We’re counting down the top resources in our content library. See how we’re reducing the cost of litigation and applying the TAR 2.0 and continuous active learning (CAL).
See the selfies on this page? They are from proud law students at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law who successfully completed a unique, hands-on practicum in using technology for e-discovery search and early case assessment.
Developed jointly by William Hamilton, national e-discovery partner at Quarles & Brady and executive director of the UF Law E-Discovery Project, and Patricia Daly, director of training at Catalyst, the practicum is now being offered for free to other law schools interested in providing this training to their students.
Only about 30 of the nation’s 205 accredited law schools have e-discovery courses of any kind. But this is the first that combines lessons in e-discovery technology with personal access to an online “sandbox” where students can perform hands-on exercises and “play” with the concepts being taught. Continue reading
Reviewing for potentially privileged documents in e-discovery is never fun. Not only can it be tedious and time-consuming, but it can also be risky. What if you could speed up the process and automate routine tasks such as creating a privilege log, while at the same time enhancing your overall results?
With new technology tools and techniques, this is not just a pipe dream. The fact is, technology can automate many of the painful tasks associated with privilege review and provide greater certainty of accuracy, while also reducing the overall time and cost. Continue reading
As data volumes grow in litigation, analytics become increasingly important tools for litigators. Analytics can help lawyers make sense of electronic information and reveal the stories hidden among the bits and bytes. But how well do you really understand analytics and what they can do for your case?
In a recent webinar, Litigation Analytics: How to Find Information Critical to Your Case, three experts in the use of analytics in litigation demonstrated core types of this technology and explained the different ways they can help you identify the core issues in your case more quickly and efficiently. Continue reading
There has been a bit of talk lately in the e-discovery echo chamber about fixed-price models for processing, hosting, review and productions. The purported goal of this discussion was to create a stir and drum up business. Yet conspicuously absent from this entire discussion was talk of total cost, aka value. I am the research scientist at Catalyst, so typically I do not get involved in discussions like this. However, as there still seems to be a great deal of confusion over value, I felt the need to help sort all this out.
First, a bit of my background. I have spent the last 18 years of my professional life developing and applying algorithms to the task of finding relevant information. Currently, I am the senior applied research scientist at Catalyst. I obtained my Ph.D. in computer science with a focus on information retrieval (search engines) from the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval (CIIR) at UMass Amherst in 2004. I did a postdoc at King’s College University of London and then spent five years at the Fuji Xerox research lab in Palo Alto (FXPAL) before joining Catalyst in 2010. Continue reading
The more documents a case involves, the more difficult the task for litigation teams to review and make sense of them. These days, even routine cases can involve many thousands of documents, while more complex cases can involve many millions. For litigators, these mountains of documents present a challenge: How to uncover the stories the documents contain so that you can prepare your cases for discovery and trial — and do so within the limits of available time and budgets.
This Thursday, Aug. 27, a free webinar will demonstrate how litigators can address these challenges using sophisticated analytics tools. The webinar, “Litigation Analytics: How to Find Information Critical to Your Case,” will show how analytics tools can turn mountains of documents into molehills, enabling litigators to quickly and affordably zero in on what they need to know. Continue reading
Recently, Bob Ambrogi, our director of communications, published a post called “Our 10 Most Popular Blog Posts of 2015 (So Far).” To my surprise, one of my 2011 posts topped the list: “Shedding Light on an E-Discovery Mystery: How Many Documents in a Gigabyte?” Another on the same topic ranked fourth: “How Many Documents in a Gigabyte? An Updated Answer to that Vexing Question.”
Hmmm. Clearly, a lot of us are interested in knowing the answer to this question. I have received a number of comments on both posts (both in writing and in conversation), which always makes the writing worthwhile. The RAND people told me they also found my findings of interest when they were putting together their study on e-discovery costs. Continue reading
When a large banking institution filed suit alleging accounting fraud caused it to lose millions from a bad loan, the litigation was sure to turn nasty. Soon enough, the bank faced a major production request from defendants. Even after culling, it had 2.1 million documents to review, with limited time and budget to waste.
The bank turned to Insight Predict, Catalyst’s unique Technology Assisted Review platform. Its plan was to employ Predict’s Continuous Active Learning protocol and see if TAR could be effective in further reducing the population. The result: The bank was able to achieve 98% recall after reviewing just 6.4% of the population. Continue reading
A key debate in the battle between TAR 1.0 (one-time training) and TAR 2.0 (continuous active learning) is whether you need a “subject matter expert” (SME) to do the training. With first-generation TAR engines, this was considered a given. Training had to be done by an SME, which many interpreted as a senior lawyer intimately familiar with the underlying case. Indeed, the big question in the TAR 1.0 world was whether you could use several SMEs to spread the training load and get the work done more quickly.
SME training presented practical problems for TAR 1.0 users—primarily because the SME had to look at a lot of documents before review could begin. You started with a “control” set, often 500 documents or more, to be used as a reference for training. Then, the SME needed to review thousands of additional documents to train the system. After that, the SME had to review and tag another 500 documents to document effectiveness of the training. All told, the SME could expect to to look at and judge 3,000 to 5,000 or more documents before the review could start. Continue reading
Last February, we reported here on a proposed ethics opinion from the State Bar of California that would require lawyers who represent clients in litigation either to be competent in e-discovery or associate with others who are competent. At that point, the bar was accepting public comments on the proposed opinion in advance of issuing a final opinion.
Now, that opinion has been finalized and was issued on June 30 as Formal Opinion No. 2015-193. The final opinion largely mirrors the proposed opinion, with only minimal changes. As before, the opinion says that attorneys have a duty to maintain the skills necessary to integrate legal rules and procedures with “ever-changing technology.” In support of that statement, it cites the American Bar Association’s 2012 amendment to the Model Rules that discussed the duty of lawyers to keep abreast of changes in the law, “including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Continue reading