Insights

eDiscovery is currently undergoing a fundamental sea change, including how we think about data governance and the EDRM. Linear review and older analytic tools are quickly becoming outdated and unable to handle modern datasets, i.e., eDiscovery datasets that are not only more voluminous than ever before, but also more complicated – emanating from an ever-evolving list of new data sources and steeped in variety of text and non-text-based languages (foreign language, slang, emojis, video, etc.).Fortunately, technological advancements in AI have led to a new class of eDiscovery tools that are purpose built to handle “big data.” These tools can more accurately identify and classify responsiveness, privileged, and sensitive information, parse multiple formats, and even provide attorneys with data insights gleaned from an organization’s entire legal portfolio.This is great news for legal practitioners who are faced with reviewing and analyzing these more challenging datasets. However, evaluating and selecting the right AI technology can still present its own unique hurdles and complexities. The intense purchasing process can raise questions like: Is all AI the same? If not, what is the difference between AI-based tools? What features are right for my organization or firm? And once I’ve found a tool I like, how do I make the case for purchasing it to my firm or organization?These are all tough questions and can lead you down a rabbit hole of research and never-ending discussions with technology and eDiscovery vendors. However, the right preparation can make a world of difference. Leveraging the below steps will help you simplify the process, obtain answers to your fundamental questions, and ultimately select the right technology that will help you overcome your eDiscovery challenges and up level your eDiscovery program.1. Familiarize Yourself with Subsets of AI in eDiscoveryNewer AI technology is significantly better at tackling today’s modern eDiscovery datasets than legacy technology. It can also provide legal teams with previously unheard-of data insights, improving efficiency and accuracy while enabling more data-driven strategic decisions. However, not all technology is the same – even if technology providers tend to generally refer to it all as “AI.” There are many different subsets of AI technology, and each may have vastly different capabilities and benefits. It’s important to understand what subsets of AI can provide the benefits you’re looking for, and how those different technology subsets can work together. For example, Natural Language Processing (NLP) enables an AI-based tool to understand text the same way that humans understand it – thus providing much more accurate classifications results – while AI tools that leverage deep learning technology together with NLP are better able to handle large and complex datasets more efficiently and accurately. Other subsets of AI give tools the ability to re-use data across matters as well as across entire legal portfolios. Learning more about each subset and the capability and benefits they can provide before talking to eDiscovery vendors will give you the knowledge base necessary to narrow down the tools that will meet your specific needs. 2. Learn How to Measure AI ROIAs a partner to human reviewers, advanced AI tools can provide a powerful return on investment (ROI). Understanding how to measure this ROI will enable you to ask the right questions during the purchasing process to ensure that you select a tool that aligns with your organization or law firm’s priorities. For example, if your team struggles with review accuracy when utilizing your current tools and workflows, you’ll want to ensure that the tool you purchase is quantifiably more accurate at classifying documents for responsiveness, privilege, sensitive information, etc. The same will be true for other ROI metrics that are important to your team, such as lower overall eDiscovery spend or increased review efficiency.These metrics will also help you build a strong business case to purchase your chosen tool once you’ve selected it, as well as a verifiable way to confirm the tool is performing the way you want it to after purchase.3. Come Prepared with a List of QuestionsIt’s easy to get swept up in conversations about tools and solutions that end without the metrics you need. A simple way to control the conversation and ensure you walk away with the information you need is to prepare a thorough list of questions that reflect your priorities. Also be sure to have a method to record each vendor’s response to your questions. A list of standard questions will keep conversations more productive and provide a way to easily contrast and compare the technology you’re evaluating. Ensure that you also ask for quantifiable metrics and examples to back up responses, as well as references from clients. This will help you verify that vendor responses are backed by data and evidence.4. Know the Pitfalls of AI Adoption—and How to Avoid ThemIt won’t matter how much you understand AI capabilities, whether you’ve asked the right questions, or whether you understand how to measure ROI, if you don’t know how to avoid common AI pitfalls. Even the best technology will fail to return the desired results if it’s not implemented properly or effectively. For example, there are some workflows that work best with advanced AI, while other workflows may fail to return the best results possible. Knowing this type of information ahead of time will help you get your team on board early, ensure a smooth implementation, and enable you to unlock the full potential of the technology.These tips will help you better prepare for the AI purchasing process. For more information, be sure to download our guide to buying AI. This comprehensive guide offers a deep dive into tips and tactics that will help you fully evaluate potential eDiscovery AI tools to ensure you select the best tool for your needs. The guide can also be used to reevaluate your current AI and analytic eDiscovery tools to confirm you’re using the best available technology to meet today’s eDiscovery challenges.lighting-the-way-for-review; ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-review; lighting-the-path-to-better-review; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryreview, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-reviewreview; ai-big-data; blogai-analyticssarah moran

