Lighthouse Blog

We live in the era of Big Data. The exponential pace of technological development continues to generate immense amounts of digital information that can be analyzed, sorted, and utilized in previously impossible ways. In this world of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other advanced technologies, questions of privacy, government regulations, and compliance have taken on a new prominence across industries of all kinds.With this in mind, H5 recently convened a panel of experts to discuss the latest compliance challenges that organizations are facing today, as well as ways that AI can be used to address those challenges. Some key topics covered in the discussion included:Understanding use cases involving technical approaches to data classification.Exploring emerging data classification methods and approach.Setting expectations within your organization for the deployment of AI technology.Keeping an AI solution compliant.Preventing introducing bias into your AI models.The panel included Timia Moore, strategic risk assessment manager for Wells Fargo; Kimberly Pack, associate general counsel of compliance for Anheuser-Busch; Alex Lakatos, partner at Mayer Brown; and Eric Pender, engagement manager at H5; The conversation was moderated by Doug Austin, editor of the eDiscovery Today blog.Compliance Challenges Organizations Are Facing TodayThe rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, vastly increased data volumes and sources, and stringent new privacy laws present unique new challenges to today’s businesses. Whereas in the recent past it may have seemed liked regulatory bodies were often in a defensive position, forced to play catch-up as powerful new technologies took the field, these agencies are increasingly using their own tech to go on the offensive.This is particularly true in the banking industry and broader financial sector. “With the advent of fintech and technology like AI, regulators are moving from this reactive mode into a more proactive mode,” said Timia Moore, strategic risk assessment manager for Wells Fargo. But the trend is not limited to banking and finance. “It’s not industry specific,” she said. “I think regulators are really looking to be more proactive and figure out how to identify and assess issues, because ultimately they’re concerned about the consumer, which all of our companies are and should be as well.”Indeed, growing demand by consumers for increased privacy and better protection of their personal data is a key driver of new regulations around the world, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and various similar laws in the United States. It’s also one of the biggest compliance challenges facing organizations today, as cyber attacks are now faster, more aggressive, and more sophisticated than ever before.Other challenges highlighted by the panel included:Siloed departments that limit communications and visibility within organizationsA dearth of subject matter expertiseThe possibility of simultaneous AI requests from multiple regulatory agenciesA more remote and dispersed workforce due to the pandemicUse Cases for AI and ComplianceIn order to meet these challenges head on, companies are increasingly turning to AI to help them comply with new regulations. Some companies are partnering with technology specialists to meet their AI needs, while some are building their own systems.Anheuser-Busch is one such company that is using an AI system to meet compliance standards. As Kimberly Pack, associate general counsel of compliance for Anheuser-Busch, described it: “One of the things that we’re super proud of is our proprietary AI data analyst system BrewRight. We use that data for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance. We use it for investigations management. We use it for alcohol beverage law compliance.”She also pointed out that the BrewRight AI system is useful for discovering internal malfeasance as well. “Just general employee credit card abuse…We can even identify those kinds of things,” Pack said. “We’re actively looking for outlier behavior, strange patterns or new activity. As companies, we have this data, and so the question is how are we using it, and artificial intelligence is a great way for us to start being able to identify and mitigate some risks that we have.”Artificial intelligence can also play a key role in reducing the burden from alerts related to potential compliance issues or other kinds of wrongdoing. The trick, according to Alex Lakatos, partner at Mayer Brown, is tuning the system to the right level of sensitivity—and then letting it learn from there. “If you set it to be too sensitive, you’re going to be drowned in alerts and you can’t make sense of them,” Lakatos said. “You set it too far in the other direction, you only get the instances of the really, really bad conduct. But AI, because it is a learning tool, can become smarter about which alerts get triggered.”Lakatos also pointed out that when it comes to the kind of explanations for illegal behaviors that regulators usually want to see, AI is not capable of providing those answers. “AI doesn’t work on a theory,” he said. “AI just works on correlation.” That’s where having some smart people working in tandem with your AI comes in handy. “Regulators get more comfortable with a little bit of theory behind it.”H5 has identified at least a dozen areas related to compliance where AI can be of assistance, including: key document retention and categorization, personal identifiable information (PII) location and remediation, first-line level reviews of alerts, and policy applicability and risk identification.Data Classification, Methods, and ApproachesThere are various methods and approaches to data classification, including machine learning, linguistic modeling, sentiment analysis, name normalization, and personal data detection. Choosing the right one depends on what companies want their AI to do.“That’s why it’s really important to have a holistic program management style approach to this,” said Eric Pender, engagement manager at H5. “Because there are so many different ways that you can approach a lot of these problems.”Supervised machine learning models, for instance, ingest data that’s already been categorized, which makes them great at making predictions and predictive models. Unsupervised machine learning models, on the other hand, which take in unlabeled, uncategorized information, are really good at data pattern and structure recognition.