Litigators hey! Would you use a tool that analyzes how specific NDCA judges tend to reason?
Former big law litigator here.
One thing I kept noticing in practice:
Two lawyers can make technically solid arguments, but the one that aligns better with how a specific judge tends to analyze issues often wins.
I started building an internal tool around that idea, focused on NDCA motion practice.
It analyzes prior rulings and tries to identify recurring reasoning patterns from individual judges, particularly around MTDs and summary judgment motions. The goal isn’t to generate briefs, but to help litigators think through which arguments are more likely to resonate before drafting.
Curious whether practitioners here think something like this would actually be useful in real-world litigation practice, or if there are major blind spots I’m missing.
Especially interested in perspectives from people regularly litigating in NDCA.