Catalyst Insight Review By Brett Burney

Recently, Brett Burney, e-discovery consultant and founder of Burney Consultants, reviewed Catalyst’s Insight Discovery search and review capabilities, which are part of Catalyst’s full EDRM platform comprising of Insight Legal Hold and Collect, Search & Review, Predict and Business Intelligence. We invited Brett to share his insights as a guest author.

Catalyst Insight – Lightning Quick, Responsive Review Platform for Instantly Searching Millions of Digital Files with a Built-In Continuous Active Learning Predictive Analytics Engine

It seems that Catalyst has always been on a mission to push the boundaries of applying advanced text analytics to enormous amounts of electronically stored information for eDiscovery and investigatory purposes… and it’s exciting to watch. Continue reading

Part II: Practical Considerations for U.S. Legal Teams Taking Discovery to Asia

[This is the second in a two-part Q&A between Rachel Teisch, Catalyst’s director of product marketing, and Dave Sannar, Catalyst’s head of Asia operations. Part I discussed trends and cultural differences U.S. legal teams should be aware of before embarking on cross-border discovery in Asia. Part II focuses on tactical considerations for collecting, processing, reviewing and transferring data subject to litigation, investigations and regulatory compliance.] Continue reading

Part I: Q&A with Dave Sannar on E-Discovery Trends in Asia

[This is the first of a two-part Q&A between Dave Sannar, Catalyst’s head of Asia operations, and Rachel Teisch, Catalyst’s director of product marketing. Part I discusses trends in Asia discovery. Part II focuses on tactical considerations for collecting, processing, reviewing and transferring data subject to litigation, investigations and regulatory compliance.] Continue reading

The Importance of Contextual Diversity in Technology Assisted Review

How do you know what you don’t know? This is a classic problem when searching a large volume of documents in litigation or an investigation.

In a technology assisted review (TAR), a key concern for some is whether the algorithm has missed important relevant documents, especially those that you may know nothing about at the outset of the review. This is because most modern TAR systems focus exclusively on relevance feedback, which means that the system feeds you the unreviewed documents that are likely to be the most relevant because they are most like what you have already coded as relevant. In other words, what is highly ranked depends on the documents that were tagged previously. Continue reading

Five Steps to Better Oversight and Control of E-Discovery Spend

What’s in your legal data warehouse? Don’t know? Or don’t have one? If you work at a law firm, there’s no imperative to create a mechanism to share data elsewhere—outside counsel concerns are winning cases. For corporate legal departments, however, it’s a problem: in-house counsel, legal operations professionals and even the c-suite are increasingly asking for more effective oversight and control over e-discovery spend.

“What gets measured gets managed,” the late management consultant Peter Drucker reportedly said. How, in practical terms, are corporate legal departments measuring and managing? Are legal departments incorporating business intelligence (BI) into their day-to-day operations to get the data and analytics they need to be more efficient and manage legal spend more effectively? Continue reading

Four Areas to Reduce Legal Hold and Collection Spend

With organizations allocating up to 50 percent of their legal spend to litigation, savvy legal teams are seeking new ways reduce their e-discovery costs. Improving legal hold management and collection is one place to start.

In this blog post, I will highlight the costliest areas of legal hold and collection per matter for organizations relying on a combination of vendors and firms to help manage the process. I will then compare the costs of these tasks to the costs of using automated cloud-based legal hold and collection software that offers a flat-fee enterprise license for unlimited custodians, holds and data collection. Continue reading

Legal Holds for Smart Teams: Tips for IT Professionals Working with Legal to Preserve Company Data

As I recently wrote about in Law360, when litigation or a government investigation looms, a corporation has a duty to identify and preserve data (documents or other electronically-stored information) that may be relevant to the matter. This requirement, imposed by the courts as well as government regulators, is known as a “legal hold”  or sometimes a “litigation hold.” It stems from the duty to not destroy relevant evidence that may be required for a judicial proceeding.

Increasingly, courts require legal departments and their outside counsel to supervise the preservation process and to certify that reasonable steps were taken. In most cases, lawyers must rely heavily on Information Technology (IT) professionals to execute the mechanics of the hold and ensure data is preserved correctly. After all, IT knows and works with the company’s systems, networks. And, if legal preservation obligations aren’t met properly, penalties for that failure can be substantial. Continue reading

How to Avoid Asian Language Pitfalls in Discovery

A surge in cross-border litigation and enforcement of antitrust and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations is subjecting many Asian-based companies to U.S. discovery obligations. While e-discovery is “business as usual” in the U.S., discovery involving companies in Asia is still relatively new—and rife with potential pitfalls.

When parties involved in cross-border litigation or investigations are faced with multi-language documents subject to discovery, including the challenging Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) languages, they must understand how to accurately process and index CJK documents for proper search, review and analysis. Many Western search and review systems were not designed to capture the nuances of CJK language complexities. As a result, they offer sub-optimal search results, sometimes finding too many documents and sometimes missing important ones. An understanding of CJK differences can help you select the right technology and experts. Continue reading

How to Get More Miles Per Gallon Out of Your Next Document Review

How many miles per gallon can I get using Insight Predict, Catalyst’s technology assisted review platform, which is based on continuous active learning (CAL)? And how does that fuel efficiency rating compare to what I might get driving a keyword search model?

While our clients don’t always use these automotive terms, this is a key question we are often asked. How does CAL review efficiency1 compare to the review efficiency I have gotten using keyword search? Put another way, how many non-relevant documents will I have to look at to complete my review using CAL versus the number of false hits that will likely come back from keyword searches? Continue reading

In AI, No Evolution Without Evaluation

At the recent Legalweek New York AI Bootcamp Workshop, I was reminded of a very small, cheap pocket dictionary that I once bought at a book fair when I was in third grade. One day, while looking up definitions, I came across the entry for “bull.” Bull was defined as “the opposite of cow.” Curious, I looked up “cow.” It was defined as “the opposite of bull.” Nothing about both terms referred to bovines, gender or any other defining description. Just that bull and cow are each other’s opposites.

At the boot camp—designed to cover the foundation, use cases and legal considerations to separate the value of AI technology from “the noise”—I learned that “machine learning” is “not expert systems,” and “expert systems” is “not machine learning.” How is this any more helpful than my third grade dictionary? Continue reading