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
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
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
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
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
E-discovery review has come a long way in a short time. Not long ago, manual, linear review was the norm. Then came keyword search, which helped increase efficiency but was imperfect in its results. Technology-assisted review was a great leap forward, but early TAR 1.0 versions were rigid and slow. Only with the arrival of TAR 2.0 and Continuous Active Learning did TAR finally save the day for e-discovery.
The brief history of how TAR evolved is depicted in a new Catalyst infographic, A TAR is Born: The Making of a Superstar. See how e-discovery review matured from a demanding infant to a Ph.D. in savings. After you check out the infographic, read much more about TAR in Catalyst’s free e-book, TAR for Smart People.
View Infographic >
In his 2015 opinion in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale SA, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck extolled the benefits of technology assisted review using Continuous Active Learning. In particular, he noted that CAL reduces or even eliminates the need for the rigid seed set required by older TAR methods.
CAL’s flexibility on seed sets was illustrated in a case where a large banking institution alleged it lost millions due to a borrower’s accounting fraud. In response to the borrower’s production request, the bank faced review of 2.1 million documents, even after culling. With neither the time nor budget to review them all, the bank turned to Catalyst’s Insight Predict, the first commercial TAR engine to use CAL. Predict cut the review by 94%.
Read the case study to see how it was done >>