Author Archives: Daniel Gold


About Daniel Gold

A veteran business leader with more than 15 years’ experience in e-discovery and technology, Daniel is the Senior Director of Corporate Accounts in the Midwest for Catalyst. Before joining Catalyst, Gold was Vice President, Managed Services for FlexManage, an IT managed services company, where he was responsible for P&L, strategy and service delivery. From 2014 to 2017, Gold was Director, Solution Architect for Epiq Systems. During his tenure, Gold consulted with law firms and corporations on how to be more productive in and efficient by shifting to a managed services business model. Earlier in his career, Gold held senior roles with Modus eDiscovery, LexisNexis and Robert Half International. He also was an attorney for Schottland, Manning, Caliendo & Thomson, P.A. and was Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Jamie S. Perri of the Superior Court of New Jersey, where he was also certified as a mediator by the Administrative Office of the Court (AOC). Gold holds a B.S. from Ithaca College and a J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law. He frequently educates legal professionals through CLE courses and writes on the advancements in legal technology, and is based in Kansas City.

Yee Haw! Texas Lawyers Required to be Competent in Technology Under Revised Rule 1.01

A big yee-haw goes out to the Texas Bar as they recently became the thirty-sixth state in the Union to codify what the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility did in 2012 and that is to add very specific language about attorney competency and technology. In the newly revised Texas Rule 1.01, Paragraph 8, it states:

Because of the vital role of lawyers in the legal process, each lawyer should strive to become and remain proficient and competent in the practice of law, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Continue reading

Legal Hold Obligations and Automation in Four Minutes

In the day-to-day world of legal departments, it can be challenging to ensure legal holds are done correctly; everything from getting the correct wording in the hold document, understanding the data types and where it exists, securing the acknowledgment, and reminding custodians of their ongoing obligation. As a result, ask a room of legal professionals, and the vast number of them will say they manage the hold process with a spreadsheet. This is not only inefficient; it leaves corporations open to a lot of unnecessary risk.

In this post, we will unravel the litigation hold problem, focus on what a litigation hold really is, where the duty comes from, and how to ensure it’s done right in a repeatable, defensible, and automated fashion. Continue reading

The New AI Executive: 6 Must-Reads for Legal

The recent Executive Order on artificial intelligence (AI), though directed at federal agencies to prioritize AI investment in research and development, is likely to continue to spur the conversation on use of AI and machine learning in the legal realm.

This is particularly so in e-discovery, where technology-assisted review (TAR), a form of AI, is seeing greater acceptance and refinement in the legal space—that is, helping corporate legal departments take control of review costs and enabling law firms to provide superior and differentiated services to their clients.

But with a deeper understanding of the technology, distinction between TAR 1.0 and TAR 2.0 systems like Catalyst’s Insight Predict (based on the continuous active learning, or CAL, protocol), and advancements to take maximum advantage of TAR techniques on more review tasks, AI can be even more useful and effective in the legal world.    Continue reading

Are People the Weakest Link in Technology Assisted Review? Not Really.

In mid-October, our friend Michael Quartararo wrote a post for Above the Law asking whether people were the weakest link in technology-assisted review (TAR). Michael offered some thoughts around whether this may be the case, but he didn’t really answer the question. So, we have to ask:

Why aren’t more people using TAR?

One answer is that there is still a lot of confusion about different types of TAR and how they work. Unfortunately, it appears that Michael’s post may have added to the confusion because he did not differentiate between legacy TAR 1.0 and TAR 2.0. Our first thought was to let the article pass without rejoinder or correction. To our surprise, however, it has been cited and reposted as authoritative by several others. To that end, we want to help clarify a number of Michael’s points. We will quote from his post. Continue reading