“Ultimately, I think this comes down to the question of what action you want to take on your data,” Pender said. “And what version of modeling is going to be best suited to getting you there.”Setting Expectations for AI DeploymentOnce you’ve determined the type of data classification that best suits your needs, it’s crucial to set expectations for the AI deployment within your company. This process includes third-party evaluation, procurement, testing, and data processing agreements. Buying an off-the shelf solution is a possibility, though some organizations—especially large ones—may have the resources to build their own. It’s also possible to create a solution that features elements of both. In either case, obtaining C-suite buy-in is a critical step that should not be overlooked. And to maintain trust, it’s important to properly notify workers throughout the organization and remain transparent throughout the process.Allowing enough time for proper proof of concept evaluation is also key. When it comes to creating a timeline for deploying AI within an organization, “it’s really important for folks to be patient,” according to Pender. “People who are new to AI sometimes have this perception that they’re going to buy AI and they’re going to plug it in and it just works. But you really have to take time to train the models, especially if you’re talking about structured algorithms and you need to input classified data.”Education, documentation, and training are also key aspects of setting expectations for AI deployment. Bear in mind, at its heart implementing an AI system is a form of change management.“Think about your organization and the culture, and how well your employees or impacted team members receive change,” said Timia Moore of Wells Fargo. “Sometimes—if you are developing that change internally, if they’re at the table, if they have a voice, if they feel they’re a meaningful part of it—it’s a lot easier than if you just have some cowboy vendor come in and say, ‘We have the answer to your problems. Here it is, just do what we say.’”Keeping AI Solutions Compliant and Avoiding BiasWhen deploying an AI system, the last area of consideration discussed by the panel was how to keep the AI solution itself compliant and free of bias. Best practices include ongoing monitoring of the system, A/B testing, and mitigating attacks on the AI model.It’s also important to always keep in mind that AI systems are inherently dependent on their own training data. In other words, these systems are only as good as their inputs, and it’s crucial to make sure biases aren’t baked into the AI from the beginning. And once the system is up and running—and learning—it’s important to check in on it regularly.“There’s an old computer saying, ‘Garbage in, garbage out,’ said Lakatos. “The thing with AI is people have so much faith in it that it is become more of ‘garbage in, gospel out.’ If the AI says it, it must be true…and that’s something to be cautious of.”In today’s digital world, AI systems are becoming more and more integral to compliance and a host of other business functions. Educating yourself and making sure your company has a plan for the future are essential steps to take right away.The entire H5 webcast, “New Rules, New Tools: AI and Compliance,” can be viewed here.ai-and-analytics; data-privacyccpa, gdpr, blog, ai, big-data, -data-classification, fcpa, artificial-intelligence, compliance, ai-and-analytics, data-privacyccpa; gdpr; blog; ai; big-data; data-classification; fcpa; artificial-intelligence; compliancemitch montoya

Many law departments are reactionary. Someone comes to legal with a “legal” question and they help that person. Although this makes a lot of sense, as legal is a support department, it makes it very difficult to thematically explain the value legal is driving as well as understand the work the department is doing. As legal operations matures and legal departments look to be more efficient, productizing the services in the department is a natural progression. This approach was a central discussion at the 2021 CLOC conference and the subject of this blog series. In order to productize something effectively, however, you need a very good understanding of your customer and prospective customers’ needs. In this article, I will give you an overview of how to get that.A central theme in product management is building resonators – products that resonate with the buyers. You may have the best idea but, if it doesn’t meet a pervasive market need, nobody will buy it. There are many great examples of products that failed and dozens of lessons we can learn from those failures. Most of the lessons come back to misunderstanding the customer's need and the nature of that need. For example, people may say they want a better mousetrap but if you don’t ask how much they would pay for that mousetrap, whether they would replace any current mousetraps with a better one, and whether it matters if the new mousetrap gives off an odor of chemicals, you can see how you might not make a best seller. To give an example in the legal services space, in my first general counsel role, I heard from many people how it was frustrating that they could never find contracts when they needed them. I immediately set upon a mission to create a contracts database. After investing a lot of time, we had a wonderfully organized database, and the only person who ever used it was the legal team. So what happened to all the frustrated employees from other departments? It turns out I didn’t ask them how often they needed to look up contracts and whether that need was part of another legal request (meaning that legal was the one actually looking up the contract anyway). In the end, the contract database was extremely helpful for the legal department but I could have saved myself the time of making it self-service, spectra and figuring out permissions for different users had I asked some questions upfront. To avoid the same fate, there are four principles you can use when asking your company about its legal needs.1. Don’t rely on the users to define the needs. Instead, be curious about their day-to-day and in that curiosity, you will be able to see the legal needs. The theory is this: if you ask someone what they need from legal, they will overlay their belief system about what legal should provide before they answer. Instead, when you ask them about their role, their goals, how they are measured, and what their biggest challenges are, you are more likely to be able to understand them and see where legal may be able to help.2. Create a template interview form and use it religiously with each person.When you do 10-15 interviews, you want to be able to discern themes and compare interviews. When multiple people are conducting interviews, you want to be sure you are all hitting the same topics. This is much easier to do when you start from a template. For a 30-minute interview, I would suggest 3-5 template questions. Always get background information before the interview starts including their name, title, department, and contact information. Put this information at the top of your interview summary. Do not include this in your 3-5 questions. Having this information clearly labeled and available allows you to easily follow up later. Next, move on to background and devote 2-3 questions