rulings.law is a free legal research platform focused on judicial analytics — helps practitioners find what cases their judges cite, what arguments persuade them, and how judges have ruled on similar issues. Featured in Forbes (‘Leveling The Legal Playing Field For Free,’ June 2019) and on the Technically Legal Podcast. Created by Appleby. Listed in LawNext directory. Free access. Has actual tentative rulings indexed (e.g., Los Angeles Superior Court rulings visible on the site). Very small team (25 LinkedIn followers). Targets litigators who need to understand judicial behavior patterns.
Capabilities
Spans 3 product areas: Legal Research, Legal Education & Training, Knowledge Management.
Workflow Coverage
Based on published feature listings, this tool maps to 3 workflow areas:
- Research & Analysis — Citation Checking
- Firm Operations & Growth
- Document Review & Management
Workflow mappings derived from published feature lists. Not independently verified.
What We Haven’t Verified
This page was assembled from publicly available information. Feature claims and workflow mappings are based on what the vendor and third-party listings publish — not hands-on testing or practitioner feedback.
Workflows
Based on practitioner evidence, rulings.law is used in these workflows:
What practitioners struggle with
Real frustrations from legal professionals — the problems rulings.law addresses (or should address). Sourced from practitioner reviews, Reddit threads, and case studies.
Solo/small firm needs case law research but Westlaw and LexisNexis charge $300-500/month per user — either pay and bleed, negotiate a discount every year, or go without and risk missing relevant authority. Free alternatives (Google Scholar, Fastcase) have gaps in coverage and no citator
Litigation team preparing for trial needs to understand how a specific judge rules on summary judgment motions, Daubert challenges, and sentencing — but there's no systematic analytics on judge behavior, so strategy relies on anecdotes from colleagues who've appeared before that judge
Litigation associate researching how Judge X handles class certification, summary judgment, or a Daubert motion only sees the small slice of rulings that become published opinions — the rest of the judge's reasoning is buried in transcripts and non-opinion rulings, so case strategy depends on hallway gossip and lawyers' memory instead of systematic evidence
Where it fits in your workflow
Before rulings.law
Litigator preparing a motion needs to understand how a specific judge has ruled on similar issues — searches rulings.law
After rulings.law
Judge's ruling patterns inform motion strategy, argument selection, and case assessment
Integrations & hand-offs
Standalone website (rulings.law). Free access. No documented integrations.
Community Data
Loading practitioner-sourced data…