All posts tagged document review

The Results are In: Sixth Annual Best of the National Law Journal Survey

“We are honored to be chosen as a leading ediscovery provider in so many service and technology categories by National Law Journal readers.” Chris Weiler, CEO of KrolLDiscovery.

For the last six years, the National Law Journal (NLJ) has conducted a survey asking its readers to rank top providers in the legal marketplace. From data, research and technology to finance, expert witness and outsourced services, this survey highlights the businesses and individuals seen as the best in the industry. In all, the legal community cast over 4,500 votes to select the 2017 Best of The National Law Journal winners.

Given the collective opinions of thousands and the esteem of this national survey, KrolLDiscovery is honored to receive 10 awards, including four top honors, in this year’s survey. Specifically, KrolLDiscovery took home the gold award in the following categories:

  • Managed Ediscovery & Litigation Support Service Provider
  • Managed Document Review Services
  • Predictive Coding Ediscovery Solution
  • Data Recovery Solution Provider

Additionally, the company received silver awards in four categories:

  • End-to-End Litigation Consulting Firm
  • Technology Assisted Review Ediscovery Solution
  • Data & Technology Management Ediscovery Provider
  • Online Review Platform

Third-place honors include:

  • End-to-End Ediscovery Provider
  • Case Management Software to Law Firms

It’s great to know that all of the hard work of LDiscovery and Kroll Ontrack – now together as KrolLDiscovery – was recognized by NLJ readers. Learn more about all of KrolLDiscovery’s innovative technology and best-in-class services to support litigation, investigation, compliance and recovery from data loss. And, thanks to everyone that voted!

Fall is the Time for Fests!

The chill in the air, the pumpkin spice lattes and the plethora of fests mean only one thing: fall has arrived. Fall is the time of year for all things “fest,” as Oktoberfests, Harvest Fests, Apple Fests and more fill our calendars. For the ediscovery community, Relativity Fest is another reason to celebrate this time of year.

The Ediscovery Fest of the Year

Relativity Fest is a greatly anticipated event in the ediscovery community and this year it kicks off in Chicago on Sunday night, October 9.

Kroll Ontrack will be there en masse. We are excited to once again send a contingent of people to brush up on their RCEs (Relativity Continuing Education credits). And several of Kroll Ontrack experts will speak at these sessions, providing a unique opportunity to share their experiences:

More Reasons to Celebrate: Chicago Review Center & Corporate Legal Projects

It wouldn’t be Fest without a party! Some of the most extravagant parties are hosted by kCura, but Kroll Ontrack has its own reason to celebrate in Chicago, adding to the fun by hosting a pre-party happy hour on Monday the 10th.

Kroll Ontrack is celebrating the launch of its new Corporate Legal Projects offering. From time to time, a transaction, merger, or regulatory change may require that a modification be made to a body of corporate contracts. This change often involves collection, extraction, analysis, disposition and repapering of contracts or other corporate documents. Kroll Ontrack understands that these complex legal projects are better managed by process experts – experienced professionals who take a methodical, defined approach to contract review. This is the foundation for our Corporate Legal Projects solution.

Also, recently, Kroll Ontrack opened a new document review center in Chicago to streamline the contract review and document review processes. The new Chicago center, which joins several other Kroll Ontrack review centers around the world, contains:

  • 12,800 sq. ft. – ready to be deployed for your next review project;
  • Space for 130+ reviewers;
  • Three conference rooms for review training; and
  • Offices for visiting attorneys and clients.

There is no better time to celebrate these new offerings than with a party at Relativity Fest. After a long day of keynotes, workshops and breakout sessions, you’re going to want a drink and some food before you head out to kCura’s evening bash. We’ll have it all at the 720 South Bar & Grill (in the Hilton lobby) on Monday, October 10 from 5:30 – 7:30 PM. If you are attending Relativity Fest, stop by and celebrate with us!

Cheers to Fall and Fests!

It’s Your Turn! Vote Today for the National Law Journal’s ‘Best of 2016’

The polls are open, and it’s awards season. Whatever your persuasion, it’s your turn to vote. The National Law Journal recently announced the finalists for its ‘Best of 2016,’ and Kroll Ontrack is proud to be nominated in NINE categories!

