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 →
An 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 →
Many 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 →
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.
In 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 →
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 →
I 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.
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 →
Taking his lead from the seminal U.S. case, Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, a master of Britain’s High Court of Justice has 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.
In a written decision issued Feb. 16, 2016, in the case Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd., Master Matthews, who is similar in responsibility to a magistrate judge in the U.S. federal court system – provided his reasons for his approval of the parties’ request to use TAR in a case involving some 3.1 million electronic documents. Continue reading →
In the user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) world, one of the ways people design successful software is through the creation of a “mental model” of the underlying processes. Mental models have been around since the 1940s and used for different processes but the concept caught hold in software because it gave designers a framework to understand user needs and the problems they were trying to solve.
According to one of the pioneers of Internet usability, Jacob Neilson, “mental models are one of the most important concepts in human-computer interaction.” We use them to inform our software design and we wanted to share one that we created to model the e-discovery process. Continue reading →
Catalyst designs, builds and hosts the world’s fastest and most powerful document repositories for large-scale discovery and regulatory compliance. We back our technology with a highly skilled Professional Services team and a global partner network to ensure the best e-discovery experience possible.