A recent survey of chief legal officers suggests that there is a wide gap between the reporting they need in order to more efficiently manage their litigation costs and the reporting they actually get.
In the 2016 Chief Legal Officer Survey recently published by the management consulting firm Altman Weil, CLOs say that the number one tactic they can use to control costs is improving efficiency, and that one of the top ways they can improve efficiency is by leveraging technology tools to better collect and analyze management metrics. Continue reading
Catalyst is teaming up with Bloomberg Law’s Big Law Business to present a complimentary live event in Chicago later this month on how legal departments can successfully manage costs while staying compliant.
The Feb. 23 event features a keynote interview with Susan Lees, general counsel of Allstate Insurance, conducted by Gabe Friedman, editorial manager, Bloomberg BNA. Lees is known as an innovative GC who has effectively led her legal department in controlling costs and increasing risk management. She is expected to discuss how her department uses technology to lower costs while improving transparency and defensibility. Continue reading
I am almost reluctant to tell you that Catalyst’s new e-discovery platform for corporations, Insight Enterprise, will cut your discovery costs. After all, doesn’t every e-discovery company say that? Having just returned from Legaltech in New York, I can tell you that companies so frequently claim to cut costs that the promise begins to ring hollow. So, when Catalyst says it, why should you believe any different?
The answer, in part, is that Insight Enterprise Continue reading
Earlier this month, Catalyst launched a new product designed exclusively for corporate e-discovery, Insight Enterprise. We’ve been telling you about its features in a series of blog posts. Now is your chance to see it first hand, if you will be attending Legaltech in New York next week.
Throughout the conference, Catalyst staff will be on site in the exhibit hall, demonstrating Insight Enterprise and other Continue reading
One of the bigger, and still enduring, debates among Technology Assisted Review experts revolves around the method and amount of training you need to get optimal results from your TAR algorithm. Over the years, experts prescribed a variety of approaches including:
- Random Only: Have a subject matter expert (SME), typically a senior lawyer, review and judge several thousand randomly selected documents.
- Active Learning: Have the SME review several thousand marginally relevant documents chosen by the computer to assist in the training .
- Mixed TAR 1.0 Approach: Have the SME review and judge a mix of randomly selected documents, some found through keyword search and others selected by the algorithm to help it find the boundary between relevant and non-relevant documents.
“To complicate is easy. To simplify is difficult,” said the Italian industrial designer Bruno Munari.
If Munari’s words were a challenge, Catalyst accepted. Last year, Catalyst assembled a team of designers, engineers and legal professionals to build a platform with the overarching goal of simplifying corporate e-discovery.
Two weeks ago, Catalyst unveiled that platform, Insight Enterprise. And in a 12-week series of blog posts, we are focusing in each week on particular aspects of Insight Enterprise and exploring them in more depth. This week, our subject is simplification – how this new platform simplifies corporate e-discovery for in-house counsel. Continue reading
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That old saw makes perfect sense. But sometimes seeing when something is “broke” depends on your perspective.
Take corporate litigation and e-discovery.
From the perspective of outside counsel, there ain’t nothin’ broke that needs fixin’. Litigators have always handled their cases the same way – each case as a distinct project. They start from scratch when the case comes in and close it forever when the case concludes. This siloed by-the-case approach has characterized litigation for as long as there have been judicial tribunals. Continue reading
Seems every story or survey you read about corporate counsel these days talks about the urgency for legal departments to rein in litigation costs and enhance operational efficiency. And any conversation about reining in litigation costs invariably turns to e-discovery. Estimates say litigation costs make up 60 percent of legal department budgets, and e-discovery accounts for 60 percent of those litigation expenses.
Often, however, controlling litigation costs is much easier said than done. The reason is that e-discovery is traditionally conducted in silos. At any given time, a corporation may have multiple ongoing legal matters – lawsuits, arbitrations, investigations and other proceedings – all requiring e-discovery of one form or another. Handling those various matters are likely to be a variety of outside law firms and supporting them are likely to be a variety of outside vendors and consultants. Continue reading
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect Dec. 1. Do you know how they impact e-discovery?
A year ago at this time, the 2015 FRCP amendments were the talk of the e-discovery community. The revisions relating to discovery were substantial and, in some cases, controversial. But this year’s amendments took effect virtually unnoticed.
That is because this year’s amendments were few in number and minor in effect. However, there is one change that directly affects discovery practice: FRCP Rule 6(d) has been amended to remove service by electronic means from the types of service that give a party an extra three days to respond. Continue reading
[This is another post in our “Ask Catalyst” series, in which we answer your questions about e-discovery search and review. To learn more and submit your own question, go here.]
We received this question:
Does using documents from other matters to gain intelligence [train the algorithm] run the risk of exposing that data if opposing counsel requests the training set?