  • Best end-to-end litigation consulting firm
  • Best end-to-end ediscovery provider
  • Best technology assisted review ediscovery solution
  • Best data and technology management ediscovery provider
  • Best data recovery solution provider
  • Best managed document review services
  • Best managed ediscovery and litigation support services provider
  • Best online review platform
  • Best case management software

From now until Friday, February 5, you can vote in the annual reader’s choice survey. This is your chance to rate the products and services you’ve been using in litigation. And it’s an opportunity for those of us in the industry to receive valuable feedback.

While you don’t have to answer every question, we greatly appreciate your support and your feedback – thank you for taking the time!

It’s time to vote.

Ediscovery Competency Standard Addressed by California Bar

“Electronic document creation and/or storage, and electronic communications, have become commonplace in modern life…attorneys who handle litigation may not ignore the requirements and obligations of electronic discovery. A lack of technological knowledge in handling ediscovery may render an attorney ethically incompetent to handle certain litigation matters involving ediscovery, absent curative assistance.”

New California Ethics Opinion

With those words, earlier this summer the California State Bar officially addressed the ethical duties of counsel during ediscovery, and finally established competency standards for counsel in the Golden State. Although the opinion is advisory and non-binding upon courts, the opinion provides a much needed support structure in a field that has historically been faced with varied interpretations; it further serves as a major triumph for ediscovery gurus that have been pushing for a core standard for ediscovery.

Set within the parameters of a hypothetical bar exam question, the committee of the state bar’s opinion went on to discuss the 9 defined skills that attorneys should be able to perform in ediscovery (either “by themselves or in association with competent co-counsel”):

  1. Initially assess ediscovery needs and issues, if any;
  2. Implement/cause to implement appropriate ESI preservation procedures;
  3. Analyze and understand a client’s ESI systems and storage;
  4. Advise the client on available options for collection and preservation of ESI;
  5. Identify custodians of potentially relevant ESI;
  6. Engage in competent and meaningful meet and confer with opposing counsel concerning an ediscovery plan;
  7. Perform data searches;
  8. Collect responsive ESI in a manner that preserves the integrity of that ESI;
  9. Produce responsive non-privileged ESI in a recognized and appropriate manner.

Expand your knowledge and expertise

Ultimately, this opinion reiterates that attorneys’ obligations evolve as new technologies develop and become integrated with the practice of law. To make sure you are staying up to speed, let us share our expertise with you. Kroll Ontrack offers customized Continuing Legal Education (CLE) courses on a myriad of EDRM (Electronic Discovery Reference Model) topics, free of charge. These 60 to 90 minute courses – taught by expert legal and technology professionals – are held in your office, exclusively for your legal and IT teams. If you are interested, contact our events team.

 

 

 

#throwbackthursday: Webinar Recaps for May and June

Happy Thursday! Have you posted a vintage and/or embarrassing photo of yourself for #throwbackthursday? “With the massive popularity of this hashtag on Instagram and Facebook, you might be feeling left out if you don’t partake in #tbt.”

Kroll Ontrack is joining the #tbt craze, with a throwback to a couple recent webinars:

If you missed one of these learning opportunities, take a few minutes to read the information below and listen to the recordings. Have a great #tbt!

Bust These 4 Myths on Your Next Document Review

Conducting an effective and efficient legal document review requires a hybrid of rocket science, brain chemistry and hot coffee. With ediscovery technology and best practices constantly evolving, if your document review practices and cybersecurity procedures haven’t changed in recent years, you are likely wasting time and money for your organization and/or your client. Listen as two experienced panelists bust four common document review myths.

Panelists:

Kara Kirkeby | Manager, Document Review Services | Kroll Ontrack

Beth Rauker| Principal Ediscovery Specialist | Medtronic

Cybersecurity: Global Implications on Ediscovery, Litigation & Regulatory Compliance

It is prudent to take every effort to vet organizational, law firm and vendor data security policies and make sure they are being proactive—before it is too late. Asking intelligent questions of the organizations, law firms and service providers you work with can save money and help your organization avoid being the next victim of a large-scale, highly publicized data breach.

