LexisNexis’ new small firm transparent pricing strategy takes aim at Fastcase, Casetext and Casemaker (again)

For LexisNexis, the pressure in on to recapture solo and two-attorney firms. Competition is getting stiff. For example, over the last 9 months alone, Casetext reports that over 3,000 law firms have switched from LexisNexis and Westlaw to Casetext. LN’s response to the competition is to lower its pricing and make pricing more transparent in the small law market defined as solo and two attorney firms.

Go here to view LN’s offer of three plans: (1) a $55/month “state primary” plan; (2) a $115/month “state enhanced with full federal” plan and (3) a $138/month “national primary enhanced”. Due note all three plans require a three-year contract. In additions to the pricing quoted above, there appears to be a $25/month “administrative fee.”

This in not LN’s only campaign targeting “low cost” providers like Fastcase and Casemaker. Remember the 2017 “Low cost can cost you” marketing campaign? So far, I haven’t seen an LN press release about this latest attempt.

H/T Casetext’s post, LexisNexis’ New Pricing for Small Law Firms: How to Save Thousands Apr. 25, 2019.

1 Comment

  1. Google Scholar Anyone ???

    I wonder to what extent the caselaw repository that is part of Google Scholar is a factor in the competitive game. I have used it for years for caselaw research (mostly Texas and some federal) and actually find it more user-friendly than Westlaw.

    I especially appreciate the following features: (1) much nicer layout and readability on the screen, as well as when printed out; (2) search results and list of subsequent citing cases can be displayed in reserve chronological order; (3) availability of procedural orders for the same case by clicking the hot-linked appellate case number, which would be much more tedious to obtain from the COA websites and may not be available from commercial providers at all.

    Google Scholar is not perfect. Functionality could be improved by allowing searches to be restricted to specific Texas appellate districts (analogous to federal circuits and federal districts); unpublished cases are not always hyperlinked, and some (unpublished) opinions are not available at all, but nevertheless have subsequent/citing case results page based on the Westlaw citation.

    That said, the appellate case number itself (once known) can be used as a search string to identify additional citing cases. I often use Google Scholar first, and then go to Westlaw to see if there is anything that I have missed.

    I have come across some pdf-to-web-page conversion errors in Google, and I would also note that the placement of footnotes in cases with separate opinions is sub-optimal. If there are any question about accuracy, however, one can just visit the court of appeal’s website and view the original opinion in pfd, using the appellate case number. Dissenting and concurring opinions will be separate files there as opposed to being combined into a single page as on Google Scholar Also, Google does not yet incorporate images (diagrams, drawing, photos) that now occasionally appear embedded in issued appellate opinions in Texas, not just in appellate briefs.

    OTHER STATES

    When researching another jurisdiction’s law in a contractual choice-of-law situation, Google Scholar comes in handily too, at least for initial basic research. Presumably that would benefit those attorneys who have a commercial subscription that is limited to their state or one state/federal.

    If law library subscriptions to commercial case law providers are metered and budget constraints are an issue, it may make sense to direct patrons to use Google Scholar first. Same for look-up orders and opinion on PACER.

    Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino, Ph.D. (Political Science, Univ. of Houston, 1992).
    ————————————————————————-
    SSRN Author page: https://ssrn.com/author=2845050
    (current projects mostly on litigation-related consumer law topics)
    ————————————————————————-

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.