Автор: Mezizuru
Docm texture pack 1-3 2-4 betting system
Twigger did not whitewash or bury any of the rather lurid accusations. Read my blog or better yet, go get the complaint from PACER to get the allegations and the potential impact to provider non-compete clauses, security practices and even customers who may get caught up in the fight. A reader asked why they had not seen the case reported in any of their news feeds or media subscriptions. I would have missed this case if a peer had not sent me the cite.
LDiscovery Lawsuit My thanks to a peer for shooting me this scoop. Forgive my syntax, but the cite is Document Technologies, Inc. Eventually we made a Solomonian judgment and created two platform categories covering key upstream Corporate and downstream Law Firm functions. As much as we wanted those multidirectional arrows on the EDRM diagram to actually reflect an integrated lifecycle and technology, eDiscovery still is a reactive, single use fire drill for far too large a portion of the market.
But this is slowly changing. Microsoft and enterprise archives now support real preservation in place with accurate though limited retrieval search. Since the recession, smart serial corporate litigants have fought to take control of their eDiscovery spend and manage their own matters, holds, collections and everything else up to the actual review. The long term eDiscovery nirvana is preservation through production in place from a single interface.
We are not there yet. But we know that Microsoft is head there and will deliver basic functionality at a relatively low subscription rate. So why do I think that Legal Hold Notification may be the key to eventually owning the eDiscovery lifecycle? Yep, folks burying their heads in the sand rather than just tackle a tough problem.
I am not an attorney and carefully stay away from anything that could be legal advice. It takes an attorney with balls like Ball to publicly opine that NOT instructing your clients to preserve mobile device content is malpractice. As you read his argument, remember that Craig Ball has been special master or testifying expert mostly plaintiff in some very complicated eDiscovery matters.
As many of my clients will point out, most of their legal holds fall into well known categories without any issues that they think would involve text messages, browser histories or other unique mobile device content. I expected to be a bit rusty and asked my good friend Duane Lites Dir. I was pleasantly surprised at the registration, attendance and retention numbers always hard to keep busy peers on for a full hour.
Best of all, I had fun doing the research interviews and the webinar. Great questions from the audience and I felt like we managed to deliver practical tips for mitigating the impact of a provider being bought. So if your corporate policies allow you to be publicly interviewed, shoot me a note and I will connect you with the right resource.
My next public event should be at the May retreat organized by Ing3nious. I will post topics and other information when available. DTI has made a minority investment in Valora to provide the functionality to their Information Governance clients. We understand acquisitions, but Valora remains an independent organization from DTI and maintains its woman-owned status.
The real question is how this will affect the nascent partner channel that Valora had just started to cultivate. Will Valora essentially become a captive technology that is resold exclusively as a DTI service? So take my poll to see the results and join the ILTA webinar by Duane Lites and myself on April 12th to hear our take on how the eDiscovery market is consolidating and how you can mitigate the risks.
While conducting interviews for my upcoming ILTA webinar on coping with eDiscovery provider acquisitions, a sharp litigation support manager posed a hypothetical scenario based on the ransom hack of Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center.
We were discussing contingency plans, liability and concern over loss of data when a provider went out of business or was acquired. But at least one raised the concern about all that email data being uploaded into Relativity. How many attachment zips and links could hold the same kind of ransomware that encrypted Hollywood Presbyterian? Does that take the provider off the hook? Would the bench grant a production date extension or relief if 2 months of review work product was made unavailable due to criminal hacking?
Who is liable to remediate any lost work or data? Who should pay the ransom if it is low enough? As much as I would love to say that paper is dead, boxes of old, weathered paper seem to pop up in many regulatory requests or matters. For many years, we automatically discounted OCR quality for older paper collections. We sent all scanned paper straight for manual objective coding prior to actual attorney review.
If we could trust the OCR engines to report handwriting, recognition levels and other exceptions, then we might be able to at least use modern text analytics and search on a portion of paper docs. The best solution will probably be a hybrid workflow that uses technology to sort and group prior to some kind of manual pass over portions of the collection.
Have you or your provider built such a solution? Then I want to hear about it. I was one of those corporate clients writing functional product requirement documents for my providers when regulators made the first demands for native email productions. Doing a briefing with Sandra Serkes about the evolution of Valora Tech was a trip down memory lane.
