eDiscovery is a complex and sometimes complicated field, but one thing remains constant: the demand for skilled professionals who can guide lawyers and legal teams through the intricate challenges of the process. These individuals ensure compliance with legal obligations while delivering exceptional results.
Litigation is a relatively common occurrence in the construction industry. Whether it’s related to disputes, delays, or mishaps, legal battles are an evergreen concern. And one significant challenge associated with construction litigation is the volume of data involved – specifically, electronically stored data (ESI).
Law firms are increasingly recognizing the value of building in-house eDiscovery intelligence. By creating internal teams or departments capable of processing and culling data, running searches, and producing documents, law firms can build a profit center and improve cost-recovery efforts while creating fast turn-times for case teams.
When preparing the often-vast amounts of ESI for litigation, utilizing technology can be essential. And legal teams have two options for support: in-house or outsourcing to a vendor partner. Oftentimes when technology is needed, the only real answer is with outsourcing as most law firms and companies don’t have internal eDiscovery resources.
eDiscovery continues to shape the landscape of litigation strategy and many law firms are looking into ways to create an internal eDiscovery practice – one that might help them gain a competitive advantage, while streamlining the litigation process. I recently wrote an eBook, “How to Build an eDiscovery Practice at Your Law Firm: From Someone Who Has Done it Before.” that gives a comprehensive overview of not only how to bring eDiscovery into your firm, but highlighting the opportunities for...
Nor should they. No individual can possess mastery over every function of a large, complex organization. Ideally, people with complementary skillsets and dispositions are recruited, developed, and provided sufficient leeway (in the form of decision making and funding) to contribute to the mission of the organization.
Many small and mid-sized law firms approach to eDiscovery consists of cobbling together legacy tools instead of embracing cutting edge eDiscovery and legal technologies like RelativityOne.
This approach is understandable. Ten years ago, when many firms first tool a look at their eDiscovery practices, eDiscovery was a new and expensive concept. Attorneys could in most cases get by through creating PDFs or scanning documents, and judges and opposing counsel typically accepted it without compliant.
In January we published a tongue in cheek bingo card before Legalweek that poked fun of many of the words and phrases used by eDiscovery software and services providers, like “voluminous data” and “explosion of data.”
It was a silly thing, but it resonated because the terms are all ubiquitous.
The most viral story in the legal industry in 2021 was the attorney who assured a judge that he was not, in fact, a cat.
The year 2023 may have provided this definitely human attorney’s most potent challenger in the form of the Mata v. Avianca. Plaintiff’s counsel utilized ChatGPT to draft a court filed document, ChatGPT “hallucinated” and provided several fictitious case citations. After attempting to cover up the use of Chat GPT, the attorney was sanctioned, and the case directly led to...
As legal technology has evolved from linear review to TAR to CAL to Generative AI, we've seen many other key developments. Starting in the “old days” of eDiscovery – a.k.a. 2006 – with TAR 1.0, attorneys once had to rely solely on a subject matter expert (SME) who would code a seed set of documents that ranged anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 depending on the consistency of choices the SME made during the review.