Panelists:

Sheila FitzPatrick | Worldwide Legal Data Governance & Data Privacy Counsel | NetApp, Inc.

David Bateman | Partner | K&L Gates

Thomas Barce | Director, Consulting Services | Kroll Ontrack

[Webinar] In Case You Missed It: Protecting Privilege in Ediscovery

With the growth of information subject to privilege review and the increased role of technology, protecting privileged documents is one of the most critical issues for lawyers and litigation teams. While technology has made document review easier than ever, effectively incorporating privilege considerations into the broader case strategy remains difficult. Knowing how to approach privilege review from both a strategic and tactical perspective is incredibly important and critical to ensuring that ediscovery costs, time, and risks are kept to a minimum.

Kroll Ontrack recently presented a webinar, Power-Up Your Privilege Review:
Protecting Privileged Materials in Ediscovery
, addressing how to best incorporate privilege into your case strategy. Panelists included:

These experts discussed the following intricacies of document review, and how one can—and should—make the most of the Federal Rules and new technologies to perform effective and consistent privilege review.

Embrace Predictive Coding for Privilege Review

Predictive coding can be a litigant’s best friend during a privilege review. With the proper case planning and preparation, predictive coding can help you track down documents that require manual review. Further, predictive coding may even be used to locate and isolate potentially privileged documents in any language. Preventing the disclosure of privilege-protected documents is your first line of defense, and predictive coding is a powerful tool that will help you keep the data that you need to keep.

Consider Clawbacks to Remedy Inadvertent Disclosure

Litigants often fail to fully cooperate in the discovery process, even when cooperation would benefit both sides of a dispute. This is especially true when it comes to privilege review. Far too often, litigants overlook Rule 502(d)—which allows a court to enter a clawback agreement as an order.

Integrate Privilege in Your Case Strategy

In any matter, look at the bigger picture and incorporate strategic considerations into privilege discussions. Litigation teams frequently see the privilege log as a secondary exercise in the discovery process, rather than proactively addressing how they will handle privilege documents. To better prepare yourself for the inevitable privilege issue, download the webinar today!

Bust these 4 Myths on Your Next Document Review

Conducting an effective and efficient legal document review requires a hybrid of rocket science, brain chemistry and hot coffee. With ediscovery technology and best practices constantly evolving, if your document review practices haven’t changed in the last five years, you are likely wasting time and money for your organization and/or your client. To ensure your practices meet today’s demands, bust these four document review myths on your next ediscovery project.

Myth #1: Document review just happens; you don’t really need a plan.

There is an outmoded notion that document review is a side-show to the main ediscovery attraction; however, that view could not be farther from the truth. Without question, document review is the most expensive aspect of discovery; accordingly, planning for the review should start at the same time the case team is thinking about preservation and collection. Failing to create a big picture plan and a thorough review manual can result in:

  • Multiple “side reviews” for special issues or newly discovered documents
  • Downtime for reviewers as they wait around for more work
  • Documents being touched two or three times

Lesson #1: Don’t let any member of your case team procrastinate when it comes to planning for review.

Myth #2: Any old attorney can conduct (or manage) a document review.

With formidable technology at their fingertips and millions of documents to wrangle, today’s document reviewers are anything but humdrum lawyers. Today’s document reviewers are not only licensed and highly qualified attorneys, but they often have specific training and certifications in various document review platforms. They understand how to employ the strictest quality control protocols to maximize time and minimize the cost of a review. Further, sometimes a review requires expertise in a language other than English or substantive knowledge in the following areas: banking and financial services, pharmaceuticals, insurance, telecommunications, technology, agriculture, transportation, oil and gas, securities, and more.

Lesson #2: Make sure you are equipped with the right people resources for your next review.

Myth #3: All document review technology is equal.

While most major review platforms function in a generally-similar manner, there are significant differences in how the capabilities are executed by users – which impacts the expected results of a specific function. Rock star document review professionals understand and can articulate the features and benefits of multiple review tools and know how and when to leverage features such as workflow, predictive coding, near de-duplication, topic grouping, smart searching, machine translation (just to name a few of the vital technologies key to any modern review). Running searches, batching and assigning documents, categorizing, and performing QC should be second nature for experienced reviewers, and they should know the nuances of these functions in any specific technology platform. If they cannot answer a question, they should know how to get a hold of the technology provider’s technical support team to lend a hand.

