Does clinging to the notion of “document” really hold us back? I think so, because continuing to define what we seek in discovery as “documents” ties us to a two-dimensional view of four-dimensional information.
Information Governance Many companies don’t benefit from big data because of the gap between those who manage the data and those who apply it. The solution is information governance.
Many factors come into play when you want to win a horserace. Next to the fastest horse, there’s a need for the best team, perfect daily condition, an extraordinary rider and sometimes also a big bunch of luck. Passionate trademark analyst and L2 founder Scott Galloway highlights this race in regards to Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google and shares the race’s ramifications in his short 15 minute presentation.
About half of the 281 law firms that participated in a 2014 survey by International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) and InsideLegal said they had increased their technology spending budgets that year, six percent more than the year before. More recently, legal software companies have reported an increase in business from big law firms.
A non-profit trade association created by and for legal tech professionals wants the rubber to meet the road.
Plaintiffs and Defendants face unique challenges when conducting discovery. While both sides share a duty to competently review relevant case documents, goals and methodologies can differ distinctly. This webinar will cover how these different approaches can benefit from specialized document review strategies and technology.
In honor of Browning Marean’s work in the litigation field and his extraordinary international ambassadorship, ILTA has established two scholarships to ILTACON, one for individuals who live and work in the U.S. and one for those outside the U.S.
What we need is a visual browser for the world around us – a way of pointing at things which inspire thoughts and questions, giving us a rich, engaging means to find out what we don’t know, and those things we didn’t know how to search for using mere words.
Whether you are a litigation services provider or internally managing litigation support functions within a law firm or corporate legal department, ESI processing deadlines can often exceed capacity. The consequence of this is being forced to prioritize some clients over others even though all processing needs are time sensitive.
Technology assisted review (TAR), also known as predictive coding and computer assisted review, has become a frequently used tool to complete large document reviews quickly and cost efficiently. The promise of fast, accurate computer-assisted coding as a practical solution to increasingly massive collections is encouraging, but understanding various vendor approaches can be confusing and overwhelming. In many cases, there is little, if any, information about how a specific TAR methodology works, creating potential defensibility blind spots and jeopardizing the progress of your case. How can you trust or account for the results of a mystery process? Alternatively, if a methodology is fully disclosed, case teams can evaluate, explain, and justify outcomes with confidence.
The e-discovery vendor [Lexbe] is making moves to grow its corporate clientele, but it’s found a niche taking its hosted e-discovery platform to plaintiff lawyers and advocacy organizations that are getting over their fear of the cloud.
Lexbe’s Assisted Review+ is available for use in cases hosted in the Lexbe eDiscovery Platform, and can also be applied to cases being hosted in other review platforms through HighCapacity Processing+. In either approach, Assisted Review+ offers a transparent, defensible, and fast predictive coding workflow, powered by the massively scalable Lexbe Engine.
Technology assisted review has a transparency problem. Notwithstanding TAR’s proven savings in both time and review costs, many attorneys hesitate to use it because courts require “transparency” in the TAR process. Specifically, when courts approve requests to use TAR, they often set the condition that counsel disclose the TAR process they used and which documents they used for training. In some cases, the courts have gone so far as to allow opposing counsel to kibitz during the training process itself.
“The ability to earn trust must be part of any plan to implement artificial intelligence (AI) or smart machines, and will be an important selling point when marketing this technology. CIOs must be able to monitor smart machine technology for unintended consequences of public use and respond immediately, embracing unforeseen positive outcomes and countering undesirable ones.”
As we have reported in the past, the eDiscovery industry is still growing at an impressive rate. One recent market report estimated that the global eDiscovery market is forecast to reach $15.65 billion by 2020 . So, who is investing in the eDiscovery industry?
At this year’s Legal Tech, I once again had the honor of moderating the Judges Panel, on which Judge John Facciola (D.D.C., retired), Judge Andrew Peck (S.D.N.Y), Judge Frank Maas (S.D.N.Y), and Judge Elizabeth Laporte (N.D.Cal.) presented. This time, we had a provocative topic (or, perhaps –as Judge Peck put it–, a depressing one): “What’s Wrong with Discovery?” The judges had plenty of insight into why discovery has become risky and expensive, what causes attorney misconduct in discovery, and implications for access to justice. Below are ten highlights of that discussion.
83% of organizations are prioritizing structured data initiatives as critical or high priority in 2015, and 36% planning to increase their budgets for data-driven initiatives in 2015.
Preventing the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information in litigation is increasingly challenging. Technological advancements have ushered in varying mediums of information storage and exchange, such as email and social media, that thoroughly document confidential communications. Fortunately, innovation in eDiscovery technology combined with process and workflow improvements can help you meet the challenge of protecting privilege.
Lexbe’s Dual Index approach captures hidden office file text including headers, footers, comments, tracked changes, and notes. Additionally, Lexbe is able to index embedded text and other visuals to ensure that all of a documents data is made searchable for review.
Those practicing environmental law face unique litigation challenges in advocating on behalf of their clients. Rapidly growing collections of electronically stored information (ESI) present an increasingly large obstacle when taking on resource-rich private firms. Environmental attorneys can frequently find themselves taking on data-intensive cases that overwhelm existing document review and production capabilities.
Lexbe is able to offer free native ESI processing because of massively scalable server infrastructures and an integrated review platform. By eliminating processing costs and limiting your eDiscovery expenditure to hosting your review in the award winning Lexbe eDiscovery Platform, costs are not only drastically reduced but also predictable.