LegalTech New York 2012 Wrap up

Article by Law Technology News

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202541104911




Law Technology News provided extensive coverage of LegalTech New York 2012, which ran from Jan. 30 to Feb. 1, 2012. They have compiled many stories including the latest information on sessions, keynotes, new product announcements, and other interesting news from the exhibit hall floor. I hope everyone had a great Legal Tech hope to see you all at Legal Tech in Los Angeles in May. For more information on Legal Tech West Coast click the link below.

http://www.legaltechshow.com/r5/cob_page.asp?category_id=71781&initial_file=cob_page-ltech.asp

The 7 Deadly Sins of Document Review

http://ow.ly/8Qsgz

An article by Dalton Young posted on the law.com website on the LTN webpage.

The article provides tips on proper management of a document review process.

The article provides discussion around 7 topics ("sins") of a review process, the topics discussed are as follows:

Sin No. 1: Hiring overqualified reviewers.
Sin No. 2: Failing to establish a firm time commitment.
Sin No. 3: Failing to provide reviewers with thorough training on the review tools.
Sin No. 4: Failing to empower reviewers with sufficient background on the case.
Sin No. 5: Failing to foster bonds within the review team.
Sin No. 6: Failing to predetermine tags and codes before the project begins.
Sin No. 7: Providing reviewers with a too-structured work environment.

The Legal Implications of What Science Says About Recall

http://ow.ly/8Qnn2

An article by Ralph Losey posted on the e-DiscoveryTeam® blog.


This article discusses other recent articles regarding discovery obligations, and methods to deal with measuring fees associated with the attorney review process.  

The article states, "This time I direct you to an important article, Evaluation of Information Retrieval for E-Discovery, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(4)347-386 (2011). It was written by leaders of TREC Legal Track and established giants in the filed of legal search: Douglas W. Oard, Jason R. Baron, Bruce Hedin, David D. Lewis, and Stephen Tomlinson. They analyzed the now fully published test results of the experiments in 2008, and carefully examined the interactive task, topic 301, as the best test of competing legal search technologies. This task made use of a subject matter expert and an appeals process for quality control on relevance determinations. Four teams of experts participated in the test, two academic and two commercial. A well known e-discovery vendor wonthe test (scientists hate it when I put it that way). They won because they attained better precision and recall scores than the three other participants.

Now we come to the punch line, the winning vendor attained a recall rate of only 62%. That’s right, they missed 38% of the relevant documents. And they were the winner. Think about it. The other three participants in the scientific experiment attained recall rates of less than 20%! That’s right, they missed over 80% of the relevant documents."

This article provides a link to the reference articles, as well as links to other useful information on this topic.

Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis on Predictive Coding and Transparency in E-Discovery

http://ow.ly/8QmAo

An post by Colin O'Keefe on the Lexblog network.

The post consists of a video of remarks made by Ralph Losey, Esq., of the firm Jackson Lewis.  Mr. Losey is a prominent author regarding topics related to eDiscovery.  In this video clip Mr. Losey discusses predictive coding.

7th Circuit Pilot Program Could Have Wide-Ranging Impact

http://ow.ly/8ONFw


An article by Mathieu J. Shapiro and Aaron L. Peskin posted on law.com on the Legal Intelligencer webpage.

The article discusses the recent eDiscovery Pilot program that has been taking place since 2009 in the 7th Circuit. and states, "Written largely by practicing attorneys who have handled actual cases with e-discovery issues, the 7th Circuit's e-discovery principles are intended both to be flexible and to create discovery obligations proportional to the value of the case. The principles seem largely consistent with the Sedona Conference approach and less inflexibly rigorous than obligations imposed by Pension Committee v. Banc of America Securities , the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg decisions and the like. Those decisions are mostly reactive and one of the main goals of the 7th Circuit's pilot program is to be proactive in identifying potential e-discovery problems and creating solutions, rather than allowing courts to impose rigid frameworks through case law.

Perhaps most importantly, the program's principles are in the process of a substantial test drive by the judges and lawyers in the 7th Circuit.'

The article provides further insight into the program, and discusses the possible future impact that this project will have.

New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, Adopts ‘Zubulake’ Standards For Preservation

http://ow.ly/8ONdr

An article by Mathieu J. Shapiro and Aaron L. Peskin posted on law.com on the Legal Intelligencer webpage.

The article states, "

New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, Adopts ‘Zubulake’ Standards For Preservation

http://ow.ly/8OLUD

An article by Emily K. Stitelman posted on the website esklegal.com

This article focuses on the case  Voom HD Holdings v. EchoStar Satellite LLC, 600292/08, 2010 NY Slip Op. 00658 (1st Dep’t January 31, 2012).

This case involved a two cable services providers, Voom and EchoStar, Voom was to provide television services to EchoStar, whom was to distribute those services.  A contract dispute arose between the entities, and a dispute created a sanctions motion for failure to comply with discovery obligations. A link to the case opinion is provided in the article.

The article states, "The First Department affirmed the trial court’s decision and, adopting Zubulake, held that the preservation duty is triggered when the parties reasonably anticipate litigation. Rejecting EchoStar’s argument that the “reasonable anticipation of litigation” standard is not workable, the First Department defined “reasonable anticipation of litigation” as “such time when a party is on notice of a credible probability that it will become involved in litigation.”"

The author also provides a list of tips in the article regarding proper implementation of a litigation hold process.