For years, general counsel have weighed the pros and cons of doing a task internally versus sending the work to outside counsel – this is not a new dichotomy. What is newer, however, is the proliferation of technology available for legal and the business savvy now being applied to internal legal departments. This has opened up more choices for legal departments. First, you have to figure out whether you can apply technology, then whether you should build or buy that technology, and finally if you should outsource any portion of the process.Before you start down the path of buy vs. build vs. outsource, I would recommend assessing your department’s offerings. In the earlier parts of this series, I outline how you can do that. Once you understand your services and your gaps, you can better determine where you may need to apply build vs. buy decisions. Whether you are a general counsel or a legal operations professional, this blog will outline four key aspects to include in your framework as you make these decisions.1. Problem/Solution ListStart with a list of services your company needs and possible solutions. If you followed the productization process, you will have a good list. If you have not yet done this, you can at least jot down a list of your company’s legal needs, how pervasive and urgent they are, whether they further the company strategy, as well as any potential solutions.Next, order that list from most pervasive to least pervasive. Where there is a tie, look to the problem’s relationship to company strategy.Next, work through all of the items in box A. You want to be able to answer the following questions:Is there an existing solution?Is there a software solution that may apply?What are the costs/benefits of all possible solutions?Is there typically urgency around the request?All other things being equal, do we have the expertise to handle this in house?If you have gaps in A, B, or C, I would recommend addressing those before process improvement items.2. Cost-Benefit AnalysisNext, for any change (either addressing a gap or a process improvement) you should do a cost-benefit/return on investment analysis. Note that if you are just trying to get a sense of which problem on your list to address, you can do a high-level analysis by categorizing the solutions into low, medium, or high financial impact. If, however, you are getting to the point of suggesting a change internally and asking for budget, you want to do a much more in-depth quantitative analysis. On the benefit side, you want to consider any revenue acceleration for the company (e.g., customers’ revenue hits a quarter earlier) as well as costs reduced and avoided (e.g. outside counsel fees). If there are other quantifiable benefits, you should include them as well. On the expense side, make sure to consider licensing, annual maintenance, user fees, implementation, infrastructure, training, hourly support/expert charges, and any ongoing costs. You should predict these benefits and costs for the next 3 years, as that is a common period to see whether there is a return on your investment. You can also prepare a version of this document showing the same cost/benefit of building the solution internally as well as outsourcing it to outside counsel.3. Additional Factors: Urgency and ExpertiseOnce you have the cost-benefit analysis for the various solutions, you usually have a preferred direction. However, don’t forget to account for time and expertise. You should then consider how urgent the requests are. The more urgent a request, the more likely it should be handled by technology or outsourced, as those solutions typically can bring more resources to bear. You should then consider expertise. More specifically, does one need specific knowledge about the company to solve this problem or will there be a lot of need to liaise internally? If so, the solution should likely stay with the internal corporate legal department. Conversely, does this require niche expertise and is it better handled by an outside counsel with that expertise? Make notes of these considerations with your cost-benefit analysis, as these factors can sway a decision in one direction or another.4. Decision TimeUltimately, making these decisions is more of an art than a science. They are also decisions that can and should be revisited as things change in your business and legal department. The above should give you the right information to make an informed decision. Ultimately, you will want to share your decision with others and get input before finalizing a direction.By following the productization process, orienting your solutions towards your customers, streamlining how you deliver services, and applying the right sets of resources through build versus buy decisions, your legal department will operate more efficiently. legal-operationslegal-ops, blog, legal-operations,legal-ops; bloglighthouse

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

Artificial intelligence (AI), advanced analytics, and machine learning are no longer new to the eDiscovery field. While the legal industry admittedly trends towards caution in its embrace of new technology, the ever-growing surge of data is forcing most legal professionals to accept that basic machine learning and AI are becoming necessary eDiscovery tools.However, the constant evolution and improvement of legal tech bestow an excellent opportunity to the forward-thinking eDiscovery legal professional who seeks to triumph over the growing inefficiencies and ballooning costs of older technology and workflow models. Below, we’ll provide you with arguments to pull from your quiver when you need to convince Luddites that leveraging the most advanced AI and analytics solutions can give your organization or law firm a competitive and financial advantage, while also reducing risk.Argument 1: “We already use analytical and AI technology like Technology Assisted Review (TAR) when necessary. Why bring on another AI/analytical tool?”Solutions like TAR and other in-case analytical tools remain worthwhile for specific use cases (for example, standalone cases with