Understanding that a provider’s organizational character is made up of more than capabilities, it seems reasonable that a common set of descriptive elements for competency, attributes, and distribution frameworks might be beneficial for the provider comparison process.
Authored by industry expert Andrew Haslam, the eDisclosure Buyers Guide is the most comprehensive and definitive resource available for data discovery and legal discovery professionals seeking to understand and evaluate eDisclosure-related services and products.
This is the fourteenth quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey conducted by ComplexDiscovery. More than 1,448 individual responses have been received from legal, business, and technology professionals across the eDiscovery ecosystem since the inception of the survey and 180 respondents shared their opinions as part of the spring 2019 survey.
This updated article highlights one approach to evaluating the selection of eDiscovery vendors that may help decision makers by providing an objective framework useful for the competitive comparison and contrasting of subjective evaluation elements. While the components and ratings used in the approach may be adjusted and weighted based on the experiences and preference of evaluators, the framework is beneficial for ensuring a holistic evaluation process for determining vendor viability.
The frenetic and much-touted world of artificial intelligence (AI) has poured into the legal industry like a storm surge. Lawyers who lack technical expertise or feel overwhelmed by jargon and arcane mathematical concepts are at a distinct disadvantage in this technology-oriented new world. Vendors can make assertions with little risk of cross-examination.
British technology entrepreneur Mike Lynch committed a “deliberate fraud over a sustained period of time” to inflate the value of his company, Autonomy, by billions of dollars ahead of its sale, the High Court of Justice in England has heard.
Just as there are many tasks in electronic discovery, many times there are multiple technologies and platforms involved in the complete electronic discovery process. When there are multiple technologies and platforms involved, data must be transferred from disparate technologies and platforms to other disparate technologies and platforms. This data transfer can be considered a risk factor that impacts the overall electronic discovery process.
Alternative legal services provider Axiom today announced it has submitted a draft registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the proposed initial public offering of its common stock. Additionally, Knowable, the market leader in enterprise contracts intelligence, and Axiom Managed Solutions, the leader in next-generation solutions for complex legal work at scale, today jointly announced that they have been spun off from Axiom as two new independent companies.
Desktop as a Service (DaaS) providers are becoming important contributors to eDiscovery technology solutions as they allow for the deployment of virtualized desktop experiences delivered to end users on demand from remotely hosted locations. While the providers enabling the delivery of these virtualized environments to those in the eDiscovery ecosystem are typically not called out in the descriptions of the solutions they enable, understanding who those providers are is becoming increasingly important for those sourcing eDiscovery solutions for remote users as the underlying attributes and enhancements the providers deliver form the basis for comparing and contrasting the differences in DaaS-delivered capabilities from eDiscovery providers.
This is the thirteenth quarterly eDiscovery business confidence survey conducted by ComplexDiscovery. More than 1,265 individual responses have been received from legal, business, and technology professionals across the eDiscovery ecosystem since the inception of the survey and 75 respondents shared their opinions as part of the winter 2019 survey.