Today is the first-ever E-Discovery Day, celebrating e-discovery’s vital and growing role in the legal process. The day — which is also the day new e-discovery rules take effect in the federal courts — features a full slate of free videocast panels with some of the top professionals in the field addressing a range of cutting-edge topics.
Can keyword search be as or more effective than technology assisted review at finding relevant documents?
A client recently asked me this question and it is one I frequently hear from lawyers. The issue underlying the question is whether a TAR platform such as our Insight Predict is worth the fee we charge for it.
The question is a fair one and it can apply to a range of cases. The short answer, drawing on my 20-plus years of experience as a lawyer, is unequivocally, “It depends.” Continue reading →
Whether at Sedona, Georgetown, Legaltech or any other of the many discovery conferences one might attend, a common debate centers on the efficacy of keyword search. “Keyword search is dead,” some argue, touting the effectiveness of the newer predictive analytics engines. “Long live keyword search,” comes back in return from lawyers who have relied on it for decades both to find legal precedent and, more recently, relevant documents for their cases.
Often, the critics of keyword searching cite the 1985 Blair and Maron study for the Association of Computing Machinery that suggested that full-text retrieval systems brought back only 20 percent of the relevant documents. That assertion is true but I wonder how many of the debaters have ever read the study itself. My guess is not many, including me. So I decided to give it a read. Continue reading →
What is the transparency issue? Well, if you happened to read U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck’s decision earlier this year in Rio Tinto v. Vale, you have an understanding of why transparency is a concern with regard to the use of TAR. Although TAR is now so widely accepted that it has become—as Judge Peck said—black letter law, there remains significant uncertainty over the degree of transparency and cooperation required with respect to the training sets used in TAR. Continue reading →
As CFO of Catalyst since 2004, Lew Visscher has helped grow the company from its early days as a law firm spin-off to an international legal technology leader. But this veteran financial executive is also known for his activities outside Catalyst. He is president of the board of the Colorado chapter of Financial Executives International and has also been president and treasurer of the board of Emergency Family Assistance Association, one of Boulder County’s largest and oldest non-profits serving the basic needs of the community.
Among finance and accounting professionals, Lew is best known as the founder of Lew’s List. This is a networking email database of nearly 10,000 finance and accounting members that Lew started in 2003. Today, Lew emails 100-150 job opportunities a month to the list’s members, helping companies find talent and talent find employment. It is the go-to source for finance and accounting jobs in Colorado. Continue reading →
What are an attorney’s ethical duties of competence in the handling of discovery of electronically stored information? That will be the topic of a free webinar tomorrow, Oct. 29, from 1 to 2 p.m. Eastern time, sponsored by Catalyst.
The issue has come to the forefront as a growing number of states have recognized that lawyers have an ethical duty to be competent in technology. Recently, a State Bar of California ethics opinion extended that duty of technology competence to e-discovery. Continue reading →
In a recent blog post, Ralph Losey lays out a case for the abolishment of control sets in e-discovery, particularly if one is following a continuous learning protocol. Here at Catalyst, we could not agree more with this position. From the very first moment we rolled out our TAR 2.0, continuous learning engine we have not only recommended against the use of control sets, but we actively decided against ever implementing them in the first place and thus never even had the potential of steering clients awry.
Losey points out three main flaws with control sets. These may be summarized as (1) knowledge Issues, (2) sequential testing bias, and (3) representativeness. In this blog post I offer my own take and evidence in favor of these three points, and offer a fourth difficulty with control sets: rolling collection. Continue reading →
“It’s never too late,” people often say. But is that true for technology assisted review? If a legal team has already put substantial time and effort into manual review, can TAR still be worthwhile? That was the issue presented in a patent infringement case where the client’s approval to use TAR came only after the law firm had manually reviewed nearly half the collection. Even that late in the game, Insight Predict produced substantial savings in time and cost. Continue reading →
Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last five years, you’ve likely heard about Technology Assisted Review and how it can help reduce the time and cost of document review in e-discovery. But maybe you’ve still never tried it for one of your own cases. Maybe you’ve been on the fence for fear that it won’t really have any value for your case.
If so, here’s your chance to get off the fence. Catalyst this week announced that it is so confident of the effectiveness of its award-winning TAR platform, Insight Predict, that it is putting its money where its mouth is. Catalyst is offering an unconditional, money-back guarantee to anyone who uses Insight Predict on their next case. If you are not completely satisfied with the value you receive using Insight Predict, Catalyst will refund your cost. Continue reading →
Catalyst designs, hosts and services the world’s fastest and most powerful document repositories for large-scale discovery and regulatory compliance.