massive amounts of data, short deadlines, and static data sets). However, more advanced analytical technology can now be used to provide incredible insight into a wider variety of cases or even across multiple matters. For example, newer solutions now have the ability to analyze previous attorney work product across a company’s entire legal portfolio, giving legal teams unprecedented insight into institutional challenges like identifying attorney-client privilege, trade secret information, and irrelevant junk data that gets pulled into cases and re-reviewed time and time again. This gives legal teams the ability to make better decisions about how to review documents on new matters.Additionally, new technology has become more powerful, with the ability to run multiple algorithms and search within metadata, where older tools could only use single algorithms to search text alone. This means that newer tools are more effective and efficient at identifying critical information such as privileged communications, confidential information, or protected personal information. In short, printing out roadmap directions was advanced and useful at the time, but we’ve all moved on to more efficient and reliable methods of finding our way.Argument 2: “I don’t understand this technology, so I won’t use it” This is one of the easiest arguments to overcome. A good eDiscovery solution provider can offer a myriad of options to help users understand and leverage the advances in analytics and AI to achieve the best possible results. Whether you want to take a hands-off approach and have a team of experts show you what is possible (“Here are a million documents. Show me all the documents that are very likely to be privileged by next week”), or you want to really dive into the technology yourself (“Show me how to use this tool so that I can delve into the privilege rate of every custodian across multiple matters in order to effectuate a better overall privilege review strategy”), a quality solution provider should be able to accommodate. Look for providers that offer training and have the ability to clearly explain how these new technologies work and how they will improve legal outcomes. Your provider should have a dedicated team of analytics experts with the credentials and hands-on experience to quell any technology fears. Argument 3: “This technology will be too expensive.”Again, this one should be a simple argument to overcome. The efficiencies that the effective use of AI and analytics achieve can far outweigh the cost to use it. Look for a solution provider that offers a variety of predictable pricing structures, like per gig pricing, flat fee, fees generated by case, fees generated across multiple cases, or subscription-based fees. Before presenting your desired solution to stakeholders, draft your battle plan by preparing a comparison of your favored pricing structure vs. the cost of performing a linear review with a traditional pricing structure (say, $1 per doc). Also, be sure to identify and outline any efficiencies a more advanced analytical tool can provide in future cases (for example, the ability to analyze and re-use past attorney work product). Finally, when battling against risk-averse stakeholders, come armed with a cost/benefit analysis outlining all of the ways in which newer AI can mitigate risk, such as by enabling more accurate and consistent work product, case over case.ai-and-analyticsanalytics, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics,analytics; ai-big-data; 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

Discovery in litigation or investigations invariably leads to concerns over protection of privileged information. With today’s often massive data volumes, locating email and documents that may contain legal advice or other confidential information between an attorney and client that may be privileged can be a needles-in-a-haystack exercise. There is little choice but to put forth best efforts to find the needles.Whether it’s dealing with thousands (or millions) of documents, emails, and other forms of electronically stored information, or just a scant few, identifying privileged information and creating a sufficient privilege log can be a challenge. Getting it right can be a headache — and an expensive one at that. But get it wrong and your side can face time-consuming and costly motion practice that doesn’t leave you on the winning end. A look at past mishaps may be enlightening as a reminder that this is a nuanced process that deserves serious attention.Which Entity Is Entitled to Privilege Protection?A strong grasp of what constitutes privileged content in a matter is important. Just as important? Knowing who the client is. It may seem obvious, but history suggests that sometimes it is not; especially when an in-house legal department or multiple entities are involved.Consider the case of Estate of Paterno v. NCAA. The court rejected Penn State’s claim of privilege over documents Louis Freeh’s law firm generated during an internal investigation. Why? Because Penn State wasn’t the firm’s client. The firm’s engagement letter said it was retained to represent the Special Investigations Task Force that Penn State formed after Pennsylvania charged Jerry Sandusky with several sex offenses. There was a distinct difference between the university and its task force.The lesson? Don’t overlook the most fundamental question of who the client is when considering privilege.The Trap of Over-Designating DocumentsWhat kind of content involving the defined client(s) is privileged? This can be a tough question. You can’t claim privilege for every email or document a lawyer’s name is on, especially for in-house counsel who usually serve both a business and legal function. A communication must be confidential and relate to legal advice in order to be considered privileged.Take Anderson v. Trustees of Dartmouth College as an example. In this matter, a student was expelled in a disciplinary action filed suit against Dartmouth. Dissatisfied with what discovery revealed, the student (representing himself) filed a motion to compel, asking the judge to conduct an in camera review of what Dartmouth had claimed was privileged information. The court found that much of the information being