Cleansing and normalizing unstructured data is a highly technical and time-consuming task.
Data comes in formats of all kinds – structured and unstructured – all of which must be effectively managed, merged and governed as needed for operational efficiency.
While furnishing enforcement officials the critical information may secure cooperation credit and possibly reduce liability in any enforcement action, it can increase potential future liability in other litigation.
Every year, lawyers file litigation claims said to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and yet few lawyers have embraced data analytics to guide their litigation decisions in the way that bond traders or other industries rely on such tools.
Information governance (IG) is becoming more and more critical to any organization’s success in controlling the sheer mass of data generated in the ordinary course of business. However, determining the best ways to get information under control has many organizations at a standstill, with too many organizations only enacting IG practices after disaster strikes.
By 2016, 20 per cent of CIOs in regulated industries will lose their jobs for failing to successfully implement effective information governance, according to Gartner.
There are certain general standards to which we should hold ourselves and our companies, regardless of the fact that there may be no laws requiring us to do so, or that the principles behind them may not apply 100 percent of the time. There may be no perfect solution, but it is our responsibility to try nonetheless.
For sure, Big data is the next big thing in the technology field. It will not only promote business growth, but it will also help companies to outperform each other.
“Big data without governance will quickly become a big problem,” says Christophe Toum, the data governance manager at Talend in an interview with Anmol Rajpurohit in KDNuggets.
“Unless your staff are more diligent and consistent at declaring, classifying and tagging records than many are, consider providing full auto-classification, or at the very least, auto-classification assistance.”
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.