to this area including what are their main goals for the year, how is their department measured, what are their biggest pain points. Finally, go on to any specific areas you may want to ask about. For example, you may want to know how they have used the legal department in the past, how much they interact with overseas colleagues, etc. Here is a list of common questions:What are your department’s goals for the year?How is your department measured?What are your biggest roadblocks in achieving your goals?What are your biggest roadblocks in getting your job done?If you had a magic wand and could change one thing about your job, what would it be?What are your most common needs outside your department?What is your perception of what the legal department does?What kinds of things have you come to legal for?3. Interview a diverse group. It may seem obvious that you need a good sample size, however, you will be surprised at how varied the needs are at different levels and across different departments. If you are only interviewing one person to represent a specific level or department, you should ask them “how representative do you think your pain points/goals are of the department?” This will give you a good idea of whether you can rely on this person’s interview as representative of the department or whether you will have to do some follow-up interviews with others.4. Always ask follow-up questions.The guidance for limiting your template to 3-5 questions above ensures you have time for follow up on each response. More specifically, you want to be sure you are really understanding the responses and quantifying the level and frequency of any relevant pain points. I would set a goal to ask 2 follow-up questions for every first response. For example, if your first question is “what are your goals for 2021?” then you should expect to ask 2 follow-up questions after your interviewee responds. If at any point the person you are interviewing mentions a challenge that you think legal can help to solve, this is your queue to follow up around the pain and pervasiveness. Here are some questions you can ask to get into how big a problem they are facing:How often do you run into this roadblock: daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly?When you run into this roadblock, how much time do you spend resolving it: 1-2 hours, 2-5 hours, 5-10 hours, 10+ hours?Does this roadblock impact multiple people? If so, how many?Does this roadblock (or a stoppage in you moving towards your goals) impact other departments?Are there workarounds for this roadblock? If so, how cumbersome are they on a scale of 1-5?If you had to reach out to another department and work with someone to remove this roadblock each time it came up, would you do that or would you continue with the workaround?How long would you wait for an outside resource to help before you proceed with your current workaround?Does the challenge have an impact on revenue?Whether you are a general counsel just getting to know your organization, a legal operations professional tasked with making your department more efficient, or a lawyer who is interested in ensuring you are providing great services, the above should give you a good place to start to understand your customer. Once you understand your customer, you’re able to provide great resonating services and position your existing solutions. legal-operationslegal-ops, blog, legal-operations,legal-ops; bloglighthouse

The 2021 CLOC conference focused a lot on applying product principles to legal services. General Counsel are often in the position of having to show the value of their team’s services and why, as a cost center, it makes sense to continue to grow their department or to buy technology to support their department. In addition to showing that value, there is pressure to be more efficient while providing excellent customer services. By productizing services, you can provide repeatable, measurable solutions that address the needs above. There is also the great benefit of being connected to your client’s needs by providing the services that match the most pervasive and urgent needs. However, if you don’t have a background in product management, how does one go about productizing legal services, and what does that even mean? As someone who is Pragmatic Marketing Certified through the Pragmatic Institute, I am here to help. This blog, and the blog series to follow, will show you how to get started, interview people internally to understand the needs, position your existing solutions internally, and make build vs. buy vs. outsourcing decisions. Let’s start with a high-level overview of where to begin.What does productizing legal services mean? Productizing your legal services focuses on creating solutions that apply to multiple customers in a repeatable way. This means that you first have to understand your customers’ problems by listening, asking, and observing. It then means that you create several repeatable processes to address those problems. Finally, it means you market those solutions internally and show how they bring value to the business. Taking it one step further, it also means that you leverage technology to support these services and continue to develop and improve the services based on feedback.So how does one go about creating these solutions inside a legal team? The first step is all about understanding the needs of the business. You can look internally at the requests the legal department receives to get an understanding of what the business is coming to the legal department for. Next, you want to speak to leaders from different groups in the business to understand what legal needs exist that are not coming into the legal department but should be addressed. Which leaders to speak to will depend a bit on your organization but I would recommend connecting with the following, at minimum: sales, finance, engineering (or product) as well as regional leaders in any key regions. More on this to come in my next blog on interviewing people internally to understand the organization’s needs.Once you have the information, it is helpful to create a list. I like to use the format below:Problems to SolveOnce you have a pretty solid list, you should brainstorm high-level recommended solutions (not the detailed how). This will include things like solving a certain need through documentation (e.g. a “how-to guide” or a template contract). It may include things like facilitating the intake of legal requests or facilitating access to contract information. Once you have your list of potential solutions, there are two next steps. For the set of existing solutions, you should group those into categories and make sure that you are adequately marketing and reporting on those (more on this in a future post). For the set of solutions that are future state, identify how you are going to address this need. When looking at the gaps, I like to