withheld for privilege did not, in fact, constitute legal advice, and that Dartmouth’s privilege claim exceeded privilege’s intended purpose.Dartmouth made a few other unfortunate mistakes. It labeled entire email threads privileged instead of redacting the specific parts identified as privileged. It also labeled every forwarded or cc’ed email the in-house counsel’s name was on as privileged without proving the attorney was acting as a legal advisor. To be sure, the ability to identify only the potentially privileged parts of an email thread — which could include any number of direct, forwarded and cc’d recipients and an abundance of inclusive yet non-privileged content — is not an easy task, but unfortunately, it is a necessary one.The lesson? If the goal of discovery is to get to the truth — foundational in American jurisprudence — courts are likely to construe privilege somewhat narrowly and allow more rather than fewer documents to see the light of day. In-house legal departments must be especially careful in their designations given the flow and volume of communications related to both business and legal matters, and sometimes the distinction is difficult to make.Be Ready to Back Up Your ClaimNo matter how careful you are during the discovery process, the other party might challenge your claim of privilege on some documents. “Because we said so” (aka ipse dixit) is not a compelling argument. In LPD New York, LLC v. adidas America, Inc, adidas claimed certain documents were privileged. When challenged, adidas’ response was to say LPD’s position wasn’t supported by law. The court said: Not good enough. Adidas had the burden to prove the attorney-client privilege applied and respond to LPD’s position in a meaningful way.The lesson? For businesses, be prepared to back up a privilege claim that an in-house lawyer was acting in their capacity as a legal advisor before claiming privilege.A Protection Not Used Often Enough: Rule 502(d)Mistakes do happen, however, and sometimes the other party receives information they shouldn’t through inadvertent disclosure. With the added protection of a FRE 502(d) order, legal teams are in a strong position to protect privileged information and will be in good shape to get that information back. Former United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, renowned in eDiscovery circles, is a well-known advocate of this order.The rule says, “A federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court — in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.”Without a 502(d) order in place, a mistake usually means having to go back and forth with your opponent, arguing the elements under 502(b). If you’re trying to claw back information, you have to spend time and money proving the disclosure was inadvertent, that you took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and you promptly took steps to rectify the error. It’s an argument you might not win.Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated is a good example. In 2018, Apple lost its attempt to claw back certain documents it mistakenly handed over to Qualcomm during discovery in a patent lawsuit. The judge found Apple didn’t meet the requirements of 502(b). Had Apple established a 502(d) order to begin with, 502(b) might not have come into play at all.The lesson? Consider Judge Peck’s admonition and get a 502(b) order to provide protection against an inadvertent privilege waiver.Advances in Privilege IdentificationLuckily, gone are the days where millions of documents have to be reviewed by hand (or eyes) alone. Technological tools and machine learning algorithms can take carefully constructed privilege instructions and find potentially privileged information with a high degree of accuracy, reducing the effort that lawyers must expend to make final privilege calls.Although automation doesn’t completely take away the need for eyes on the review process, the benefits of machine learning and advanced technology tools are invaluable during a high-stakes process that needs timely, accurate results. Buyer beware however, such methods require expertise to implement and rigorous attention to quality control and testing. When you’re able to accurately identify privileged information while reducing the stress of creating a privilege log that will hold up in court, you lessen the risk of a challenge. And if a challenge should come, you have the data to back up your claims.ai-and-analyticsprivilege, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics,privilege; ai-big-data; bloglighthouse

A good discovery strategy goes beyond complying with production obligations. When preparing for discovery matters, law firms and legal corporate departments most often focus on developing a compliant and cost-effective responsive review capability with the appropriate expert personnel, technology, and workflows. After all, once in place, a tested responsive review capability can provide legal counsel the cost predictability, security, and control needed to focus on legal strategy early on in large litigation matters.Yet, while it is necessary to develop a reliable in-house or managed responsive review capability for document-intensive litigation, being ready for the demands of modern day discovery extends beyond complying with production obligations. Most notably, the work of fact-finding often continues well after production, and introduces its own unique complexities and opportunities requiring special tactical attention.Responsive review and finding key documents require different workflows. There is a substantive difference between identifying what is responsive for production versus honing in on the key information that ultimately decides a case or investigation. While responsive review focuses on compliance with negotiated and documented requests for production, targeted fact-finding focuses on legal hypothesis-testing and story development in an actively changing and open-ended context.As such, the mix of skills, technologies, and workflows required for responsive review does not necessarily extend beyond the production phase. Honing in on key documents and dispositive information buried in large data sets requires tactical agility and adaptation that efficient responsive review