Valora was founded as a typical service provider with an emphasis on records management. They developed custom automated document data mining, categorization and analytics software to meet client demands. The trick for any small custom development shop is to rise above the individual client requirements to create a solution platform that meets the pain points of the broader market. Too many technology giants have overpromised and underdelivered on enterprise automated categorization over the last decade.
With eDiscovery providers large and small being gobbled up in the consolidation rush, the odds are good that one of your preferred providers will be rollup up into KrolLDiscovery, DTI or Consilio at some point. So what does that mean when your favorite sales rep is lost to the inevitable post acquisition RIF and the header has changed on your latest invoice? Most of the time, it has been business as usual from the client perspective while provider employees scramble to figure out new protocols and technology from the parent company.
Once started, it is hard to stop. So here are some of my show pictures with commentary. Orange is the new Black! My last business partner and analyst-consultant has accepted a role with Exterro. Being an independent consultant in the eDiscovery market demands constant research and outreach. I and my clients will miss Mikki even as we wish her the best in her new role. If you work in eDiscovery, you probably have confidential client information on your phone and laptop.
You have an obligation to protect that ESI. Time to update or create an overseas travel policy to identify and protect critical or sensitive communications, especially if you are traveling to or from Muslim countries. This Wired article has some basic guidelines or approaches, but bottom line is to move key communications to the cloud prior to border crossings.
Remember that most employees take their devices on vacation. So do a fast read here. Given how many of my clients are still struggling with upgrades to Exchange much less , Microsoft has to play the tough parent to reduce global support overhead. Time to put in the late hours or get a manage service partner to do the grunt work. Politely decline future destination wedding invitations on either side of Legal Tech.
I usually clear the week after LTNY to decompress, digest all the information and follow up on the stack of biz cards from folks who I ran into at the show. This year I am juggling three hot engagements, while fighting for writing time. The briefings and social events on days Two and Three gave me a lot to think about, more than I want to publish without some retrospection.
Frequent flyer marketing terms include Simple, Efficient, Automated, Integrated. Kept seeing booths without reps. The entire 3rd floor is empty. Save them for post conference online meetings. I am eager to see what is hot and new with all the product releases for this year. This year the question for technology providers will be how competitors can differentiate themselves from the kCura juggernaut. What else am I looking for? I want to see if anyone has come up with new OCR tricks for the old paper collections from my energy and mining clients.
The eDiscovery market is rapidly evolving and LTNY is one of the best places to spot the trends and meet with peers. Although my briefing slots have been booked up for several weeks, I can always find time to do a good karma introduction. So email me if you are at the show and I hope that our paths cross. I might have to run for my next briefing, but I always block out time to walk the show floor and talk with folks. I will try to publish raw briefing notes and impressions. Before I can assess the potential improvement or Return On Investement ROI for process or procedure changes, we need the current average cost of discovery broken out by stages, providers and data sources.
Someday a client will know what they are spending and getting before they ask for help. It has not happened yet. So we identify a couple recent matters as good exemplars covering the primary matter types and I get to match months of invoices against tracking spreadsheets and Relativity reports to determine metrics like review rates, total cost per document, relevance richness and more.
One thing that drives me crazy during my invoice analysis is differentiating time associated with document review into key buckets, especially for paper docs that require bibliographic and unitization coding. All of this effort was meant to give timekeepers and clients consistent ways to measure and track the costs in modern eDiscovery.
I just wish most of my clients and their firms actually knew about this and used them. To make matters worse, most service providers have not even considered coding their time based services performed under direction of counsel. Counsel considers service providers an expense, but many times they have associates training new TAR systems, performing QC or directly coding subsets of the collection based on search terms.
So how do I untangle the invoices? All of this came to light when regulators started their inevitable interviews with key employees. Watching those bad actors fold taught me that company loyalty only goes so far. I was lucky that my bosses at El Paso Corp took the high road thru those dark times. As the newly minted discovery manager, I had to find and turn over all the bad apples asap and sign off on the completeness of document demands.
So once again we see corporate malfeasance transformed to criminal indictments when the guilty parties try to hide the evidence. So how do we cut off the instinctive cover-up reflex? There is no denying that Andrew Sieja has maneuvered Relativity into being the default hosted review platform for large discovery matters.
The majority of recent eDJ RFP engagements for managed services have boiled down to what flavor of Relativity the client wants vs. Thus the differentiation theme I keep seeing in my provider briefings. They all trot out what they can do better and cheaper than Relativity as if that should convince AmLaw buyers to jump ship.