categorize the gaps in the following ways so I can understand the budget impact and the division of work.Note that urgency speaks to how quickly the need needs to be solved overall and not necessarily the urgency of a specific request. For example, it speaks to how urgently people need a contract database as opposed to how quickly someone needs information about a specific contract. Pervasiveness addresses how many internal departments/employees have this need. Is it centered around just a small group within one department or is it a need expressed by multiple departments? The relationship to the company strategy should be focused on how much this need moves the business forward. Does it facilitate the company’s #1 strategy? When you complete this list, I recommend grouping it into like needs. If there are overlapping needs, you may want to create a consolidated item but make sure you capture the pervasiveness of it.Recommendations for Filling The GapsBy going through the above process you will have a good understanding of the various needs and solutions in your organization. In the next blog in the series, I will overview how to interview people internally to understand the organization’s needs.legal-operationslegal-ops, blog, legal-operations,legal-ops; bloglighthouse

Since Judge Andrew Peck’s ruling over nine years ago in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, the use of Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) for managing review in eDiscovery has been court approved. Yet many lawyers and legal professionals still don’t use machine learning (which, for many, is synonymous with TAR) in litigation. In the eDiscovery Today 2021 State of the Industry report, only 31.1% of respondents said they use TAR in all or most of their cases; 32.8% of respondents said they use it in very few or none of their cases. So, why don’t more lawyers use TAR?Transparency and TAROne possible reason that lawyers avoid the use of TAR is that requesting parties often demand more transparency with a TAR process than they do with a process involving keyword search and manual review. Judge Peck (retired magistrate judge and now Senior Counsel with DLA Piper) stated in the eDiscovery Today State of the Industry report: “Part of the problem remains requesting parties that seek such extensive involvement in the process and overly complex verification that responding parties are discouraged from using TAR.”In the article Predictive Coding: Can It Get A Break?, author Gareth Evans, a partner at Redgrave, states: “Probably the greatest impediment to the use of predictive coding has been the argument that the party seeking to use it should agree to share its coding decisions on the documents used to train the predictive coding model, including providing to the opposing party the irrelevant documents in the training sets.”Lawyer training vs. “black box” technologyWhy do lawyers expect that they are entitled to more transparency with TAR? Perhaps a better question might be: why do they demand less transparency for keyword search and manual review? One reason might lie in the education and training that they receive to become lawyers. Many lawyers cut their teeth on the keyword search used for resources like Westlaw and Lexis. Consequently, keyword search is part of their experience and they feel comfortable using it.Those same lawyers see keyword search and manual review for discovery as an extension of what they learned in law school. But it’s not. Search (aka “information retrieval”) is an expertise. Effective keyword search for discovery purposes is an iterative process that requires testing and verification of the search result set and the discard pile to confirm that the scope of the search wasn’t too narrowly focused. The end goal is to construct a search with both high recall and high precision; to identify those documents potentially responsive to a production request without also capturing non-responsive information, which can significantly increase review costs. This is very different from the goal of identifying a handful of documents that can assist in a case precedents argument.With regard to TAR, many lawyers still see the technology as a “black box” that they don’t understand. So, when the other side proposes using TAR, they want a lot more transparency about the particular TAR process to be used. It’s simply human nature to ask more questions about things we don’t understand. But, truth be told, lawyers should probably be just as vigilant in seeking information about the opposing’s use of keyword search as they are when TAR is the approach being proposed.TAR technology in daily livesWhat many lawyers may not realize is that they’re already using the type of technology associated with TAR elsewhere in their lives — albeit with a different goal and lower stakes than in a legal case. TAR is based on a supervised machine learning algorithm, where the algorithm learns to deliver similar content based on human feedback. Choices we make in Amazon, Spotify, and Netflix influence what those platforms deliver to us as other choices we might want to see in terms of items to buy, songs to listen to or movies to watch. The process of “training” the algorithms that drive these platforms makes them more useful to us — just as the feedback we provide during a predictive coding process helps train the algorithm to identify documents most likely to be responsive to the case.ConclusionWhat should lawyers do when opposing counsel makes transparency demands regarding TAR processes to be used? Certainly, cooperation and discussion of the protocol as soon as possible — such as the Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” between the parties — can help everyone get “on the same page” about what information can or should be shared, no matter what approach is proposed.However, if the parties can’t reach an accord regarding TAR transparency, perhaps another case ruling by Judge Peck — Hyles v. New York City — can be instructive here, where Judge Peck cited Sedona Principle 6. This principle states: “Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.” Ironically, in Hyles, the requesting party was trying to force the responding party to use TAR, but Judge Peck, despite being an acknowledged “judicial advocate for the use of TAR in appropriate cases” denied the requesting party’s motion in that case. Transparency demands from requesting parties shouldn’t deter you from realizing the potential efficiency gains and cost savings resulting from an effective TAR process.For more information on H5 Litigation Services, including review for production with the H5 unique TAR as a Service, click here.ediscovery-reviewediscovery-reviewblog; tar; litigation; technology-assisted-review; predictive-coding; ediscovery; machine-learningmitch montoya

