The Law Bulletin Publishing Company has just conducted its 6th Annual eDiscovery and Technology Survey of Illinois attorneys. 146 lawyers replied to the survey, down slightly from last year when the number had doubled from 2011. This year’s survey asked 35 eDiscovery-specific questions regarding attorneys’ experience with eDiscovery matters, vendors and products. The final question asked for their thoughts on the most important issues facing them on this topic.
Ralph Losey has once again turned over his blog to me to report on what transpired at the DESI V Workshop with the latest iteration of this workshop series held in Rome on June 14, 2013, as part of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2013). DESI V was focused on standards for using predictive coding, machine learning, and other advanced search and review methods in e-discovery, with a high degree of tolerance on the part of the organizers in accepting interesting e-discovery papers across a range of nominally related topics.
Despite this guidance, some attorneys may feel overwhelmed by the current state of predictive coding technology and they will be inclined to remain on the sidelines until the technology and case law evolve. If you find yourself in the “wait-and-see” camp, this article just might convince you that the time to try predictive coding has arrived. Here in Part 2, the top 3 eDiscovery & compliance predictive coding use cases for the “risk-averse” attorney are discussed. Each of the use cases summarizes different situations where users may be able to reap the rewards of predictive coding while minimizing the risk of something going wrong.
As everyone in the legal field can tell you, lawyer jokes seem to outnumber the lawyers some days. Jokes about eDiscovery providers are less common, but that may be changing. Recently, an attorney extremely knowledgeable about eDiscovery at an important New York law firm joked, “Do you know that there are now more eDiscovery vendors in the city than cockroaches?” The dizzying number of companies entering the field makes it hard for attorneys to find the right partner, and it challenges vendors seeking to develop long-term relationships with firms to differentiate themselves from the pack.
Today EDRM published a new Metrics Model that replaces the iconic Metrics Cube originally published in January 2010. The EDRM Metrics Model provides a framework for planning, preparation, execution and follow-up of e-discovery matters and projects by showing the relationship between the e-discovery process and how information, activities and outcomes may be measured.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the electronic discovery arena, the following “Top 100+Provider” list provides a short listing that may be useful in the consideration of electronic discovery providers. This listing is taken directly from eDiscovery provider mentions in selected key formal industry reports and surveys published between August 2011 and June 2013. Where appropriate, the list has been adjusted for industry mergers and acquisitions, with the primary company listed as the recognized eDiscovery provider.
Situational awareness is a relatively new term, applied most frequently by the military, emergency services and air traffic control. It is a complex field and has generated much study and many definitions . One that I like simply defines situational awareness as “being aware of one’s surroundings and identifying potential threats and dangerous situations.” So, what does situational awareness have to do with today’s in-house counsel? To be effective, in-house counsel must practice good situational awareness in at least three areas: law, finance and technology.
We hit of a bit of a milestone this past week: 70,000+ subscribers. And that’s across all of our listservs world-wide. Every day we receive requests from subscribers and vendors to provide information about our listservs demographic profile. The following is an overview. This information will be updated over time as we incorporate more details and update subscriber numbers. The Posse List is a member of The Project Counsel Group (“the Group”). The Group maintains a wide range of information listservs and job listservs besides those of The Posse List but all information listservs and job liservs for all members of our Group are managed by The Posse List staff. There are a total of 430+ listservs that cover the U.S., Canada, South America, Europe, the Persian Gulf/Middle East, and the Asia Pacific.
In The Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., No. 12-2074, 2013 U.S. App. (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2013), when deciding which costs are taxable, the Fourth Circuit chose to follow the Third Circuit’s reasoning in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.,674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012), which read 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) narrowly.