We saw a similar hype cycle with Clearwell before the product went to hide in the Symantec portfolio. The eDJ Matrix contains over companies with over offerings. I had roughly 50 from my Monday blast. The fun part is getting to see where they have landed for the ones that have already registered new accounts for their new roles. Sufficient to say that I would not consider most eDiscovery providers to be a life-long career choice.
Maybe that explains the resume roulette that we see every year on the exhibit hall floor. I used to make a game of checking under the keyboards at the booths to see how many had resumes stashed under them. Try it, you might be surprised.
CEB Inc. We have a unique view into what matters—and what works—when driving corporate performance. With more than 30 years of experience working with top companies to share, analyze, and apply proven practices, we deliver innovative solutions that help you unlock your full potential. Right idea, we were just too far ahead of the market.
Sad story of my life with start ups. For decades eDiscovery practitioners have longed for the ability to find, preserve and even review communications and files in the live enterprise environment. Why do we have to make a preservation copy before even indexing the bulk of non-responsive custodial ESI for early relevance analysis?
Frankly, the email and file servers could not support dtSearch crawling them while under their normal load. Modern Exchange, SharePoint and cloud platforms bring their own robust indexes to the table. This is what happens when you go silent to get things done.
I updated my LTNY tracking sheets and see that the consolidation trend continues to shrink the number of exhibitors and sponsors. Or maybe all the mid-tier providers have fled the high booth costs for lower cost suites in adjacent hotels? Much more transparent and down to earth compared to some of the sponsored panels I have moderated in recent years. I guess the small venue environment allows the panelists and audience to feel more intimate and comfortable. As you can see to the right, the numbers of LTNY exhibitors and sponsors continue to shrink.
I hope my readers have missed my sometimes acerbic, always unfiltered commentaries while I struggled to complete my dream home last quarter. The good news is that I am back. The other news is the slow transformation of eDJ Group back to a pure consulting practice. In essence, Mikki and I have returned to what we do best, solving eDiscovery problems and saving clients money.
It took a year for all this to shake out and for me to decide what to do with the eDJ brand and research engine that so many of you have participated in or used for research on trends, products and best practices. The good news is that we have wonderful clients who want us to stay independent, so I am not selling eDJ to one of the new eDiscovery borgs that have been Pac-Man gobbling up all the small providers.
Instead, I am working with my old developer to convert the website to a completely free commentary hub. So what does that mean? This should not surprise industry veterans who have been watching EDRM for years as other education and standards organizations have gained market acceptance. From my perspective, the EDRM delivered great value and materials in the first years when new practitioners needed a common vocabulary and process definition. Maybe moving under the academic umbrella will encourage participation without the agendas of commercial sponsors and partners.
As our industry slowly matures we need more unbiased resources and authorities to keep up with our ever changing sources of ESI. The EDRM had a good run. Old habits die hard. I remember how the first copy shops with a Discover-e or LAW license struggled to estimate the hours required to process folders of MS Office files. In the beginning, volume pricing gave buyers a predictable cost to collections.
We ran into technical problems on the BNA-Catalyst webinar back in June that ate into our discussion about how corporate counsel are beginning to reuse collections and work product in mature eDiscovery lifecycles. In the end, we completely redid the content and approack after the three of us geeked out with case studies and success stories from recent engagements. If you have time tomorrow pm EST, please listen in as we get granular with real advice and strategies. My opinion was and still is that it is a bad move.
No matter how important to practitioners, I have never believed that eDiscovery is a long term market segment that stands alongside technology, Information Governance, legal services, etc. This process will take another 20 years to play out, but companies that go public quickly lose the ability to adapt to our changing market and redefine themselves to stay relevant to their customers.
There are many global public corporations who have acquired or created eDiscovery offerings, but only a few pure play eDiscovery companies have gone public. My fast list of those left standing: Rebranding eDiscovery — Tracking Provider Names Ever wonder what happened to your favorite local or even national vendor?
We all know that the eDiscovery market is slowly consolidating as it matures. A couple quick searches and database checks revealed that most brands disappear in full mergers or acquisitions such as the formation of Omnivere or Consilio.