approaches limit by design in order to achieve production compliance at scale.Targeted fact-finding requires an iterative process and an expert team.A common need shared across fact-finding case teams is quick identification of key documents to help develop a robust and coherent fact-based narrative. Rather than casting a broad net to look for similarities among documents as you would do in a responsive review, fact-finding teams require an ability to sleuth through large data sets in order to identify key players, reveal hidden connections between them, and establish an overall picture and timeline of what happened.More specifically, rather than leveraging linear review workflows—even those optimized by technology-assisted review (TAR)—targeted fact-finding is best supported by iterative workflows in which attorneys and discovery experts deeply familiar with the case conduct tailored interrogations of the data to find the information that will best help with developing the case team’s understanding of the matter.Broaden the notion of discovery for better preparedness. Limiting discovery preparedness to achieving scalable responsive review gives short-shrift to developing a capacity for targeted fact-finding. Broadening the notion of discovery preparedness to include fact-finding means reassessing your discovery capabilities beyond production-oriented questions, such as what number of documents will require eyes-on review or what level of accuracy can be achieved. It makes sense to make more qualitative, legal expert-based assessments such as: Have we been able to uncover the full extent of the relevant fact pattern? How confident are we that we have connected the dots regarding who acted improperly and who had knowledge of it?To answer these sorts of questions, senior members of the litigation team need to be actively informed at a granular level regarding fact-finding approaches and outcomes. A robust and effective fact-finding function can provide a critical advantage in not only witness and trial preparation, but also in early case assessment, internal investigations, and government subpoenas, increasingly important discovery contexts to consider in light of increased regulatory, shareholder, and public scrutiny of corporate fraud and wrong-doing.For more on fact-finding, see: eDiscovery for Investigations: Different Goal, Different Approach. ediscovery-reviewblog, ediscovery-reviewbloglighthouse

The overall impacts of COVID-19 are widespread and still very uncertain. The Law & Candor podcast team wanted to come together with this special edition to reflect on the current impacts and how they are affecting those the legal space and beyond.In this special edition, co-hosts Bill Mariano and Rob Hellewell, are joined by Lighthouse’s CEO, Brian McManus, to discuss his take on the industry impacts of COVID-19. The group discusses shifts in company priorities, common themes being heard throughout the industry, as well as the downstream implications this pandemic could have on the legal space by answering the following key questions:What are key company priorities?What are current employee safety priorities and items to be aware of?What is the industry saying?What will be the lasting impact of COVID-19 on the legal space?In conclusion, they share top takeaways from the episode. If you are interested in listening, click here. To join the conversation on Twitter, click here.Catch up on past seasons by clicking the links below:‍Season 1Season 2Season 3For questions regarding this podcast and its content, please reach out to us at info@lighthouseglobal.com.ediscovery-reviewcloud, self-service, spectra, cloud-security, blog, ediscovery-review,cloud; self-service, spectra; cloud-security; bloglighthouse

In a world of ever-increasing and evolving self-service, spectra models (think Amazon Go, fast food self-order kiosks, or even the self-service, spectra check in and check out at hotels), it’s no wonder the eDiscovery industry is headed in the same direction. In the last few years, new and improved SaaS eDiscovery tools have exploded onto the scene as corporations and law firms have started to embrace a self-service, spectra approach for executing the discovery work associated with both internal investigations and proper legal matters.As the historically risk-averse legal world has been slow to get on board with self-service, spectra eDiscovery models, you’re likely to still encounter objections if you ask your team to take the leap and invest in a self-service, spectra eDiscovery tool. Below, I outline the common objections I have encountered to self-service, spectra models and how you can overcome them by sharing some key value differentiators of on-demand eDiscovery tools that should persuade your team to embrace these new offerings and leave the antiquated, expensive on-prem solutions for good.Data Security Risks – The first, and potentially biggest, objection to the adoption of a self-service, spectra program often centers on concerns over data security and the associated risk. Corporations and law firms alike are concerned that self-service, spectra means cloud-based and as a result a lack of security and an increased exposure to risk. Historically, companies have been more comfortable with on-prem eDiscovery solutions because they have viewed that as meaning that they had complete control of their data without having to rely on a vendor or worry about their data being commingled with other clients’ data.However, with that control comes with a lot of risk, which can be greatly minimized by having a SaaS vendor that offers a private cloud. This private cloud can be a perfect solution because they do not have the same security concerns that are involved with the public cloud. When vetting potential SaaS partners, make sure to look for those that carry SOC 2, ISO, and HIPAA security certifications to ensure that your providers are staying up to speed on the latest security requirements.Steep Learning Curves – Oftentimes people I chat with will associate self-service, spectra with steep learning curves and lots of tedious training. This isn’t always the case.Although this may be true with some self-service, spectra solutions, but it’s important to note that not all platforms are created