Forumly is
launching soon
Join the waitlist to get early access when we go live.
You know the law
You don't know the judge
Forumly analyzes a federal judge's full opinion history and tells you exactly how they reason through the law what arguments land, what they've rejected before, and the questions they're most likely to ask from the bench.
The law isn't what decides your hearing.
The judge is.
You can have the better argument and still lose because you argued it the wrong way to the wrong judge. That gap lives in their opinions. Forumly reads them for you.
"Judge [X] will likely probe whether your contacts argument goes beyond foreseeability. She has explicitly rejected stream-of commerce arguments in [case]. Expect: 'Counsel, set aside the distribution argument identify one specific act your client took that was deliberately directed at this district.'"
Three steps.
Your judge's entire written record, your motion, and a report that tells you what no amount of legal research ever could.
Forumly pulls every opinion your judge has authored fromv CourtListener's database of over 10 million federal opinions, then analyzes them not for the law they contain, but for the reasoning they reveal. How does this judge apply Twombly when pleading sufficiency is actually contested? What arguments have they rejected by name? That pattern, built from their entire written record, is their judicial fingerprint. Yours is now mapped.
Every argument is cross-referenced against that judge's documented reasoning, identifying where your motion aligns with what has moved them before, where it uses framing they've explicitly rejected, and where it leaves questions unanswered that this judge is known to probe.
Not a case summary. The questions this judge will ask you, grounded in their actual opinions. The arguments in your motion that are exposed given their reasoning style. The language that has worked with them and the language that hasn't. Every insight sourced to something this judge actually wrote.
Frequently Asked Questions
