Chelsey Lambert of Lex Tech Review Talks With UniCourt CEO Josh Blandi About “Turning Court Searches Into Cash” Chelsey Lambert of Lex Tech Review Talks With UniCourt CEO Josh Blandi About “Turning Court Searches Into Cash”

Chelsey Lambert (@ChelseyLambert) of Lex Tech Review (@LexTechReview) recently published a great article about her conversation with UniCourt (@UniCourtInc) CEO Josh Blandi (@JoshBlandi) on practical tips for using court records and analytics for business development:
A growing number of law firms are looking for data to drive business development, but the data is useless unless it is translated in a way that is meaningful. UniCourt gives you the ability to create business development opportunities by finding patterns in data from both federal and state courts.
For Chelsey’s list of “not one, not two, but TEN ways” to use court records for business development, check out Chelsey’s article “UniCourt – Turning Court Searches into Cash” in Lex Tech Review.
Thanks Chelsey for practical tips on an important topic!
UPDATE: Chelsey’s article was selected as Pick of the Week byLitigationWorld (@litigationworld) one of many great newsletters published by our friends at TechnoLawyer (@technolawyer).
Congratulations Chelsey, and thanks to our friends at TechnoLawyer and LitigationWorld.

Adam Long of UniCourt — Darwin Talk at Legalweek West 2017 Adam Long of UniCourt — Darwin Talk at Legalweek West 2017

Thanks to the organizers of the  Legalweek West Show (@LegalweekShow) and thanks especially to Mary Juetten (@maryjuetten) of Evolve Law (@EvolveLawNow) for a great job organizing the Darwin Talks
It was a real honor to share the stage with so many great presenters.

For links to all the great talks, please check out the video that our friends at 1LAW (@1LAW) were kind enough to post on the 1LAW Facebook page.
Thanks also the Legalweek West organizers for giving me the opportunity to join Mary Juetten of Traklight (@traklight) and  Tom Martin (@lawdroid1) of lawdroid for a panel discussion on “All Things Implementation: Improving Technology Management in the Boutique Law Firm”.
Last but not least, thanks to a great audience for both talks.
Can’t wait till next year!

UniCourt at Legalweek West in San Francisco UniCourt at Legalweek West in San Francisco

If you are going to be in San Francisco for the Legalweek West Show  (@LegalweekShow) next week, ” The following day, Tuesday, June 13 at 10:45 Adam will be joining Mary Juetten (@maryjuetten) of Traklight (@traklight) and  Tom Martin (@lawdroid1) of lawdroid for a panel discussion on “All Things Implementation: Improving Technology Management in the Boutique Law Firm”. See yostop by on Monday evening, June 12 to see UniCourt’s (@UniCourtInc) Director of Content, Adam Long present an Evolve Law (@EvolveLawNow) Darwin talk on “Obstacles to Access to Court Records are Obstacles to Access to Justice.u in San Francisco!

Our Judicial System Is Failing in Its Mandate to Provide the Public with Access to Court Records Our Judicial System Is Failing in Its Mandate to Provide the Public with Access to Court Records

This post is the first in a three part series on how public access to court records is becoming an important access to justice issue. This post will focus on the fundamental right to access court records. Part 2 will focus on the high cost of obtaining court records. Part 3 will focus on how obstacles to obtaining court records are stifling innovation. The sum of these three issues are having a significant impact on access to justice.
Openness and transparency are fundamental to our legal system, yet it is a sad fact that today you can easily find almost anything on the Internet EXCEPT court records. It is easier to order groceries, book an airplane ticket, or check out a library book online, than it is to look up whether your doctor has ever been sued for malpractice, find out how many divorce cases your attorney has handled, or look up whether a potential business partner has a history of fraud.
It should not be this way. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the public has a fundamental right to review and monitor what happens in open court.
In Craig v. Harney, for example, the Supreme Court chastised a trial court judge who had jailed a newspaper reporter for a story that was highly critical of the judge. The Supreme Court rejected the trial judge’s explanation that the reporter had “interfer[ed] with the due administration of justice” and Justice Douglas explained that it was for the public, and not the judge, to determine whether the reporter’s criticism’s of the judge were justified:
A trial is a public event. What transpires in the court room is public property. . .  Those who see and hear what transpired can report it with impunity. There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it.
Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947) (emphasis added).
Similarly in Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn, the Supreme Court struck down a state statute that sought to restrict reporters and others from publishing records of criminal trials. Justice White explained that the statute was unconstitutional because ultimately the public was the final authority for reviewing court proceedings and so it was improper to restrict the public’s right to access court records:
Public records [of court proceedings] by their very nature are of interest to those concerned with the administration of government, and a public benefit is performed by the reporting of the true contents of the records by the media. The freedom of the press to publish that information appears to us to be of critical importance to our type of government in which the citizenry is the final judge of the proper conduct of public business.
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 495 (U.S. 1975) (emphasis added).
In these cases from many decades ago, along with many others, the Supreme Court focused on ensuring that the public has access to the records of court proceedings.
Furthermore, many State Constitutions also enshrine the principle of open access. Perhaps the most explicit statement of the principle is found in the Florida Constitution, which expressly spells out that, aside from narrowly construed exceptions, everyone has the right to copy any court record:
Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
Florida Constitution, Article 1, Section 24 (emphasis added).
The California Constitution also expressly provides for public access:  
The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (emphasis added)
California Constitution, Article 1, Section (3)(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Similarly, Article 1, Section 10 of the Washington State Constitution directs that justice in all cases “shall be administered openly” and Article 1, Section 11 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania states that “[a]ll courts shall be open.”
But today, despite these explicit constitutional provisions and many decades after the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the public’s right to access court records, many courts provide only limited access — many court records are still not online at all — and the process for finding, obtaining, and working with federal and state court records is expensive, cumbersome, confusing, and grossly outdated.
In the digital age, our courts have failed in their mandate to provide public access to court data, and we should no longer accept the status quo.