equal. Some solutions provide extensive functionality with a complex, hard to use, difficult to understand interface, while others strive to provide a simple interface often at the expense of functionality, while a rare few bridge the two finding that perfect blend of robust functionality and ease of use. Start the assessment into usability by understanding the true training required for the solutions you are evaluating, weigh the functionality vs. your team’s needs and skillset, talk to other users who have already adopted the solutions to validate the actual training lift, and finally showcase those findings with your team.Lack of Support – A common objection to self-service, spectra solutions is that they lack on-demand support and access to additional training and help if needed. Today’s lawyers and eDiscovery managers need to move through matters quickly and efficiently, and without access to readily-available help it frequently stalls the matter’s progress significantly. When looking into self-service, spectra solutions, choose one that offers on-demand support when, where, and how you need it. There are companies out there that offer this blend of autonomous control and augmented support and it is an easy objection to overcome if you can showcase that to your team. Minimal Flexibility – Frequently there is a hesitation to move forward with self-service, spectra due to the fear of getting stuck managing a matter in a self-service, spectra tool that could become large and/or complex and require additional help/support outside of your team’s capabilities or availability.Like I mentioned above, select a tool that also offers expert support. You can ease your team members’ worries by sharing that some self-service, spectra tools offer the ability to move from self-service, spectra to full service support when needed and scale up or down quickly.Too Pricey – The last major objection that I want to address is around the fact that many still believe self-service, spectra tools are too pricey and do not offer the ROI they need to see in order to make the switch.However, in an on-prem, behind the firewall model, there often are large up-front costs to purchase and install the technology as well as continued maintenance costs during the life of the product. In addition to the hardware costs there is the increased headcount necessary to support these platforms 24x7. With SaaS, the vendor purchases and maintains the software, as well as manages ongoing costs like upgrades and licensing. Managing an IT infrastructure and maintaining servers for eDiscovery data is a big cost for law firms and corporations often with no cost recovery mechanism. This cost burden can be greatly minimized with a SaaS solution.These top objections often come up in conversations around the adoption of a new self-service, spectra solution and I hope this blog has better prepared you to address them as you work to get your team on board. Feel free to reach out to further discuss these or other objections you may be facing at bthompson@lighthouseglobal.com.ediscovery-reviewcloud, self-service, spectra, blog, ediscovery-review,cloud; self-service, spectra; blogbrooks thompson

In this two-part series, I interview Gordon J. Calhoun, Esq. of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP about his thoughts on the state of eDiscovery within law firms today, including lessons learned and best practices to help attorneys overcome their trepidation of electronic discovery and build a better litigation practice. This second blog focuses on how attorneys within law firms can save their clients money, achieve better outcomes, and gain more repeat business once they overcome common misconceptions around eDiscovery.You mentioned earlier that you think attorneys who try to shoehorn volumes of electronic data into older workflows developed for paper discovery will likely cause attorneys to lose clients. Can you explain how? Sure. My point was that non-technological workflows often pop into the minds of attorneys because they are familiar, comfortable approaches to responding to document requests. Because they are familiar and can be initiated immediately, there is a great temptation to jump in and avoid planning and employing the expertise essential for an optimal workflow. Unfortunately, jumping in without much planning produces a result that is often unnecessarily costly to clients, particularly if the attorneys employ in-house resources (which are usually several times more costly than outsourced staff). In-house resources often regard document review and analysis as an undesirable assignment and have competing demands for their time from other projects and cases. This can result in unexpected delays in project completion and poor work product (in part because quality degrades when people are required to perform tasks they dislike). The end result is untimely, lower quality, and more costly than anticipated, which will ultimately cost the attorney their client.Clients will always gravitate towards the professional who can deliver a better, more cost-effective, and more efficient solution while avoiding motion expenses. That means that attorneys who are informed enough to use technology to save clients money on multiple cases are going to earn the trust and confidence of more and more clients. And that is the answer to the question as to what’s in it for the professional if he or she takes the time to learn about or partners with someone who already knows eDiscovery.Well, coming from a legal technology company, I agree with that sentiment. But we also tend to see attorneys from the other end of the spectrum: lawyers who understand the benefits advanced eDiscovery technology can provide, but avoid it because of fears around overhead expense and surprise fees. Have you seen this within your own practice? If so, how do you advise attorneys who may have similar feelings? I experience the same thing and, again, this type of thought process is completely understandable. When eDiscovery technologies were comparatively new, they seemed disproportionately expensive. The cost to process a GB of data could exceed $1,000, hosting charges ran into the many tens of dollars per month and there were no analytics to expedite review. When the