Compare Fraud Precedents in Seconds

Product Spotlight — Gavelnet Comparison View

Narrative on top. Charges & facts side-by-side. Outcomes aligned. So you brief faster—with confidence and context.

Actual screenshot from Gavelnet’s comparison view. Commentary & Analysis first; structured comparison below.

The Pain Points We Hear from Legal Teams

• Too many PDFs, not enough structure. Precedents vary wildly; you lose time normalising “facts vs. reasoning vs. outcome”.
• Side-by-side is manual. People copy-paste into slides or tables—slow, error-prone, and hard to keep consistent.
• Context gets lost. Result lists don’t explain why cases differ; juniors struggle to translate holdings into strategy.
• No quick narrative. You still need a short, defensible summary that partners or clients actually read.

How the Comparison View Helps

• Commentary & Analysis on top. A concise narrative tees up differences and common ground across cases.
• Aligned columns for the hard facts. Charge/Claim, Facts, Reasoning, and Outcome sit side-by-side for instant scanning.
• Outcome awareness. Sentencing/outcome appears on the same row so decisions are never read out of context.
• Consistent formatting. Bullets render cleanly even when source notes are messy.

Who It’s For

• Litigation & white-collar teams who need fast, defensible case contrasts.
• In-house counsel preparing decision memos without a full research team.
• Paralegals and analysts who want to standardise how case notes are shared.

See It in Action

Want a walkthrough with your own cases? Get a demo and we’ll spin up a comparison tailored to your matter.

Disclaimer: Gavelnet organises case information and generates a comparative narrative from your notes/metadata. It is an aid to research—not legal advice. Always verify against the official text of the judgment.