It’s no secret that big data can mean big challenges in the eDiscovery world. Data volumes and sources are exploding year after year, in part due to a global shift to digital forms of communication in working environments (think emails, chat messages, and cloud-based collaboration tools vs. phone calls, in-person meetings, and paper memorandums, etc.) as well as the rise of the Cloud (which provides cheaper, more flexible, and virtually limitless data storage capabilities).This means that with every new litigation or investigation requiring discovery, counsel must collect massive amounts of potentially relevant digital evidence, host it, process it, identify the relevant information within it (as well as pinpoint any sensitive or protected information within that relevant data) and then produce that relevant data to the opposing side. Traditionally, this process then starts all over again with the next litigation – often beginning back at square one in a vacuum by collecting the exact same data for the new matter, without any of the insights or attorney work product gained from the previous matter.This endless cycle is not sustainable as data volumes continue to grow exponentially. Fortunately, just as advances in technology have led to increasing data volumes, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology can help tackle big data challenges. Newer analytics technology can now use multiple algorithms to analyze millions of data points across an organization’s entire legal portfolio (including metadata, text, past attorney work product, etc.) and provide counsel with insights that can improve efficiency and curb the endless cycle of re-inventing the wheel on each new matter. In this post, I’ll outline the four main challenges big data can pose in an eDiscovery environment (also called “The Four Vs”) and explain how cutting-edge big data analytics tools can help tackle them.The “Four Vs” of Big Data Challenges in eDiscovery 1. The volume, or scale of dataAs noted above, a primary challenge in matters involving discovery is the sheer amount of data generated by employees and organizations as a whole. For reference, most companies in the U.S. currently have at least 100 terabytes of data stored, and it is estimated that by 2025, worldwide data will grow 61 percent to 175 zettabytes.As organizations and individuals create more data, data volumes for even routine or small eDiscovery matters are exploding in correlation. Unfortunately, court discovery deadlines and opposing counsel production expectations rarely adjust to accommodate this ever-growing surge in data. This can put organizations and outside counsel in an impossible position if they don’t have a defensible and efficient method to cull irrelevant data and/or accurately identify important categories of data within large, complex data sets. Being forced to manually review vast amounts of information within an unrealistic time period can quickly become a pressure cooker for critical mistakes – where review teams miss important information within a dataset and thereby either produce damaging or sensitive information to the opposing side (e.g., attorney-client privilege, protected health information, trade secrets, non-relevant information, etc.) or in the inverse, fail to find and produce requested relevant information.To overcome this challenge, counsel (both in-house and outside counsel) need better ways to retain and analyze data – which is exactly where newer AI-enabled analytics technology (which can better manage large volumes of data) can help. The AI-based analytics technology being built right now is developed for scale, meaning new technology can handle large caseloads, easily add data, and create feedback loops that run in real time. Each document that is reviewed feeds into the algorithm to make the analysis even more precise moving forward. This differs from older analytics platforms, which were not engineered to meet the challenges of data volumes today – resulting in review delays or worse, inaccurate output that leads to critical mistakes.2. The variety, or different forms of dataIn addition to the volume of data increasing today, the diversity of data sources is also increasing. This also presents significant challenges as technologists and attorneys continually work to learn how to process, search, and produce newer and increasingly complicated cloud-based data sources. The good news is that advanced analytics platforms can also help manage new data types in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Some newer AI-based analytics platforms can provide a holistic view of an organization’s entire legal data portfolio and identify broad trends and insights – inclusive of every variety of data present within it. These insights can help reduce cost and risk and sometimes enable organizations to upgrade their entire eDiscovery program. A holistic view of organizational data can also be helpful for outside counsel because it also enables better and more strategic legal decisions for individual matters and investigations.3. The velocity, or the speed of dataWithin eDiscovery, the velocity of data not only refers to the speed at which new data is generated, but also the speed at which data can be processed and analyzed. With smaller data volumes, it was manageable to put all collected data into a database and analyze it later. However, as data volumes increase, this method is expensive, time consuming, and may lead to errors and data gaps. Once again, a big data analytics product can help overcome this challenge because it is capable of rapidly processing and analyzing iterative volumes of collected data on an ongoing basis. By processing data into a big data analytics platform at the outset of a matter, counsel can quickly gain insights into that data, identifying relevant information and potential data gaps much earlier in the processes. In turn, this can mean lower data hosting costs as objectively non-responsive data can be jettisoned prior to data hosting. The ability of big data analytics platforms to support the velocity of data change also enables counsel and reviewers to be more agile and evolve alongside the constantly changing landscape of the discovery itself (e.g., changes in scope, custodians, responsive criteria, court deadlines).4. The veracity, or uncertainty of dataWithin the eDiscovery realm, the veracity of data refers to the quality of the data (i.e., whether the data that a party collects, processes, and produces is accurate and defensible and will satisfy a discovery request or subpoena). The veracity of the data produced to the opposing side in a litigation or investigation is therefore of the utmost importance, which is why data quality control steps are key at every discovery stage. At the preservation and collection stages, counsel must verify which custodians and data sources may have relevant information. Once that data is collected and processed, the data must then be checked again for accuracy to ensure that the