project management service was in its infancy, too many of those providing services simply followed uninformed instructions from counsel. An instruction to process data was not met with inquiries as to whether all data collected should be processed or if an alternative should be explored when initial analysis indicated the data expansion would be unexpectedly large. Further, early case assessment (ECA) strategies utilizing only extracted text and metadata were years in the future. The only saving grace was that data volumes were miniscule compared to what they are today. But that was not enough to prevent widespread reports about massive eDiscovery vendor bills. As you might suspect, the problem was not so much the technology or even the lack thereof as it was the failure to spend the time to develop an appropriate workflow and manage the eDiscovery process so the results were cost effective. Any tips on how attorneys can overcome the remnant fear of eDiscovery “sticker shock”?This challenge can be met by research, planning, and negotiation: research into the optimal technologies and which providers are equipped to provide them, planning an appropriate workflow, and negotiation with eDiscovery platform providers to customize the offerings to the needs of your case. If you have the aptitude, consider investing some time and doing some research about eDiscovery solutions that provide predictable, transparent prices outside of the typical hourly and per-GB fee structure. A good eDiscovery platform provider should work with you to develop a fee arrangement that makes sense for your caseload and budget. There is no reason why even a small firm or individual practitioner cannot negotiate subscription-based or consumption-based fees for eDiscovery solutions the same way that forward thinking serial litigants like large corporations and insurers have. The pricing models exist and there is no reason they cannot be scaled for users with smaller demands. Under this type of arrangement, there will be no additional costs or surprise fees, which in turn will allow any practitioner to pass that price predictability on to his or her clients. Ultimately, this lower cost, increased predictability, and efficiency will enable an attorney to grow his or her book of business with repeat customers and referrals.So, if an attorney is able to negotiate an alternative fee arrangement with a legal technology provider, is that the end of the problem? Should that solve all an attorney’s eDiscovery concerns? It’s a start – but no. Even with a customized eDiscovery technology solution, part of the concern for most attorneys is the magnitude of the effort required to respond to discovery requests. On one hand, they’re faced with document requests fashioned by opposing counsel fearful of missing something that might be important unless they are massively overinclusive. They ask for each, every, and all documents and any form of electronic media that involves, concerns, or otherwise relates to 30, 50, 100, or more discrete topics. On the other hand, the attorney must reconcile this task of preserving, identifying, collecting, processing, analyzing, reviewing and producing ESI in a manner that complies with the applicable discovery laws or case specific discovery orders… all under what may be a modest budget approved by the client. This is where experience (or guidance from an experienced attorney), as well as a good eDiscovery technology provider can be a huge help. The principle that underlies a solution to the conundrum as to how to manage an overly broad discovery request with a limited budget is: proportionality. Emphasizing this principle is a major focus of the 2015 amendments to the FRCP. Got it. I think the logical follow up question to that answer is: how can attorneys attain “proportionality” in the face of ridiculous discovery requests (while also not exceeding the limited amount the client is prepared to spend)?The key to balancing these conflicting demands is insisting upon proportionality early and often. The principle needs to be addressed at a granular level with a robust understanding of the client’s data that will be the subject of opposing counsel’s discovery requests. For example, the number of custodians from whom data should be collected should not be a laundry list of everyone who might have knowledge about the issues in the case. Rather, counsel should be focused on the key players and how much data each has. The volume of data that counsel can afford to collect, process, analyze, review, and produce should depend largely on what the litigation budget is, which in turn should generally depend on the amount in controversy. There are exceptions to this rule of thumb, but this approach to proportionality needs to be raised during the initial meetings of counsel in advance of the first case management order. If the case is one where the general rule does not apply (e.g., a matter of public interest), the client should be informed immediately because the cost of litigation is likely to be disproportionate to its economic value and the client may prefer to have some other entity litigate the issue. An experienced attorney should be involved in this meet and confer process because the results of these early efforts are likely to create the foundation and guard rails for the remainder of the case. Any issues that are left to future negotiation create a potential for costs to balloon in unexpected ways. Can you dive a bit deeper into proportionality at different phases of the discovery process? Is there anything else attorneys can do to keep cost from ballooning before data is collected?As I alluded to a moment ago, one key to controlling scope and cost is to negotiate a limited number of custodians that is proportional to the value of the case. In larger cases, it will be appropriate to create tiers of custodians and limit progression into the lower tier custodians to those instances where opposing counsel make a good faith showing that additional discovery is necessary based on identifiable gaps of information rather than upon speculation about what might be found if more discovery is permitted. If opposing counsel doesn’t agree to a limited number of custodians or staging discovery in larger cases, counsel