|Documents per month||10
|Number of logins/accounts||1||5||20|
|Our software's value|
quotation mark checking
|Citation format checking|
|Quotation accuracy checking|
|Priority customer support|
|Early access to new features|
In our study of merits briefs submitted by leading national law firms to the Supreme Court in the 2020 term, we found errors in most of them. In our regular review of appellate briefs filed by the nation's top litigation firms in the federal appeals courts, we found as many as two dozen errors, with an average of around ten. We are so confident in our software (and the fallibility of humans) that we guarantee you that Cite.ly will find at least some errors in your briefs, too.
For our regular customers, it occasionally happens that they have a brief with no obvious errors in it. In these cases, our customers still find value in the peace of mind that Cite.ly instantaneously gives them—and Cite.ly still saves them the time they would have spent trying in vain to find errors in an error-free brief.
In any case, if you're not satisfied with our service, you can just let us know and we will happily refund you, no questions asked.
With Cite.ly, you are free either to use it to reduce lawyer/paralegal workload by using it to speed along the Bluebooking process, or to use it as a "double check" on your usual Bluebooking process—meaning that there would not be any expected decrease in the number of hours billed.
If you opt for the first approach, there is plenty of good reason for reducing associate/paralegal workload in this way:
If you opt for the second approach—using Cite.ly to double-check your firm's ordinary cite-checking processes, then your firm's billing will be unaffected—but the quality of your firm's work will go up, as will your peace of mind.
If you use our software to make your Bluebooking more efficient—reducing the amount of time that paralegals or associates spend cite-checking briefs—then Cite.ly costs much less than doing things the old way. As a practical matter, our software allows you to review your briefs more quickly, more economically, and more effectively—finding more errors—than any lawyer anywhere. Our analysis shows that, for a typical 40-page brief, the average associate will spend at least two hours—and easily as much as four hours—reviewing case law citations and quotations. With Cite.ly, the average user spends only about 20 minutes on a brief—therefore saving you several hours of associate and/or paralegal time.
This time difference adds up quickly. For a typical junior associate, the cost savings using Cite.ly will therefore be from several hundred dollars up to more than a thousand.
Here, the main value of Cite.ly is in improving your image before the judge. Judges and law clerks (not to mention opposing counsel) can be sticklers. In our experience, even the highest-quality litigators tend to have errors sprinkled throughout their briefs—from one every paragraph to one every page or each few pages. Longer, more citation-heavy briefs tend to have more such errors. If you’ve got errors in the formatting of your brief, a judge’s (or the judge’s law clerk’s) faith in your ability to get the substance of the law or facts right may falter when they see that you can’t even get the formatting right. It can be impossible to recover from such a lack of faith. Rest assured, however, that all you do or say may be subject to more significant scrutiny.
With Cite.ly, by contrast, you can avoid having embarassing, unsightly errors show up in your writing. Quite the opposite: with Cite.ly, you can rest assured that you’ve done all you can to put your best foot forward.
Click here to make an account and get a free trial.