collection and processing were performed correctly and there is no missing data. Then, as data is culled, reviewed, and prepared for production, multiple quality control steps must take place to ensure that the data slated to be produced is relevant to the discovery request and categorized correctly with all sensitive information appropriately identified and handled. As data volumes grow, ensuring the veracity of data only becomes more daunting.Thankfully, big data analytics technology can also help safeguard the veracity of data. Cutting-edge AI technology can provide a big-picture view of an organization’s entire legal portfolio, enabling counsel to see which custodians and data sources contain data that is consistently produced as relevant (or, in the alternative, has never been produced as relevant) across all matters. It can also help identify missing data by providing counsel with a holistic view of what was collected in past matters from data sources. AI-based analytics tools can also help ensure data veracity on the review side within a single matter by identifying the inevitable inconsistencies that happen when humans review and categorize documents within large volumes of data (i.e., one reviewer may categorize a document differently than another reviewer who reviewed an identical or very similar document, leading to inconsistent work product). Newer analytics technology can more efficiently and accurately identify those inconsistencies during the review process so that they can be remedied early on before they cause problems. Big Data Analytics-Based MethodologiesAs shown above, AI-based big data analytics platforms can help counsel manage growing data volumes in eDiscovery.For a more in-depth look at how a cutting-edge analytics platform and big data methodology can be applied to every step of the eDiscovery process in a real-world environment, please see Lighthouse’s white paper titled “The Challenge with Big Data.” And, if you are interested in this topic or would like to talk about big data and analytics, feel free to reach out to me at KSobylak@lighthouseglobal.com.ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-reviewcloud, analytics, ai-big-data, ediscovery-process, prism, blog, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-reviewcloud; analytics; ai-big-data; ediscovery-process; prism; blogkarl sobylak

By Steven L. Clark, E-Discovery and Litigation Support Director, Dentons and John Del Piero, Vice President, LighthouseWhether your firm is just beginning to consider a move to a managed service eDiscovery model or you’re a managed service veteran, it is imperative to understand what makes this type of eDiscovery program model successful. After all, if you don’t know how to measure success, it will be difficult to know what to look for when selecting a provider, and equally as hard to monitor the quality of the services provided once you have selected one.However, measuring success can be complex. There are many different metrics that could be used to measure success and each may be of a varying level of importance to different firm stakeholders, as the priorities of these stakeholders will be determined by their particular role and focus. However, a successful managed service partnership can be based on a foundation of six core pillars. These pillars can be used as guideposts when evaluating whether a managed service partner will truly add value to a law firm’s eDiscovery process.Pillar 1: Access to Best-of-Breed Technology and Teams of Experts to Help Leverage ItA managed service partnership should always make a law firm (and its clients) feel like the best eDiscovery technology is right at their fingertips. But more than that, a successful managed service relationship should enable a law firm to stay technologically agile, while lowering technology costs.For example, if an eDiscovery tool or platform becomes obsolete or outdated, the firm’s managed service partner should be able to quickly move the firm to better technology, with little cost to the firm. In other words, in a successful managed service partnership, gone are the days where a litigation support team was stuck using an obsolete platform simply because the law firm purchased an enterprise license for that technology. Rather, the managed service partner should bear the cost burden of leveraging continuously evolving technology because the partner can easily spread that technological risk across its client base. In assuming this burden, the managed services partner ultimately provides law firms much greater flexibility in terms of leveraging the most appropriate technology to meet their clients’ needs.In addition to simply providing access to the best technology, a successful managed service partnership should also provide teams of experts who are wholly dedicated to helping law firms leverage that technology for optimal impact. These experts should be continuously vetting new applications and technology upgrades, enabling litigation support teams to stay up to date on evolving applications and tools. These teams will also be able to create and test customized workflows that enable law firms to handle how data flows through technically robust collaborative platforms like Microsoft Teams or Slack, as well as keep firms apprised of any updates to cloud-based platforms that may affect existing eDiscovery workflows.This type of devoted technological expertise and guidance can provide firms a significant competitive boost, as internal litigation support teams rarely have the resources available to devote staff solely to testing new technology and building customized workflows.Pillar 2: A Scalable and More Diversified eDiscovery Team In comparison to a traditional law firm litigation support team which, naturally, is somewhat static in size, a successful managed service relationship allows law firm teams to quickly and seamlessly scale up or down, depending on case needs. For example, when a large matter comes in, a managed service provider should have the ability to quickly pull a project manager in to help manage the case while the internal law firm team still retains day-to-day control of the matter. This alleviates the firm from having to choose between hiring additional staff (only to be faced with too big of a team once the larger matter ends) or outsourcing the case to an external, inflexible eDiscovery provider (where the firm may be unable to retain full control of the matter and will undoubtedly have to adapt to different processes and workflows).A managed service partner’s bench should also be deep, allowing a law firm to pull from a diverse pool of expertise. Whether the law firm needs a review workflow expert or a processing expert, an analytics expert or a migration and normalization expert, a quality managed service provider should be able to swiftly provide someone who knows the teams involved and has the qualifications and