As our market matures and providers try to differentiate themselves from every other Relativity partner, I expect to see more companies shed older generic name elements such as documents, solutions, services, copy and even discovery. Whether you are or report to a CIO, AG, CCO or any other alphabet exec, you should realize that many or most of your board members and other key custodians under legal hold are using Gmail, Yahoo or even personal domain email and IM accounts to communicate with their peers and social network.
Most of these communications, like our Sec. Life and network is just different at the top of the corporate feeding chain. What is worse is the proven fact that they are right. As I was comparing the responses from my Multi-Matter eDiscovery Survey to the original survey responses, I found a surprising decline in consumer awareness and importance of multi-matter functionality.
Given the very strong ROI from my interviews and case studies, I expected that corporate legal departments would demand cross case reporting and data management features to reduce custodian impact, reprocessing ESI and review errors. After consideration, I have a tentative theory that the hype cycle around SaaS platforms and PC-TAR has focused consumer attention on single matter efficiencies rather than overall eDiscovery management.
Many of the new and established cloud review platforms have limited cross-case functionality. Providers such as Epiq, LDiscovery and Lighthouse have custom Relativity dashboards, reports and tools for customers, but my survey indicates that multi-matter functionality is not driving provider selection.
So join us for pain points and best practices of creating a true eDiscovery lifecycle next week. Other kCura partners have similar formal or ad-hoc offerings with basic Relativity or with their own integrated reports, templates or other enhancements. With kCura now directly selling Azure hosted Relativity to consumers as RelativityOne, it will be interesting to see how pricing stacks up when or if kCura makes the RelativityOne pricing model public.
OpenText is a traditional enterprise document management technology company that has struggled to bring practical analytics and automated categorization functionality to the corporate market. Recommind stopped releasing their revenue numbers when they brought CEO Steve King on board to refocus on cloud based SaaS services instead of direct enterprise sales. The article mentions several recent departures of high visibility execs from Recommind preceding the acquisition, which is usually a bad sign.
My main concern for customers with active matters hosted with Recommind in the Cloud is whether OpenText will continue to support the SaaS model. I will be watching their GTM materials carefully and you will undoubtedly get my unvarnished opinion. Then I would like to hear about it. Several years back I conducted research on the impact and adoption of multi-matter functionality in review platforms that supported cross matter collections and review work product. I conducted 15 hour plus long interviews accompanied with a short survey.
The research report gathered attention and I did a webinar sponsored by Catalyst that dove into the results. While wading through client matter costs on a recent ROI engagement, I was pleased to see law firm tech time charges for culling through prior collections, review and productions.
I was happy to highlight how that savvy counsel saved my client time and money. So take my Multi-Matter 2. Although I am now out of the market analyst biz, it taught me to always check the source when I smelled smoke. Sometimes you find a house on fire. Sometimes you find the BBQ party.
The licensing options and details have yet to be disclosed, but I can see why any service provider who was already struggling with our quickly evolving market would get nervous when his customers could potentially host cases directly with kCura. If you have not kept up with the evolution, you can now buy the ADD processing thru production from Ipro channel providers, on-premise software and cloud IaaS.
Healthy competition is good for our clients and the industry as a whole, so I will be interested to see which analytics engine starts to displace CAAT OEM customers. Below are my ad hoc notes from the keynotes and various sessions: If You Ask for Plutonium… So the complete quote from David C. This particularly fabulous quote was in response to my question about the burden of effective security on solo or small firm plaintiffs for large electronic productions containing personal or confidential information.
In the days of bates stamped boxes of paper, law offices and providers with man-trap hallways gave clients the illusion of security. No wonder that some eDiscovery providers have begun to add security consulting and breach response to their offerings. The bottom line is if you ask for it, you have to be ready to provide reasonable protection for your ESI. More conference notes and perspectives after I have done my session on eDiscovery market trends.
Arnold found a blog by CB Insights Research listing recent Artificial Intelligence start-ups acquired by our favorite tech giants. Many of the acquisition targets specialized in analysis of images, video, social media or voice content. The renewed challenge coincides with a recent RFP engagement that started as a small volume proactive ECA usage case that I shopped to 19 providers.
You might say that I have a good viewpoint on small matter eDiscovery solution options, whether on-premise, hosted or SaaS. The mythical Edna only has 90 days to review and produce, whereas my typical clients expect to need live access to collections for at least three years. In my opinion, it is the outdated and unreasonable monthly hosting charges that put eDiscovery out of reach for the majority of the SMB market. We Mikki and myself have always considered RFP pricing and specific bids to be confidential, so without explicit permission from my recent bidders I will keep my analysis more general.
