Monday, September 3, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Since most of the first biglaw jobs appear most often to be in doc review a new case should be of interest. If this Federal Judge is correct in his assessment of the state of computerized document review (and I think he is) then traditional doc review jobs will be 21st century buggy whip makers. If those doc review jobs disappear in the next 18 months the job market will be further contracted:
" This Opinion appears to be the first in which a Court has approved of the use of computer-assisted review. That does not mean computer-assisted review must be used in all cases, or that the exact ESI protocol approved here will be appropriate in all future cases that utilize computer-assisted review. Nor does this Opinion endorse any vendor … nor any particular computer-assisted review tool. What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that computer-assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review. Counsel no longer have to worry about being the “first” or “guinea pig” for judicial acceptance of computer-assisted review. As with keywords or any other technological solution to e-discovery, counsel must design an appropriate process, including use of available technology, with appropriate quality control testing, to review and produce relevant ESI while adhering to Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) proportionality. Computer-assisted review now can be considered judicially-approved for use in appropriate cases."
http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/uploads/file/Da%20Silva%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf
" This Opinion appears to be the first in which a Court has approved of the use of computer-assisted review. That does not mean computer-assisted review must be used in all cases, or that the exact ESI protocol approved here will be appropriate in all future cases that utilize computer-assisted review. Nor does this Opinion endorse any vendor … nor any particular computer-assisted review tool. What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that computer-assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review. Counsel no longer have to worry about being the “first” or “guinea pig” for judicial acceptance of computer-assisted review. As with keywords or any other technological solution to e-discovery, counsel must design an appropriate process, including use of available technology, with appropriate quality control testing, to review and produce relevant ESI while adhering to Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) proportionality. Computer-assisted review now can be considered judicially-approved for use in appropriate cases."
http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/uploads/file/Da%20Silva%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Year of C.E.O. Failures Explained - NYTimes.com
This is a good read but only related to virtual law offices tangentially. IAE, here it is: The Year of C.E.O. Failures Explained - NYTimes.com
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Dropbox Aims to Solidify Its Place With Businesses - NYTimes.com
More on Dropbox and some discussion of the security issues. Bottomline: you need a strong password, something like !Xy1. Dropbox Aims to Solidify Its Place With Businesses - NYTimes.com
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Are Law Schools and Bar Exams Necessary? - NYTimes.com
The following piece suggests that deregulation of law practice should and will occur. As I have suggested elsewhere, technology is already driving legal business away from traditional law firms and toward other entities. I believe that dramatic, revolutionary change is happening in regard to the structure of law firms. This blog is an effort to shine a light on the way forward for young lawyers and small law firms. Here is the article: Are Law Schools and Bar Exams Necessary? - NYTimes.com
Monday, October 24, 2011
equivio.com/files/LJN Baker and McKenzie.pdf
Here is the future of big litigation. There are even firms now that are employing lawyers to work on these kind of document review jobs for law firms on a contract basis. This is one of the highly disruptive technologies of our day. equivio.com/files/LJN Baker and McKenzie.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)