technological background to ensure that all stakeholders trust their expertise and guidance.Pillar 3: eDiscovery Expertise 24/7/365A managed service provider should not only provide law firms with top-notch eDiscovery expertise but also provide access to that expertise whenever it is needed. Unfortunately, most litigation support teams are all too familiar with the fact that eDiscovery is almost never a 9 to 5 job. The nature of litigation today means that a Monday production deadline involving a terabyte of data may be doled out by a judge on a Friday morning, or that data for a pressing production may arrive at 9:00 p.m. The list of eDiscovery off-hour emergencies is somewhat endless.Unfortunately, most internal litigation support teams at law firms are located in one geographic area (and therefore, one time zone), meaning that even when internal teams have the required expertise, they may not have those resources available when they’re needed.A quality managed service partner, however, will be able to provide resources whenever they are needed because it can structure its hiring and team assignments with team members located across multiple time zones. Access to full-time eDiscovery expertise and coverage enables law firms to swiftly handle any eDiscovery task with ease, with no permanent increase in staffing overhead.Pillar 4: Less Talent Acquisition RiskA successful managed service relationship should also significantly lower law firm risk related to talent acquisition and training. While hiring in today’s job climate may seem like a simple task, the cost of sufficiently vetting candidates and then providing the appropriate training can be incredibly time consuming and expensive.If law firm vetting misses a candidate red flag or even if a candidate just needs more training than expected, staffing costs and time expenses can skyrocket even further. For example, the task of having to substantially re-train a new hire from the ground up can take up the valuable time of other internal experts. In this way, even the most routine hire can often slow productivity and lower the morale of the entire internal team (at least in the short term) until the hire can be fully integrated into the department’s daily workflow.In a successful managed service relationship, however, the law firm can transfer those types of hiring and training risks directly to the provider. The managed service provider is already continuously evaluating, vetting, and training talent across different geographies in order to hire the best eDiscovery experts. Law firms can simply reap the benefit of this process by partnering with the service provider and leveraging that talent once the vetting and training process has been completed.Pillar 5: Lower Staffing Overhead To put it simply, all of the above means that moving to a managed service model should allow a law firm to significantly lower its overhead costs related to staffing and management. In addition to taking on the hiring risks, a managed service provider should also take on much of the overhead related to maintaining staff. From payroll, to benefits, to overtime costs, a quality managed service provider handles those costs and time expenses for their own on-staff experts, leaving the law firm free to reap the benefits of on-demand expertise without the staffing overhead costs.Pillar 6: Better Billing MechanicsMost law firms are not set up to bill eDiscovery services efficiently. eDiscovery billing has evolved over the last few years, and a quality managed service provider should be following suit and offering simplified, predictable cost models in order for law firms to pass that predictability on to their clients. This kind of simplified pricing enables all parties to understand exactly how much they are going to spend for the eDiscovery services provided. However, this billing structure differs significantly from the way traditional legal work is billed out, and most law firms’ billing infrastructures have not evolved to offer the same level of predictability or cost certainty. This is where a quality managed service provider can provide another benefit, by heavily investing its own resources into building out automated reporting, ticketing, and billing systems that can generate proformas and integrate into the firm’s existing billing systems.If a managed service provider can take care of these billing tasks, law firm teams can spend more time in furtherance of client work, rather than devoting resources into eDiscovery billing metrics and workarounds.SummaryAccess to and expertise in appropriate technology, flexible staffing models, lower overhead, and simplified pricing are the six pillars of a successful managed service partnership in a law firm setting. When all six of these pillars are in place, the managed service partnership will result in more satisfied internal and external law firm customers and an increasing caseload year after year. For more information or to discuss this topic, reach out to us at info@lighthouseglobal.com.legal-operations; ediscovery-reviewmanaged-services, blog, law-firm, legal-operations, ediscovery-reviewmanaged-services; blog; law-firmlighthouse

Most of you are pretty familiar with using website chatbots in your daily lives – whether to assist in your online banking or to help with a product issue. But what if you went to report sexual harassment at work and you were greeted by a chatbot? That may seem a little unusual, however, there are a couple of advantages to this approach, including a better customer service experience for internal customers and allowing the compliance professionals to take on more complex work. For several years the legal and compliance industry discussions around chatbots have focused on how law firms can use chatbots. In this blog, I will focus on three ways in-house legal and compliance departments should use them to their advantage.1. As a legal intake tool.A common challenge for legal departments is how to intake matters and manage the work in the legal department. Legal operations teams are always looking for ways to understand what people are doing and how to make the process more efficient. There is a lot of discussion on how forms and/or workflow tools can be leveraged to solve this issue – and they are very helpful – but you can take this one step further with a chatbot. When someone inside your organization comes to the legal team, you can have a chatbot gather basic, or even more detailed, information about what they need. You can train a chatbot to understand the category of their need – advice, contract, patent, litigation, eDiscovery – and then take them through a series of questions to better understand the need. You can then even have the request routed through your workflow tool so it gets assigned to the right person (e.g., assigned to an attorney, a paralegal, or an eDiscovery project manager). As your chatbot gets familiar with