On their Digital Detectives podcast this week, hosts Sharon D. Nelson and John W. Simek of Sensei Enterprises interview Bill Hamilton, national e-discovery partner at Quarles & Brady and executive director of the UF Law E-Discovery Project, about Catalyst’s law school e-discovery practicum. Continue reading
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
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
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
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
We are thrilled to announce that at a ceremony last night in San Francisco, Legaltech News named Insight Predict—Catalyst’s next-generation technology assisted review (TAR) product—as the winner in the New Product of the Year category of the Legaltech News Innovation Awards.
The award was announced at a special event at the City Club of San Francisco at the close of Legaltech West Coast.
The LTN Innovation Awards recognize the best legal technology leaders, products and projects in the legal community. Award winners were chosen by a panel of judges consisting of members of Legaltech News’ editorial staff. In addition to recognizing law department and law firm leaders, LTN presented awards to 20 vendors and services providers across a variety of categories.
With the February 2015 release of Catalyst’s Active Review functionality within Insight Predict, Catalyst became the first to integrate continuous active learning (CAL) technology—the next generation of TAR—directly into the review process. Active Review eliminates the traditional separation between linear review and TAR by combining them in a single, integrated workflow. Continue reading
Since the advent of Technology Assisted Review (aka TAR, predictive coding or computer-assisted review), one of the open questions is whether you have to run a separate TAR process for each item in a document request. As litigation professionals know, it is rare to have only one numbered request in a Rule 34 pleading. Rather, you can expect to see scores of requests (typically as many as the local rules allow). Continue reading
Catalyst founder and CEO John Tredennick is a featured guest on the latest episode of Karl Schieneman’s ESI Bytes podcast, where he talks about the challenges of introducing innovative technologies to the legal community. Also on this episode are Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Jay Lieb, a founder of NexLP.
In this episode, both Schieneman and Judge Facciola serve as the interviewers, asking questions of Tredennick and Lieb, with Judge Facciola also sharing his own insights. Schieneman explained his intent in choosing the topic of innovating technology:
Every year the most popular CLE program in the country is LegalTech so one would think the desire to learn new technology is rampant among lawyers. Experience in the field would tend to suggest otherwise. We thought it would be interesting to have two entrepreneur technologists on the show to talk about their perspectives on gaining adoption of new technologies in the legal space.
You can listen to or download the podcast here.