[LAW-LIB:57346] Litigation Monitor vs. AtVantage

From: Daley, Laurie (Laurie.Daley@bullivant.com)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2008 - 14:34:14 PST

  • Next message: David Dames: "[LAW-LIB:57347] jurispacific"

    I posted a request several months ago for people's opinions about
    comparing Litigation Monitor and atVantage. Many thanks to those who
    responded. It took us several months to reach a consensus, but we
    decided to renew our subscription to Litigation Monitor for another
    year. We did two trials of AtVantage several months apart, and while it
    improved substantially between the two tests, the state court coverage
    is still insufficient to meet our needs.

    AtVantage has several prospecting features that our Marketing group
    likes. The link to corporate counsel is nice, but didn't appear to be
    much more than the same information in Martindale-Hubbell. The news and
    company information links were helpful and appreciated, but we didn't
    find them to be provide particularly unique information. The developers
    were able to implement several functionality upgrades that we requested
    before our second trial, such as being able to filter results by
    plaintiff or defendant, which was very important to the Marketing
    department. We are a regional law firm, and initially our searches
    found that sometimes one service was better in our states, and sometimes
    the other was. AtVantage seemed to have better results in California
    than Litigation Monitor, but doesn't have Oregon state courts yet.

    We have had some technical problems with Litigation Monitor the last few
    months because the filtering options can either kick you out or tie up
    the browser; if I had to filter very much, it was easier to get out of
    the program and start over from scratch. This can be frustrating and
    time-consuming.

    We would like to see some improvements in both products over the next
    year. One area we found lacking in both services is figuring out that
    we're searching a trade name instead of a corporate name - we need to go
    elsewhere (for us it's our Hoovers subscription) to find out that
    connection. But we decided that we could not replicate the court
    coverage we're currently able to search with Litigation Profiles on
    AtVantage - the additional material in AtVantage was not enough to move
    us over to the Lexis product.

    Thanks, Laurie

    Laurie Daley
    Librarian
    Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC
    888 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 300
    Portland, OR 97204
    mailto:laurie.daley@bullivant.com
    direct dial: 503.499-4603 - fax: 503.295.0915
    http://www.bullivant.com
    Seattle . Vancouver . Portland . Sacramento . San Francisco . Las Vegas

    mail.bullivant.com made the following annotations
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please be advised that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended to be used by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
    *********************************************************
    This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information belonging to Bullivant Houser Bailey, which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail information is strictly prohibited.
    If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 21 2008 - 14:35:51 PST