By: Paul Coste
Imagine the advantage a lawyer would have if they could read a judge’s mind. If a lawyer knew what a particular judge was thinking and how they made decisions, they could craft the perfect argument for every motion. While not the ability to read minds exactly, that is the same type of edge new legal tech start up, Bench IQ, claims to offer.
Bench IQ was born out of the mind of Jeffrey Gettleman, while he was working as a bankruptcy partner at Kirkland & Ellis. Gettleman sought to help provide understanding behind judges’ decision-making process, so lawyers are not forced to use a one-size-fits-all approach with judges they encounter. Gettleman teamed up with Jimoh Ovbiagele and Maxim Isakov, ROSS Intelligence co-founder and senior software engineer respectively, to launch Bench IQ, which “uses artificial intelligence to help lawyers understand how individual judgesthink, allowing them to tailor their arguments and improve courtroom results.” On February 29, Bench IQ announced that ithad raised $2.1 million in pre-seed funding from venture capitalists, along with investments from law firms Cooley, Fenwick & West, and Wilson Sonsini, and several Kirkland & Ellis partners.
Although Bench IQ had a successful first round of funding, it faced a field of established competition in the growing field of artificial intelligence-based companies aiming to serve lawyers. Bench IQ sets itself apart from existing litigation insight tools by providing insight into legal reasoning beyond statistics, claiming to offer more “explanatory” rather than “descriptive” insights. For example, Westlaw litigation analytics provide metrics for specific judges’ ruling tendencies, such as the percentage of motions to dismiss or motions in limine rulings granted for plaintiffs or defendants. Existing legal analytics companies such as Lex Machina or Pre/Dicta provide statistics regarding judicial decisions but do not explain or give insights into why judges took particular actions. Bench IQ claims to offer these explanatory insights into judges’ rulings.
Typically, lawyers will use traditional legal analytics tools at the pre-litigation stage to help clients determine whether their case is worth investing in and moving forward with. Bench IQ aims to address the limitation faced by legal professionals, who, when seeking insight into a judge’s past decisions, are restricted to the 3% of rulings for which written opinions are available. The company says it is using a newly compiled dataset and large language models (LLMs) to provide comprehensive insights covering 100% of judges’ rulings. Utilizing generative AI, Bench IQ is able to analyze decision-making patterns of judges, not just based on their written opinions, but also their rulings from the bench. Additional details about Bench IQ’s tech and scope of their dataset are confidential and unavailable due to pending patents, however Bench IQ believes it has the potential to create a new legal standard – “one that is based on understanding the players in the legal game, not just about the rules of the game.”
Bench IQ claims to provide lawyers with unique insights into judges’ thinking, enabling them to identify the best arguments and ultimately outmaneuver opposing counsel. Unsurprisingly, Bench IQ has piqued legal professionals’ interests. In addition to having large law firm investors, Bench IQ announced that it has twelve of the 100 largest U.S. firms as pilot customers, which,according to Ovbiagele, are “actively using the product on live cases, and [is] already informing their legal strategies.” Bench IQ launched with their pilot users in January 2024 and has seen some success. One user reported that Bench IQ “helped [them]understand a specific judge’s approach on an issue he has addressed many times over in a way no other resource would enable [them] to.” Another stated, “Bench IQ is extremely useful for gaining insight into a judge’s views on granular issues that aren’t found on Lexis and Westlaw.”
Bench IQ currently covers U.S. federal courts but anticipates expanding to cover state courts as well. Ovbiagele also highlighted that while initial pilot customers are large firms, the product is designed for firms of all sizes and offers flexible pricing models. Bench IQ will offer both “on-demand,” per-hour pricing and annual subscription plans dependent on the size of the firm and billing rates. According to Ovbiagele, the product is expected to become available to the wider public in the second half of this year.
The data sets, specific analytics, and insights Bench IQ provides are confidential, so we can only speculate what additional information they can provide beyond a judge’s ruling statistics in general litigation situations. The assumption is that the tool will offer deeper intel. For example, where traditional tools willtell you a judge rules against the defendant in a particular motion 75% of the time, Bench IQ may delve further into the specifics or common trends behind that number. So, at worst, the tool tells the lawyer what commonalities to look at or what distinguishes their case to help tailor their argument to the judge’s preferences. At best, Bench IQ truly provides deeper explanatory insight into what kinds of arguments a judge would be most receptive to. Either way, we can assume that the tool has immense potential to be effective if some of the country’s largestfirms are invested in it, let alone already using it.
If the tool is as effective as these firms hope and proclaim it to be, in the interest of balanced justice, we should hope it becomes more widely available to all practitioners. This kind of advantage would skew the balance of justice, creating further disparities in favor of those able to afford top-tier representation by premier law firms. If Bench IQ is as effective at helping all lawyers understand their individual judge’s thinking and craft more effective arguments, then the justice system will be better and more efficient for it. Everyone benefits when lawyers make arguments tailored to the judge’s thinking, allowing for clearer comparisons between different legal viewpoints.
In conclusion, Bench IQ could represent a significant leap forward in the realm of legal technology, promising to revolutionize how lawyers understand and craft their arguments to navigate the complexities of the judicial decision-making process. The success of Bench IQ’s initial funding round and adoption by prominent law firms highlights its potential. By providing lawyers with comprehensive insights into a judge’s reasoning, Bench IQ not only enhances the efficiency of legal proceedings but also fosters a more balanced and equitable justice system. However, as with any technological advancement, questions of accessibility and fairness arise. The widespread availability of tools like Bench IQ is essential to ensure that all practitioners, regardless of their resources, can benefit from its advantages. Without equitable access, there is a risk of widening disparities in legal representation, further privileging those with the means to afford premium services. Ultimately, the potential of Bench IQ to enhance legal advocacy and streamline judicial decision making is undeniable. As it continues to evolve and expand its reach, Bench IQ holds the promise of creating a more transparent, efficient, and equitable justice system.
Student Bio: Paul Coste is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School and staff writer on the Journal of High Technology Law. Paul received a Bachelor of Science in Economics from Northeastern University.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