Lesson #3: You should not settle for anything less than document review technology superstars. 

Myth #4: It will be obvious when you can stop your review…when you run out of documents.

With the advent of predictive coding and other technology assisted review technologies, no longer do attorney’s eyes need to be placed on every document. As such, determining when to call the review “complete” is complex. Today’s document review professionals are skilled at interpreting metrics and reports generated by the document review technology and know when the numbers are showing a high-quality review versus an incomplete review.

Lesson #4: Dust off your math skills (or leverage a specialist) – it’s the only way a savvy document review professional knows when a review is finished.

Leverage Kroll Ontrack for Document Review

With Kroll Ontrack, your document review could not be in better hands, eyes or minds. For nearly a decade, Kroll Ontrack has offered advanced document review services in the US. Now, with a document review facility in London, Englandnewly opened in December 2014 – Kroll Ontrack’s document review expertise is global.

Deploying Trainers in Technology-assisted Review (TAR) without “Spoiling the Broth”

Deploying trainers in technology-assisted review (TAR)

Leaving little room for interpretation, the court in Coquina Investments v. Rothstein, stated that the defendants’ litany of ediscovery project management pitfalls (which involved over 200 attorneys across two firms) culminated into a “case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.” While Coquina Investments involved format of production issues, the same rationale applies when deploying trainers in technology-assisted review (TAR) —too many trainers can lead to inconsistency and poor machine learning.

Taking Control of the Technology-Assisted Review Kitchen

Using TAR in litigation is strikingly similar to working in a professional kitchen. There are many parts moving on parallel tracks. Just like a pastry chef may begin working on dessert while a grill chef prepares the main dish, you may have reviewers allocated to train a recently found hard drive while a sub-team performs corrective training on a production set. And above all else, in either scenario, nothing leaves the kitchen without a taste test (quality control). But perhaps the most difficult task involves assigning appropriate roles to a diverse cast of employees during the stages of machine training.

  • Lead Attorney: The Chef de Cuisine—in charge of all things related to the kitchen. This role involves making executive decisions like when to stop review, how to provide additional training and who will train the machine.
  • Subject Matter Experts (SMEs): The Sous-Chefs—second-in-command to the Chef de Cuisine. These are attorneys that have a firm knowledge of the nature of the case and the issues involved. They are capable of making high-level decisions and have an expansive knowledge of the dispute.
  • Contract AttorneysThe Chefs de partie—line cooks responsible for certain areas of production. These are attorneys who are comfortable and trained on the issue at hand, but do not have the level of knowledge possessed by Subject Matter Experts.

Choose Your Recipe

The Chef de Cuisine works closely with the Sous-Chefs to ensure that everyone clearly understands the basics of the recipe so that when the Chef de Cuisine (the Lead Attorney) is out of the “kitchen” the quality of the output remains constant.

When it comes to dedicating a team of SMEs to train the system, the adage “less is more” carries the day. As discussed in a document produced by the TREC 2008 Legal Track, determining whether a document is responsive or not responsive is a deceptively subjective process.  Lawyers “draw lines”—often at different places—across a number of determinations like “the nature of the risk posed by production, the party requesting the information” and the willingness of the production party to face a challenge for underproduction. Because the risk of inconsistencies in deciding responsiveness is exacerbated by the introduction of more trainers, rarely will you want more than five SMEs training the system. The restaurant owner mutters, “but my project is big, there is no way that I can rely on only five reviewers.”  Generally, two to five reviewers can handle the targeted review load for even a very large project. The total amount of training documents will vary depending on if you plan to “seed” the system (and how much “seeding” you plan to do), the number of documents in your data set and your desired confidence level. Ultimately, responsiveness decisions made on this fraction of documents will be extrapolated to all remaining documents in the data set; it becomes critical that the SMEs are in sync with the goals and structure of the case.