The answer may surprise you. I got a bit side tracked while preparing my deck on eDiscovery Trends for the upcoming Ipro Innovations. I wanted a good graphic to visualize the customer buying frenzy happening as the service providers consolidate into global powerhouses and niche concierge shops. So the question was which of the global service providers has acquired the most pieces of the eDiscovery market pie?
In the last year, DTI definitely leads the pack with publicly disclosed acquisitions, but if you look back to my earliest market data , Huron consistently absorbed small consulting shops for their talent until it was eaten by Consilio last year. So enjoy the graphic below and I hope to see you in sunny Phoenix later this month for a fun session.
I have closed the three question survey on eDiscovery buyer priorities and published the raw survey results. If you have not taken a survey recently, you can get immediate access by taking my new Multi-matter eDiscovery survey to upgrade your account to participating member for premium access. It has been a busy week of RFP demos and meetings. Yes, I will try to write up my impressions on the finalist demos, but only after the client has a decision.
Two things happened yesterday that got me thinking about how easy it is to get technology tunnel vision while dealing with critical cases or clients. A RFP is outdated before it is filled out. They literally do not have the bandwidth to poke their heads out of their safe place and evaluate new offerings on a regular basis. I lived in that same fox hole during my days in the corporate hot seat. As a consultant I have to devote serious time to reading press releases, briefing with providers and conducting my own market research to keep up with the changes.
This kind of time is not practical for most lit support managers in Fortune corporations or AmLaw firms. They are just too busy. This syndrome afflicts providers as well. Sales reps MUST believe in their offerings to be effective. Providers have limited direct contact with competitor products and generally only hear about competitor services when something has gone wrong.
It is always nice to see former eDJ co-workers and partners doing well in the world. If you can get to the ipro Innovations conference in Phoenix later this month, I will be doing a session on key eDiscovery trends on the 27th. This is one of my favorite user conferences and a great excuse for me to socialize while visiting great clients based in Phoenix. Unlike LTNY and others, admission to the sessions and social events are free.
Well, so did I in my last post. Thanks to a friend, I can at least give you a method that a forensics provider could have used to determine the digit pass code on that phone. It is not pretty or elegant, but it is a practical solution with the right infrastructure. We all know that the forensic image of the phone will wipe itself if you put in the wrong passcode 10 times. The first five tries can be made without delay and tries have increasing wait times up to 60 minutes.
They could just make LOTS of copies of the iPhone image and make 6 attempts on each before deleting that image and moving to the next. With enterprise class storage, connectivity, virtual machines and some scripting software it would just take time to run through the 1,, code combinations. This kind of brute force hack takes resources, time and a certain level of scripting expertise, but it only works if the phone has not deleted the encryption keys already. So unless one of my unnamed, anonymous forensic friends has some insight to share, I will limit my speculations to the potential impact in civil discovery.
So why do we care if the Cellebrite and the FBI publicly access an encrypted, locked current generation smart phone? Corporations with proper ActiveSync policies, MDM or MAM software already have the ability to force an administrative password reset or remotely wipe the device. Up until this point, counsel could only access encrypted BYOD devices that were either unlocked by the owner or had been altered to grant access when the user first connected to corporate email.
Depending on what the proposed hack is, if it can bypass the stored encryption keys to access the device, we may have a problem. So I created a new category for tech offerings that have a SaaS-Cloud purchase option. I am still updating listings for the new Online Purchase feature, but hope that providers will update their listings before I catch up.
My headline may be a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun, but it is founded in years of creating ROI calculators for both clients and providers. Sales reps and marketing execs have run amuck with all too many of my well-intentioned spreadsheets in their quest to secure capex budget for their products or services. You are talking about Return on Investment ROI because someone has identified the cost of eDiscovery as a problem already.
You are already behind the eight ball with the requesting party that caught you with your procedural pants around your ankles. Now you may have to go beyond the standard of reasonable care to appease a distrustful magistrate. I doubt it. It reminds me of the FTI acquisition of Attenex.
Nice to see eDJ on the list and to see resources provided without a marketing message or registration barrier. I try to respond to briefing requests, even when they are outside of my current research or client focus. Identification and analysis of production sets is generally at the wrong end of the discovery lifecycle for our corporate clients. You point it at an incoming or outgoing TIFF-text production set and it gives you a report that flags all the redactions; black box, text overlay or hybrid.
