The legal research monopoly just cracked wide open? Maybe

Hugging Face now hosts what appears to be 99% of US case law, freely accessible to anyone with an internet connection. If this dataset proves reliable, we're witnessing the end of the $10B+ legal research duopoly—and the beginning of something far more transformative.

Think about it: Supreme Court-caliber briefs written from first principles for the cost of compute. AI agents that can synthesize centuries of precedent in minutes, not hours. Legal startups building on comprehensive case law without prohibitive licensing costs.

But here's the strategic question every legal leader should be asking: How do we lead this shift instead of getting swept up by it? 🌊

Three immediate moves for forward-thinking legal teams:

🎯 Pilot hybrid research workflows — Test open datasets alongside traditional tools to understand accuracy gaps and coverage differences

📊 Develop internal AI literacy — Train your team to work with AI research tools, not just around them

🤝 Partner with innovation teams — Use this moment to redesign legal research processes from the ground up, not just bolt AI onto existing workflows

The firms and in-house teams that embrace this democratization—while building robust validation frameworks—will deliver better outcomes at lower costs. Those that wait for "someone else to figure it out" risk becoming footnotes in legal history.

What's your team's strategy for navigating the post-monopoly legal research landscape? 📚

Comment, connect and follow for more commentary on product counseling and emerging technologies. 👇