At UniCourt (@UniCourtInc), we think these issues are crucially important to ensuring access to justice. That is why we are on a mission to provide EVERYONE meaningful access to their “public property” — the records of what happens in our federal and state courts. We build tools that harness modern technology to ensure the public’s time-honored, traditional right to scrutinize the courts and to support the public’s fundamental ability to ensure that justice is done.

Tim Baran on the ABA Techshow: UniCourt is one of the “nimble companies” that is “here to help” Tim Baran on the ABA Techshow: UniCourt is one of the “nimble companies” that is “here to help”

We want to again thank Tim Baran (@tim_baran) from attorneyatwork.com (@attnyatwork) for including UniCourt (@UniCourtInc) among the “nimble companies” that are “here to help,”and for stopping by the UniCourt booth at the ABA Techshow (@ABATECHSHOW).
Read more on Tim’s thoughts on UniCourt and the other startups in Startup Alley at the ABA Techshow in Tim’s piece Nimble Legal Tech Companies on How They’re Here to Help at attorneyatwork.com.

Joan Feldman on the ABA Techshow 2017: UniCourt among the Startups “Doing Amazing Things” Joan Feldman on the ABA Techshow 2017: UniCourt among the Startups “Doing Amazing Things”

We have to agree with Joan Feldman (@JoanHFeldman) from attorneyatwork.com that learning about new startups is “one of the best parts” of the ABA Techshow (@ABATECHSHOW), and we are flattered that UniCourt (@UniCourtInc) was included in the group of startups that she says are “doing amazing things.”
Read more on Joan’s thoughts of UniCourt and the other startups that appeared at the Startup Alley Competition in What’s New in Legal Technology? ABA TECHSHOW 2017 at attorneyatwork.com.

Nicole Black on UniCourt and ABA Techshow Startup Alley Competition Nicole Black on UniCourt and ABA Techshow Startup Alley Competition

Nicole Black (@nikiblack) from Law Technology Today was kind enough to stop by and talk with UniCourt (@UniCourtInc) at the recent ABA Techshow Startup Alley Competition (@ABATECHSHOW). She offers a nice overview of UniCourt along with the other contestants in ABA TECHSHOW: A Visit To Startup Alley at Law Technology Today.
Thanks for stopping by Nicole!

UniCourt’s CEO Josh Blandi and Citgroup’s Jeff Cox Share Tips on How In-House Counsel can Manage Costs & Increase ROI UniCourt’s CEO Josh Blandi and Citgroup’s Jeff Cox Share Tips on How In-House Counsel can Manage Costs & Increase ROI

UniCourt‘s (@UniCourtInc) CEO Josh Blandi (@JoshBlandi) recently got the chance to talk with Jeff Cox (@JeffCoxEsq) of Citigroup (@Citi) on a topic that is on every in-house counsel’s mind these days — how in-house legal teams can use automation to do more with less:
Corporate counsel don’t have to pick up the phone and call to get an update on case status,” says Blandi, [using UniCourt’s tools] they can simply open the firm’s folder or create docket alerts. To save clients additional time and money, UniCourt also integrates with PACER to provide intelligent updates, leading to tremendous costs savings: “With UniCourt, you never have to log in to PACER again,” says Blandi.
For more tips from Josh and other legal tech experts on how to manage costs and increase return on investment, check out Jeff’s article, “AI for Legal Ops and Corporate Counsel – The First Wave” in the Association of Corporate Counsel’s Legal Ops Observer.
Thanks again to Jeff for a very insightful article!

UniCourt at ABA Techshow 2017 in Chicago

If you are going to be in Chicago for the ABA Techshow 2017 this week, stop by on Wednesday night from 6:00 – 7:15 PM to cheer us on in the Startup Alley Competition to pick the most innovative legaltech startup in the US. UniCourt is one of only 12 startups invited to participate in a bracketed pitch competition judged by conference attendees and we are counting on your vote!
If you would like to learn more about UniCourt stop by booth 821 in Startup Alley.