Darrow CEO Evyatar Ben Artzi joins world-renowned trial lawyer John Quinn on Law, Disrupted — one of the legal profession's most prominent podcasts — for a conversation that traces the founding of Darrow from Supreme Court clerkship to AI-powered justice intelligence platform.
Ben Artzi opens with his background: combat officer in the IDF, law and cognitive science at Hebrew University, clerk at the Israeli Supreme Court. It was there, watching cases get dismissed while violations accumulated outside the courthouse, that the gap became undeniable. The insight — offered by Gila Hayat when the two lawyers shared their frustration — was that this was an intelligence problem, not a legal one. Information existed; no one could find it or piece it together into a coherent claim.
Ben Artzi walks Quinn through how Darrow operates in practice. The process begins by studying successful past cases to develop the legal and factual patterns that made them work. The platform then searches public information — newsfeeds, social media, administrative filings, environmental monitoring, HTML source code, court dockets, legislation — for current instances of those same patterns. When a match emerges, the system determines how many people were harmed and forecasts the likely legal outcome and case value. Rather than looking for a single smoking gun, Darrow connects many data points across the internet to assemble a complete claim that resembles a previously successful case — then surfaces it for a lawyer to assess.
The conversation goes deep on data privacy — how source code from an app or website can be compared against a company's own privacy policy to detect discrepancies — and touches on the Arizona regulatory changes allowing non-lawyers to participate in law firm ownership, a development Ben Artzi sees as meaningful for how the legal technology industry will evolve.
On the question of priorities and how Darrow decides which cases to pursue, Ben Artzi introduces the concept of "Gross Litigation Value" — a metric that combines case value with potential social return. The goal is to find cases that are not only financially viable for law firms but maximally beneficial to society. That dual mandate, he argues, is not a contradiction: the two reinforce each other, which is why Darrow chose to be a company rather than the NGO it originally considered becoming.
