Introducing A New Weekly Feature on this Blog: Ask Catalyst

Ask_Catalyst_Twitter
Here at Catalyst, we get a lot of good questions about e-discovery technology. And we answer every question we get. Whether the question comes from a client, a webinar attendee, or anyone else, we make sure it gets answered.

And we have some really smart people who answer the questions. That’s not to brag, it’s just a statement of fact. We have one of the world’s leading information retrieval scientists. We have the lawyer who was lead e-discovery counsel in the first contested case to win approval for the use of technology assisted review. We have another former litigator who also started his own e-discovery software company. We have a staff brimming with highly experienced technology and litigation-support experts of all kinds. Continue reading

Perlman: ABA Future Commission Not Out to Regulate ‘Entire Legal Tech Industry’

ABA_Future_CommissionThe ABA’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services is not out to regulate the entire legal technology industry, its vice-chair Andrew Perlman told me today.

Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School in Boston, was addressing concerns I raised in a post here yesterday about whether the commission is looking at regulating e-discovery companies and other companies that provide products and services to the legal industry. Continue reading

Is the ABA Looking to Regulate E-Discovery Companies?

blog_judge_robeA request for comments from the American Bar Association’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services is raising the question of whether the ABA will call for regulation of e-discovery companies.

In a March 31 issue paper, the commission says it is studying the role played by unregulated legal service providers (LSPs) in the delivery of legal services. The commission explains that it is “gathering data on the spectrum of services that these unregulated LSP entities provide to the public and eliciting feedback on whether the public would benefit if state judicial authorities develop new regulatory structures for these entities.” Continue reading

Gigabyte Expansion in E-Discovery Hosting: You Get What You Pay for; You Pay for What You Get

Catalyst_Blog_Gigabyte_ExpansionAn old friend called me recently to talk about a beef he had with his e-discovery provider. “What’s up?” I asked when I realized who it was. He told me he thought he had done everything right in setting up his last e-discovery project. He sent out an RFP to several vendors, asked all the right questions and then picked the bidder with the lowest per-gigabyte price to host the documents. Everything seemed like it was on track.

“So what’s wrong with that,” I asked. “You went for the low bidder and locked them in with an ironclad contract. Getting hosting for that kind of per-gigabyte price seems like a steal.”

My friend sighed in response. “What happened was that I didn’t read the fine print.” Continue reading

A Qualitative Approach to Winning E-Discovery Business in Japan

blog_tokyo_skylineMany years ago, a surprising turn of events taught me a lesson I’ll never forget about working with Japanese companies.

A U.S. law firm had invited the e-discovery company I worked at to make a presentation to its client in Japan. The law firm had worked with the client for several months and it was time to talk discovery. To be impartial, the law firm had invited several e-discovery vendors to present. Continue reading

How to Organize Review Documents Using Dynamic Search Folders

By | This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , on by .

Litigators have long relied on folders to manage electronic case documents. Typically, we build and manage these folders manually. But Catalyst Insight’s Search Folders feature lets users build folders that organize documents dynamically based on field data, full-text searches or both.

The Dynamic Search Folders feature is a powerful tool for early case assessment, review or even production. In this short video, Catalyst’s founder and CEO John Tredennick demonstrates how it works.

As E-Discovery Goes Global, Cultural Sensitivity is Key

Abstract_GlobeIn a recent post here, we noted that Britain’s High Court of Justice had approved the use of technology assisted review, becoming the first case to do so in the United Kingdom and only the second case outside the U.S. to approve TAR.

These two non-U.S. decisions approving TAR are significant in and of themselves. But they are also notable for another reason. They show that “e-discovery isn’t just for Americans anymore,” as my friend and former colleague David Horrigan tells Legaltech News in an article published this week. Continue reading

Does a Search-Term Stipulation Require Production of All Matching Documents? Court Ruling Offers Guidance

Litigants in federal court are expected to cooperate with each other in developing a discovery plan. As part of such a plan, it is increasingly common for parties to stipulate to the search terms they will use to search their electronically stored information for documents that are relevant to the dispute. But to what extent does a search stipulation create an obligation to produce the documents that contain matching terms? Does the stipulation create a de facto requirement to produce all matching documents?

That was the argument made by the plaintiffs in a motion to compel recently decided in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut. The parties had agreed to a list of search terms to be used by the defendant in its search of emails from 23 custodians. When defendant ran the search, it returned 38,000 matching documents. Continue reading

Catalyst Publishes 2nd Edition of its Popular Book ‘TAR for Smart People’

Book-2ndEditionI never liked the …for Dummies book titles. So when we released the revised and expanded second edition of our book about technology assisted review at Legaltech New York, I was glad we stuck with the original title, TAR for Smart People: How Technology Assisted Review Works and Why It Matters for Legal Professionals.

Download TAR for Smart People.

In a complex professional practice area such as law, it has become impossible for individual practitioners to hold high levels of expertise in every area that a project might involve. Our brains just aren’t big enough to hold everything we humans have learned. No shame in that. Continue reading