As a partner at a large, national firm in the late 1980s, John Tredennick saw the importance of legal technology and urged his firm to appoint him to lead the firm’s technology initiatives. They agreed, making him technology partner and possibly the first chief information officer at a large firm.
The litigation technology he helped develop there formed the foundation of the company he later founded, Catalyst, where he is now CEO. Continue reading
It is time to put an end to family batching, one of the most widespread document review practices in the e-discovery world and one of the worst possible workflows if you want to implement an efficient technology-assisted review (TAR) protocol. Simply put, it is nearly impossible for family batching to be as efficient as document-level coding in all but the most unusual of situations.
We set out to evaluate this relationship with real world data, and found document-level coding to be nearly 25 percent more efficient than family batching, even if you review and produce all of the members of responsive families. Continue reading
In a recent blog post, we reported on a technology-assisted review simulation that we conducted to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of a family-based review versus an individual-document review. That post was one of a series here reporting on simulations conducted as part of our TAR Challenge – an invitation to any corporation or law firm to compare its results in an actual litigation against the results that would have been achieved using Catalyst’s advanced TAR 2.0 technology Insight Predict.
As we explained in that recent blog post, the simulation used actual documents that were previously reviewed in an active litigation. Based on those documents, we conducted two distinct experiments. The first was the family vs. non-family test. In this blog post, we discuss the second experiment, testing a TAR 1.0 review against a TAR 2.0 review. Continue reading
In two recent posts, we’ve reported on simulations of technology assisted review conducted as part of our TAR Challenge—an opportunity for any corporation or law firm to compare its results in an actual, manual review against the results it would have achieved using Catalyst’s advanced TAR 2.0 technology, Insight Predict.
Today, we are taking a slightly different tack. We are again conducting a simulation using actual documents that were previously reviewed in an active litigation. However, this time, we are Continue reading
Many legal professionals continue to question whether technology assisted review is right for them. Perhaps you are a corporate counsel wondering whether TAR can actually reduce review costs. Or maybe you are a litigator unsure of whether TAR is suitable for your case.
For anyone still uncertain about TAR, Catalyst is offering the TAR Challenge. Give us an actual case of yours in which you’ve completed a manual review, and we will run a simulation showing you how the review would have gone – and what savings you would have achieved – had you used Insight Predict, Catalyst’s award-winning TAR 2.0 platform. Continue reading
How much can you save using TAR 2.0, the advanced form of technology assisted review used by Catalyst’s Insight Predict? That is a question many of our clients ask, until they try it and see for themselves.
Perhaps you’ve wondered about this. You’ve read articles or web sites talking about TAR’s ability to lower review costs by reducing the numbers of documents requiring review. You might even have read about the even-greater gains in efficiency delivered by second-generation TAR 2.0 platforms that use the continuous active learning protocol. But still you’ve held out, maybe uncertain of the technology or wondering whether it is right for your cases. Continue reading
Deep learning. The term seems to be ubiquitous these days. Everywhere from self-driving cars and speech transcription to victories in the game “Go” and cancer diagnosis. If we measure things by press coverage, deep learning seems poised to make every other form of machine learning obsolete.
Recently, Catalyst’s founder and CEO John Tredennick interviewed Catalyst’s chief scientist, Dr. Jeremy Pickens (who we at Catalyst call Dr. J), about how deep learning works and how it might be applied in the legal arena.
JT: Good afternoon Dr. J. I have been reading about deep learning and would like to know more about how it works and what it might offer the legal profession. Continue reading
This week’s ransomware attack against DLA Piper, one of the nation’s largest law firms, provided a harsh reminder of the need for lawyers and law firms to be vigilant about cybersecurity. In DLA Piper’s case, the firm’s security system detected suspicious activity and its IT team acted quickly to isolate the malware, according to a statement, but as of yesterday, the firm was still working to restore full operations.
A ransomware attack against a global law firm is a major intrusion, but it is important to remember that such attacks often begin with a single malicious email and can happen to law firms of any size. Opening a malicious attachment or clicking a malicious link can plant the ransomware virus and allow it to propagate throughout a firm. Continue reading
Chief legal officers have a mandate to reduce costs and manage compliance. But how do they do that in the context of litigation and e-discovery?
On Wednesday, June 28, in San Francisco, Bloomberg Law Big Law Business and Catalyst will present a live program, Successful Legal Department Management: Innovation to Control Litigation Costs and Ensure Compliance.
Designed for general counsel, corporate counsel and leaders of corporate legal departments, this program will discuss strategies and technologies for a successful litigation department. Continue reading
The Texas Supreme Court issued a major e-discovery opinion this week, using a discovery dispute between homeowners and their insurer State Farm Lloyds to provide broad guidance for Texas litigants and judges on how to resolve disagreements over the form of production of electronically stored information.
The court did not decide the appropriate form of production in this case, choosing instead to send the case back to the trial court for the parties to reargue the issue with the “benefit of the guidance we seek to provide today.” However, it used the occasion to emphasize that proportionality is the key determinant and it laid out factors for courts to consider in balancing litigants’ competing interests on a case-by-case basis. Continue reading