the questions, you can have it ask deeper questions and take the request even further.2. To answer common legal questions.Legal departments tend to run lean. As a former general counsel who still speaks with a lot of legal department leaders, I know these leaders are always looking for ways to do more with less (or the same). They want to ensure their teams are spending time on substantive legal issues and not answering common questions that come up and can be handled differently. For example, answering questions about where to find the sexual harassment training or how to send over or sign a standard NDA, are questions that come into the legal department and lawyers spend their time answering them. These questions could easily be answered by a chatbot trained with common questions. This would provide a better user experience because the information is shared instantaneously with the user and it also frees up time for legal resources to spend their time on more unique issues. Finally, legal team members also feel more productive and engaged because their time isn’t being spent on more administrative tasks!3. In place of a hotline.This is one of the more unique use cases I have heard recently but it makes a lot of sense. Compliance hotlines work well because of the anonymity available but there is not an opportunity to share information back with the person reporting. For example, the person reporting an incident may want to know what the next steps might be, where they can find a certain policy, or where they can find additional resources. None of that is available via a hotline or even a form. With a chatbot, however, you can keep the anonymity but mimic a more personal conversation where additional resources can be shared. As shared on the Women in Compliance podcast, one organization has trained chatbots to be their first line of intake and support on sexual harassment complaints. The internal response has been very positive.legal-operationscompliance-and-investigations, legal-ops, blog, legal, legal-operations,compliance-and-investigations; legal-ops; blog; legallighthouse

Whether it’s called DIY eDiscovery, SaaS eDiscovery, or self-service, spectra eDiscovery, one thing is clear—everyone in the legal world is interested in putting today’s technologies to work for them to get more done with less. It’s a smart move, given that many legal teams are facing an imbalance between needs and resources. As in-house legal budgets are being slashed, actual workloads are increasing.Now more than ever, legal teams need to ensure they’re choosing and using the right tools to effectively manage dynamic caseloads—a future-ready solution capable of supporting a broad range of case types at scale. Given the variety of options on the market, it’s understandable there’s some uncertainty about what to pursue, let alone what to avoid. Below, I have outlined guidance to help your legal team navigate the top three potential pitfalls encountered when seeking a self-service, spectra eDiscovery solution.1. Easy vs. PowerfulThere are a lot of eDiscovery solutions out there making bold promises, but many still force users to choose between ease of use and full functionality. While a platform may be simple to learn and navigate, it may fail to offer advanced features like AI-driven analysis and search, for example.Think of it like the early days of cell phones, when we were forced to choose between a classic brick-style device or a new-to-market smartphone. Older phones were easy to use, offering familiar capabilities like calling and text exchange, while newer smartphones provided impressive, previously unknown functionalities but came with a learning curve. With the advancement of technology, today’s device buyers can truly have it all at hand—a feature-rich mobile phone delivered in an intuitive user experience.The same is true for dynamic eDiscovery solutions. You shouldn’t have to choose between power and simplicity. Any solution your team considers should be capable of delivering best-in-class technology over one simple, single-pane interface.2. Short-Term Thinking vs. Long-Term Gains As organizations move to the seemingly unlimited data storage capacities of cloud-based platforms and tools, legal teams are facing a landslide of data. Even the smallest internal investigation may now involve hundreds of thousands of documents. And with remote working being the new global norm, this trend will only continue to grow. Legal teams require eDiscovery tools that are capable of scaling to meet any data demand at every stage of the eDiscovery process.When evaluating an eDiscovery solution, keep the future in mind. The solution you select should be capable of managing even the most complex case using AI and advanced analytics—intelligent functionality that will allow your team to efficiently cull data and gain insights across a wide variety of cases. Newer AI technology can aggregate data collected in the past and analyze its use and coding in previous matters—information that can help your team make data-driven decisions about which custodians and data sources contain relevant information before collection. It also offers the ability to re-use past attorney work product, allowing you to save valuable time by immediately identifying junk data, attorney-client privilege, and other sensitive information.3. Innovation vs. UpkeepThanks to the DIY eDiscovery revolution, your organization no longer has to devote budget and IT resources to upkeeping a myriad of hardware and software licenses or building a data security program to support that technology. Seek a trusted solution provider that can take on that burden with development and security programs (with the requisite certifications and attestations to prove it). This should include routine technology assessment and testing, as well as using an approach that doesn’t disrupt your ongoing work.As you’re asked to do more with less, the right cloud-based eDiscovery platform can ensure your team is able to meet the challenge. By avoiding the above pitfalls, you’ll end up with a solution that’s able to stand up against today’s most complex caseloads, with powerful features designed to improve workflow efficiency, provide valuable insights, and support more effective eDiscovery outcomes.If you’re interested in moving to a DIY eDiscovery solution, check out my previous blog series on self-service, spectra eDiscovery for corporations, including how to select a self-service, spectra eDiscovery platform, tips for self-service, spectra eDiscovery implementation, and how self-service, spectra eDiscovery can make in-house counsel life easier. ediscovery-review; ai-and-analyticsself-service, spectra, ediscovery-process, corporation, prism, blog, spectra, corporate, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analyticsself-service, spectra; ediscovery-process; corporation; prism; blog; spectra; corporatelighthouse