Reduce and Stir

While the ideal structure for deploying this handful of SMEs is still up for debate, there is common consensus that there must be some process in place to arbitrate consistency when responsiveness disputes arise. I’ve seen some interesting hierarchical training structures over the years designed to handle training disputes. These are some of the most common:

Training Structures of technology-assisted review

Finally: Tasting the Broth

An effective document review and an efficient kitchen both rely upon QC measures to ensure quality and consistency of output. A well-designed plan for validating the automated technology-assisted review output is key to knowing when to stop training for quality and when the documents are ready for consumption at the next stage of the case. Where the Chef de Cuisine is responsible for ensuring that only quality dishes leave her kitchen, the Lead Attorney is also responsible for the quality of the data in her case. Only when quality control measurements reflect defensible levels of recall and precision will a Lead Attorney be in a position to move beyond first-pass review and plate the production for the requesting party—Bon Appetit!

To gain hands-on TAR experience, register now for the newest educational course offered by Kroll Ontrack, TAR Learning Labs.  The next Learning Lab is coming up in Minneapolis, MN, in early June.  Sign up soon, space is limited!

To the Merits, At Last: Judge Peck Recusal is Denied

ediscovery case law news-Judge Peck recusal denied

Ediscovery case law enthusiasts, gather ‘round – thanks to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Da Silva Moore recusal “sideshow” is finally dead in the water.

As first reported earlier today by the friendly folks at IT-Lex, on April 10, 2013 in an order of notable brevity, Judge Jane A. Restani denied the petitioners’ request for theJudge Peck Recusal is Denied recusal of Judge Andrew J. Peck, stating simply that: “Petitioners have not ‘clearly and indisputably demonstrate[d] that [Magistrate Judge Peck] abused [his] discretion’ in denying their district court recusal motion… or that the district court erred in overruling their objection to that decision.”

At last, the ediscovery community is free of this distracting drama. Cue the music!

Da Silva Moore’s Affect on Ediscovery

The recusal motions that clouded Da Silva Moore created nothing but distraction. Judges, lawyers and providers in the legal ediscovery industry are just as connected as the clients we serve. In ediscovery’s constant state of change, it’s important to remember that ideas precede growth – that leaving room for objective, non-confidential commentary and brainstorming in publications and at conferences is not only appropriate, but imperative for the development of standards, best practices and new technology innovations. Hopefully this short and succinct opinion from the Second Circuit is a clear call that our community’s focus should lie in progressing substantive ediscovery law and practices, not discord and frivolity.

Personally, I look forward to the future of ediscovery jurisprudence from Judge Peck. Like my Kindergarten teacher or childhood dentist, I never want to see him retire. A true trailblazer, in 1995, Judge Peck issued one of the first cases to order the discovery of electronic data (Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc.), and in 2012 he paved the way for cutting-edge machine learning technology to be used in legal document review through the Da Silva Moore case. What’s next? I can’t wait to discuss more about it with Judge Peck, Ralph Losey, and everyone else in this exceptional legal technology community.

Document Review – Creating and Modifying Annotations in Ontrack Inview

Document Review - Creating and Modifying Annotations in Ontrack Inview

One of the most useful functionalities of Ontrack Inview is the ability to compare documents side-by-side during document review. The annotations tab shows redactions, highlights, and sticky notes of two near-duplicate documents.

Creating Annotations

You can create redactions, highlights, and sticky notes using the Document Viewer Toolbar. Annotations are shared by all duplicate documents throughout the database. (Important: You cannot annotate documents in the Native or Text tabs. You can annotate documents in the Tiff tab only.)

Modifying Annotations

After you create an annotation, you can go back and modify it at any time. You can also modify an annotation created by another reviewer, as long as your security level is equal to or greater than the annotation’s security level. The default security level of an annotation is “Low – 10.”

To edit the text in a sticky note

  1. On the Tiff tab, double-click the sticky note you want to modify. The text becomes available for editing.
  2. Edit the text as desired and click outside the note.

To edit the name of a redaction code

  1. On the Tiff tab, double-click the redaction you want to modify. The Modify Text dialog box appears.
  2. Edit the text as desired and click OK.

To delete an annotation

  1. On the Tiff tab, select the annotation you want to delete.
  2. Press Delete. For sticky notes and redactions, the Comments dialog box appears, asking you if you would like to edit your comments.
  3. Enter comments, if desired, and click OK.
 
css.php