My eDJ Matrix shows at least 14 unique offerings with automated redaction features developed to address increasing concerns over PII and cross border privacy mandates. Did you throw your hands up in despair as the responses trickled in bearing little resemblance to what you asked for?
You can blame them for not reading instructions or the customer requirements. As you might guess, I am in the middle of another RFP engagement and I want to share some of the lessons learned. Ever have meeting deja vu? That realization that you are asking the same questions and delivering the same advice over and over again? That feeling drives me to write in hopes that my next client will have read my blog and we can skip the rinse and repeat cycle. Several recent engagements have kicked off with overviews on the three primary ways that eDiscovery processing, review and analytics can be consumed.
Hosted Repository — A service provider processes, loads and manages your collections within their private data center. You are generally paying per GB plus optional services. Each of these solution approaches has wildly differing pros, cons, costs, risks, required skills and more factors to consider.
Others such as Logikcull are a pure SaaS Cloud offering. My point here is to do your homework before you start asking your favorite donut provider to send you a bid for taking control of your matters. Write down your usage cases and relevant requirements. Know your needs and your limits. Get input from outside counsel without letting them dictate the results.
Some questions to consider before starting: LTNY Perspectives Legal Tech certainly had a lot to say about the state of the eDiscovery marketplace. For an industry supposedly becoming mainstream and integrating with the traditional technology powerhouses, only the newly rebranded Hewlett Packard Enterprise HPE went for the full sponsorship route.
All of the other track sponsors, keynote providers, etc. Ad hoc counts of badge colors at various times gave me a rough 3-to-1 ratio of vendors to consumers in the exhibit maze or landings. All of this is purely anecdotal because ALM has not released actual attendance counts or rations since that I can find.
I had a good time in the unexpectedly warm weather. Here are some of my briefing notes and event impressions: Mobile Discovery Survey Results If you missed it, I wanted to call your attention to the raw survey results for my survey on mobile device discovery. This converts you to a Participating member in our not for profit research site. I hope to do a full research report updating the state of mobile device discovery soon. Are you planning on braving the icy sidewalks of New York next week?
Well Mikki and myself will be there doing briefings, running down client requests and mostly catching up with friends old and new. Once upon a time, you could find our team anchoring the Hilton lobby bar through the days, but remodeling has made it challenging to find a good location to talk shop. Instead of trying to schedule peers and friends, I have decided to adjourn to the Old Castle Pub on Tuesday afternoon pm before all the events kick off.
So if you are worn out from your first day of sessions and exhibit hall crowds, drop through and visit with us. The forensic security software world has always been a bit strange and incestuous when you peek behind the PR curtain. The core code for modern forensic collection software was created by or for law enforcement or other government agencies.
We did not have real budgets and were happy sharing hacks, root kits and command line scripts as we struggled to keep up with rapidly evolving data sources. From my perspective, AccessData has struggled with reclaiming their brand identity after acquiring Summation and launching their own eDiscovery services division.
They have returned their focus to selling forensic and security software, but consumers do not follow sudden left turns of the brand like ex-analysts. So AccessData has needed something to reinforce the return to core offerings. They have recruited Victor Limongelli to be Chairman of the Board after a decade managing their primary competitor Guidance Software. It vanished from the event site as the December 1 deadline passed.
Mikki and myself will be escorting clients on shopping missions, briefing with providers and generally catching up with friends old and new at the social events. I am running late this year filling my conference schedule, so shoot me an email if you would like to talk shop. Those of us who work from home understand that neighbors, construction, mailmen and worse create unexpected background interruptions.
Never one to just leave an audience hanging, I thought I would finish the point here. Sorry for the slowdown in perspective recently, but back from my annual dive trip and working on some new blogs. Mea Culpa I trust my readers to take me to task and keep my blogs accurate with immediate feedback.
The PC-TAR promoters have spent years trying to educate attorneys and lit support practitioners on the wonders of machine learning with limited success. I fell prey to this dumb-speak and promise to do better in future surveys and blogs. The question sought to understand whether practitioners had arrived independently at a standard measurement for completeness when using PC-TAR for typical civil litigation responsiveness retrieval.
Essentially, how big do our sample training sets need to be for an acceptable level of confidence in the resulting recall, precision and stability? Having one would speed adoption, but be wrong in too many instances. Thank you all for the feedback, good and bad. It helped further the discussion and clarified an important point.
