a four-part series exploring how LexisNexis is redefining the standard of legal practice in the age of AI. In the weeks ahead, we’ll take a deeper look at each of the three pillars described above, examining a few key themes: what it means to build legal AI that is purpose-built for the profession; why authoritative data is the non-negotiable foundation of trust; and how AI-powered drafting is evolving from novelty to necessity. E xperience Lexis +® with Protégé™ Lexis+ with Protégé delivers purpose-built, end-to-end legal AI workflows with an intuitive user interface designed to make trusted legal work possible with one prompt. New workflow capabilities within Lexis+ with Protégé automate drafting, review, analysis and citation checking into scalable and repeatable legal processes that simplify complex legal work and deliver consistent, high-quality results across teams. L earn more about Lexis+ with Protégé’s capabilities or request a free trial today.Lexis+ AILexis+ with ProtegeLexisNexis Protegehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/au-resources/b/webinars/posts/on-demand-webinar-see-regcompliance-in-actionThu, 23 Apr 2026 18:19:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:88f8dc00-f552-469d-8f8b-60199606a36cLycijoy FerrerSince launching LexisNexis® RegCompliance+ and our AI assistant Protégé™, we’ve introduced a range of enhancements designed to help you navigate change with greater speed, clarity, and control. If you’re looking to strengthen your regulatory compliance approach, now is the time to see what’s possible. In this webinar, hosted by Michael Nelson, Customer Experience Manager at LexisNexis Regulatory Compliance, we give you a practical look at the RegCompliance+ platform. In this session, we cover: ✓ Obligation Tracking Made Simple Manage, assign, and monitor regulatory obligations with confidence. ✓ Smarter Alerts, Less Noise Refine alerts so you only see what truly matters. ✓ Advanced Search & Seamless Sharing Quickly find, share, and act on critical regulatory information. ✓ Introduction to Protégé We showcase a short overview of Protégé. Fill out the form to access the webinar.https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/nz-regulatory-compliance-resources/b/webinars/posts/on-demand-webinar-see-regcompliance-in-actionThu, 23 Apr 2026 07:47:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:39638c8d-17a3-4505-bc71-dcc834950849Lycijoy FerrerSince launching LexisNexis® RegCompliance+, we’ve introduced a range of enhancements designed to help you navigate change with greater speed, clarity, and control. If you’re looking to strengthen your regulatory compliance approach, now is the time to see what’s possible. In this webinar, hosted by Michael Nelson, Customer Experience Manager at LexisNexis Regulatory Compliance, we give you a practical look at the RegCompliance+ platform. In this session, we cover: ✓ Obligation Tracking Made Simple Manage, assign, and monitor regulatory obligations with confidence. ✓ Smarter Alerts, Less Noise Refine alerts so you only see what truly matters. ✓ Advanced Search & Seamless Sharing Quickly find, share, and act on critical regulatory information. Fill out the form to access the webinar.