How OraClaim Cut a 3-Day Litigation Report Down to 7 Hours—and Gave Lawyers More Time to Lawyer

Introduction

Megan Griffith, managing attorney of the Tampa office at Almazan Law, had practiced for more than 11 years, primarily in insurance defense, construction, general liability, and personal injury. Her team handled document-heavy matters where a single file review could take a full day or more—and where missing one important detail could change the strategy, liability assessment, or reserve recommendation months into a case.

After roughly eight to nine months using OraClaim, Megan found that AI was not replacing the lawyer’s role. Instead, it was reducing the time spent on repetitive review and giving attorneys more room to focus on strategy, analysis, discovery, and moving cases forward.

Before

• Personal injury matters regularly involved hundreds of pages of medical records and bills, with attorneys manually comparing prior records, current treatment, and specialist records page by page.

• Construction matters could involve hundreds of thousands of pages, including permits, project files, scopes of work, certificates of occupancy, and lengthy expert reports.

• A complete file review in either practice area could take a day to a day and a half without AI assistance.

• Megan had previously managed caseloads as high as 150 plaintiff-side cases and close to 100 defense matters at one time. At the time of the interview, her caseload was around 40 matters split between construction and personal injury.

• Attorneys often created their own Word documents to track chronologies, timelines, settlement information, liability assessments, key players, and case notes.

• Important information could surface six or eight months into a case, sometimes during depositions, forcing the team to revise liability assessments, reserve recommendations, and strategy.

• By the time the initial document review and summarization were finished, there was often less time and energy left for the work attorneys were actually hired to do: strategize, prepare discovery, assess liability, and advocate for clients.

After

• OraClaim could perform an initial analysis of a fully populated matter in less than 10 minutes, depending on document volume and upload time, giving Megan a starting view of allegations, facts, and liability issues.

• In one high-exposure case, Megan estimated that a mediation report would ordinarily have required about 24 hours of work over three days. With OraClaim, she completed the 19-page report in seven hours.

• Medical chronology work that previously required hours of manual record review became substantially faster. Megan estimated that OraClaim could remove roughly five hours of tedious review from some workflows, while she still spent around three hours checking and refining the result.

• New documents could be added to the matter and incorporated into an updated assessment, rather than forcing the attorney to rebuild the analysis from scratch.

• Megan used the platform to assess liability, comparative fault, case strengths and weaknesses, and changes in strategy as new facts emerged.

• The time saved shifted her work away from summarizing records and toward strategy, discovery planning, affirmative defenses, expert selection, dispositive motions, depositions, and mediation preparation.

• Megan said the change made the practice more enjoyable because she could spend more time “lawyering” instead of performing repetitive document work.

“It really just lets you be a lawyer.” — Megan Griffith

Process

1. Mirror the matter in OraClaim.
   Megan’s team mirrored its OraClaim file with its Clio matter so the relevant case information was available in both systems.

2. Load the full case record.
   The team added demands, medical records, medical bills, claim notes, client files, and other case documents into the matter.

3. Generate an initial case assessment.
   OraClaim analyzed the information and surfaced the allegations, important facts, and preliminary views on plaintiff and defense liability.

4. Use the analysis to prepare legal work product.
   Megan used the platform to help create medical chronologies, answers and affirmative defenses, carrier-facing reports, liability assessments, and mediation preparation materials.

5. Challenge and refine the output.
   The attorney remained responsible for reviewing the work. If an assessment did not account for a fact correctly, Megan followed up with additional questions and adjusted the analysis.

6. Keep the strategy current as the matter developed.
   As new documents entered the file, OraClaim could incorporate them into the ongoing analysis, helping Megan reassess liability and strategy without starting over each time.

7. Spend the recovered time on higher-value legal work.
   Instead of devoting the majority of her time to summarizing records, Megan could focus earlier on the decisions that moved the case forward.

Conclusion

For Megan, the biggest change was not simply that OraClaim made document review faster. It changed where she spent her time.

A report that might have consumed an entire weekend could be completed in a single day. Large case files became easier to digest. Liability assessments could evolve as new information arrived. And instead of reaching the strategy phase already exhausted from manual review, Megan could spend more of her time preparing arguments, developing discovery, evaluating risk, and helping clients make decisions with greater confidence.

She was also clear that the technology still required an experienced lawyer behind it. Outputs had to be checked, unclear records could still create errors, and judgment remained essential. The value came from removing much of the tedious preparation work—not the attorney from the process.

Her recommendation reflected that experience:

“Ten out of ten, eleven out of ten.”

For Megan, OraClaim helped turn a reactive, document-heavy workflow into one where she could spend more time doing what she had trained to do: be a lawyer.