AgileLaw vs. Paper vs. Zoom:
The Litigation Workflow Comparison
Paper is the status quo. Zoom is the remote-meeting workaround. AgileLaw is built for exhibits. Here's an honest, capability-by-capability look at all three — across depositions, trials, arbitrations, hearings, and briefs.
How to read this comparison
Most tool comparisons pit one product against one competitor. That's not how litigation teams actually work. In practice you're choosing between four very different things: the paper binder you've always used, the video call everyone already has, another exhibit platform, and software built specifically for this workflow.
Paper represents the manual, status-quo workflow. Zoom stands in for the remote-meeting alternative — Teams and Webex have the same structural gaps. Other platforms covers the purpose-built exhibit tools, where support genuinely varies from product to product.
Every mark in the table has a reason behind it. Hover or tap any icon to see it.
Litigation workflow comparison
Capability by capability, across every stage of a matter
Hover or tap any mark for the detail behind it
| Capability | Paper Exhibits | Zoom / Screen Share | Other Platforms | AgileLaw |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Searching | ||||
| Search the full exhibit set mid-testimony | Varies by platform | |||
| Search private attorney notes and tags | ||||
| Exhibit management | ||||
| Exhibits marked and numbered in the record | ||||
| Numbered set delivered to the court reporter | Manual | |||
| Prevent duplicate exhibit numbers | Manual | Configurable | ||
| Same numbers carry into briefs and trial | Configurable | |||
| Exhibit notes & annotations | ||||
| Witness can annotate exhibits | Varies by platform | |||
| Private attorney notes on exhibits not viewable by others | Requires extra copies | Requires notes on a separate screen | Requires separate notes | |
| Exhibit viewing | ||||
| Everyone sees the same exhibit at the same moment | Passed by hand | |||
| Witness may select specific pages to view on their own | Varies by platform | |||
| See the witness's view in real time | Only if the witness shares | |||
| Call out specific portions of the document | Requires third-party software | |||
| Logistics | ||||
| Bench role for objections and rulings in trial and arbitration | Sidebar | |||
| Works remote, hybrid, and in person | In person only | Remote only | Not both | |
| Record the witness's view for the entire deposition | ||||
| Stamped exhibits immediately available post-deposition | ||||
Searching
Exhibit management
Exhibit notes & annotations
Exhibit viewing
Logistics
Where each one actually fits
The short version, if you only read one section
AgileLaw
Exhibits as a system of record — one library, reused across every proceeding in the matter, searchable mid-testimony, synchronized to every participant, and logged automatically.
It asks your team to adopt a dedicated litigation platform. That is a real change to how a firm works, and it only pays off if exhibits are a meaningful part of your practice.
Paper
Simplicity and universality. Nobody needs training, nothing fails mid-deposition, everyone has their own copy, and it works in any room regardless of the technology available.
It does not scale. Printing, binders, shipping, and re-copying grow linearly with volume, nothing is searchable, and version confusion is a constant risk under pressure.
Zoom
Remote attendance. Reliable video, near-universal familiarity, and no onboarding for the witness who just needs to show up and answer questions.
Exhibits are outside the product. Screen share shows one presenter’s view, roles are generic, and there is no exhibit record — so the litigation workflow lives in workarounds.
Other platforms
Getting exhibits marked, numbered, and delivered to the court reporter. The core mechanics of a digital exhibit set are handled.
Support varies product to product, and the details are where it shows: private attorney notes, seeing the witness’s view, duplicate-number protection, and working remote and in person are commonly missing.
These aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of firms run Zoom for the video feed and AgileLaw for the exhibits — and keep a paper set on the table for the witness who prefers one. The question is which tool owns your exhibit record.
AgileLaw by proceeding type
The same exhibit workflow, applied to every stage of a matter
Depositions
The core workflow: a private exhibit set, keyword search mid-testimony, one-click introduction to every participant, and an exhibit log that builds itself.
Depositions overview →Trials
Adds a purpose-built judge role so admissibility rulings happen inside the workflow rather than alongside it — for paperless and hybrid courtrooms.
Trials overview →Arbitrations
Built for multi-party proceedings: each side maintains its own private exhibit repository, and either side can introduce on demand.
Arbitrations overview →Hearings
Fast, searchable access to potential exhibits when a hearing turns in a direction you did not plan for — without hauling the full binder.
Hearings overview →Briefs
A different shape of problem: exhibit citation automation inside Microsoft Word, linked back to the same source exhibit set the proceedings use.
Briefs overview →Stop working around your exhibit workflow
Your first proceeding on AgileLaw is free. No credit card, no sales call required.
Prefer the head-to-head? Zoom vs. AgileLaw →