Keep it up! Survey questions only tell half the story. That is why I have gotten in the habit of backing up my surveys with interviews with eDJ Group participating members. I am always impressed and surprised by their acumen and savvy insight. Some surprising results, but overall confirmation of the trends highlighted in my Analytics Adoption report. With I would be wrong. Are you the go-to eDiscovery associate or counsel at your firm? Do they drop you into every meeting that contains esoteric terms like email threading, search criteria or clustering?
You are wined and dined by hungry vendors and grateful client litsupport managers alike. But how do your partners and peers view your role and future at the firm? Guess what, you may now be pigeon-holed as the firm geek and your partner track may now lead in circles.
Because a good chunk of the money you save your clients generally comes out of the partners pockets. I wanted to share these observations from my ongoing analytics adoption interviews. After a recent briefing with David Cowen, I added asked my interview respondents if they thought that analytics would help or hurt their eDiscovery careers. That opened the door to the observation that generally partners are made based on their ability to recruit new clients and expand firm revenue.
These firms may reward and respect an eDiscovery all-star partner, but they seem to be the exception to the rule. It may be that the slow transformation of the U. As I conduct my Analytics research, I am asking interview respondents how they think the trend towards analytics and automation will impact eDiscovery careers and roles in the next five years.
I have just finished my first round of interviews and already have a couple interesting tidbits to share. We all know that technology has the long term potential to replace, reduce or transform jobs in any field. My initial respondents certainly felt that automation of technical collection, processing and culling tasks would reduce technician headcount, but not impact ECA, search crafting and other tasks requiring human discretion.
Instead, they felt that the swollen ranks of firm associates and contract attorney reviewers were vulnerable to market pressure instead. Not from PC-TAR adoption, but from proportionate, targeted collections resulting from maturing eDiscovery teams empowered by the new Federal rules and caselaw. Despite all the technical limitations and problems, that desktop software met the self service needs for most small matters without a huge eDiscovery budget.
It is my view that the use of analytics on in-place enterprise data to make proportionate, defensible collections will return us to those days for a large percentage of matters. Smart providers and practitioners will adapt their offerings and skills to meet the new demands.
More insight as my interviews continue. I still have some time slots open for corporate or firm practitioners willing to share their perspective on analytics in eDiscovery, so send me an email or at least take the survey! They want a sure thing. Clearwell rode this wave to dominate the service provider channel market until the Symantec acquisition in They are so busy trying to be everything to everyone that development cycles are robbed of usability and functional depth.
Clearwell definitely fell prey to this syndrome during their time on the eDiscovery wave. The kCura team is very aware of the potential pitfalls of being the market leader and they seem determined to avoid them. Here are my take aways from my briefing with kCura last week: Analytics Adoption — Gaining Speed About this time last year I wrapped up research to get insight into real world analytics adoption because I could not find any other objective market data.
We ran a short survey with some flaws and followed up with roughly 30 interviews across eDJ subscriber groups — corporate, law firm and provider. The analysis report and survey results were published last November and can be downloaded by members who have participated in a survey within the last month.
I ran an update survey with 5 better questions in June and published the early results without analysis. When the HALSM group picked analytics as a speaking topic from my list of recent research, I decided that the new survey results deserved another round of interviews to go deeper on the uptick in usage. So I have reopened the survey and will be conducting short interviews up for the next couple of weeks. I have always insisted that any sponsored webinars focus on real content, but I am now seeing more formal educational material being generated directly by providers.
According to the announcement, nearly 50 law schools have already signed up to get access to software, technical infrastructure and instructional materials. Other features — Auto discover. It is the most feature-rich and productive drawing application on the market. If you want to add more sophisticated features of vector drawing for your present software application in a very easy and effective way, draw vector graphics with VectorDraw Designer.
You can easily add two or three-dimensional vector graphics to: - System menu in the software application you are using. It can be used in missing data prediction tasks and prediction. It can be used in complex medical diagnosis. The main difference in writing the characters and in using this software is that it doesn't give the input letters using WIMP Windows, Icons, Mouse, pointer keyboard.
You may transfer the free version from one computer to another, and you may redistribute it under any license terms you want to comply with.
comments: 1 на “Docm texture pack 1-3 2-4 betting system”
eos vs ethereum for dummies