would be well advised to prepare a case management order or a protective order to keep the scope of discovery proportional to the value of the case. To be successful, an attorney and his or her technology provider will have to understand the data in the client’s possession and provide metrics and costs associated with the alternative approaches to discovery.Great advice. How about once data is collected and analysis has begun? How can attorneys keep costs within budget once they've got the data into an eDiscovery platform?Attorneys should continue to budget proportionally throughout the case. This budget will obviously include the activities identified by the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). The EDRM provides a roadmap to respond to opposing parties’ discovery requests: identifying those documents that are needed to make our case, regardless of whether opposing parties requested them; winnowing the documents identified to a subset for use in deposition preparation; drafting potentially dispositive motions; and preparing for mediation; and, if necessary, preparing for inclusion on the trial exhibit list. The EDRM was designed to help attorneys identify documents that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or relate to claims and defenses asserted in the case. In a case with 100,000 documents collected, that could easily be 10,000 to 15,000 documents. The documents considered for use in depositions, law and motion, or mediation will be a small fraction of that amount and will include a similar culling of those documents produced by other parties and third parties. Only a fraction of those will make it onto the trial exhibit list and fewer will be presented to the trier of fact.Responding to discovery and preparing the case for resolution are two very different tasks and the attorney’s budget must accommodate these two different activities. Monies must be reserved for other written discovery requests, both propounding them and responding to them, and for depositions. Because the per-GB prices for these activities are predictable, an attorney and technology provider should be able to readily determine how much information they can afford to collect and put into the eDiscovery workflow. Counsel needs to be ready to share this information with opposing parties during the early meetings of counsel. But what happens when there is just a legitimately large amount of data, even after applying all the proportionality tactics you described earlier? Counsel should only agree to look at more data than that to which the parties originally agreed if opposing counsel can show good cause to incur that time and expense. If more data needs to be analyzed, the only reliable way to avoid busting the budget is to use AI to build on the document classification that occurred during the initial round of eDiscovery activities. Counsel should take advantage of statistically defensible sampling to determine the prevalence of responsive documents in the data and cut off analysis and review when a defensible rate of recall has been achieved. The same technologies should be employed to identify documents that should not be produced, e.g., those that are privileged or contain trade secrets unrelated to the pending litigation or other data exempt from discovery – enabling counsel to reduce the amount of expensive attorney review required on a given case.By proactively managing eDiscovery proportionality and leveraging all the efficiency that modern eDiscovery platforms provide (either by developing the necessary expertise to do so or associating with an attorney who does) – any lawyer will be able to handle any discovery request in a cost-effective manner.You mentioned choosing a database and legal technology provider. Do you have any advice for attorneys on how to choose the best one to meet their needs?I won’t weigh in on specifics, but I will say this: do the necessary research or consult with someone who has. In addition to investigating the various technologies available, counsel must become familiar with a variety of pricing models for delivery of the technologies needed to respond to eDiscovery requests. Instead of treating every case as an a la carte proposition, consider moving to a subscription-based self-service eDiscovery platform solution. This allows counsel savvy with the technology to control his or her cases within the platform and manage costs in a much more granular way than is possible when using a full-service eDiscovery technology provider, without incurring additional licensing, hosting, and technology fees. With a self-service solution, a provider hosts the data within their own cloud (and thus takes on the data security, hosting, and technology fees), while counsels gain access to all the current versions of eDiscovery tools to help manage the client’s costs. It will also allow counsel to customize the platform and automate workflows to meet his or her own specific needs, so that no one is spending time and money re-inventing the wheel with every new case. A self-service solution also comes with the added benefit of being immediately available from any web browser and gives counsel the ability to transfer data into platform at the touch of a button. (This means that when a prospective client asks whether you have a solution to handle the eDiscovery component of a case, the answer will always be an immediate “yes”).What happens if counsel does not feel ready to take on all eDiscovery responsibilities in a “self-service” model?If counsel is not ready to take on full responsibility for managing the eDiscovery process but still wants the cost-savings of a self-service model, find a technology provider that offers project management services and guidance that will act as training wheels until counsel is ready to navigate the process without assistance. There are also service providers who offer flexible arrangements, where large matters can be handled by their full-service team while smaller matters or investigations can remain “self-service” and be handled directly by counsel.Those are great tips, Gordon – I couldn’t have said it better myself. Any last thoughts for attorneys related to discovery and leveraging eDiscovery technology? Thank you, it’s been a pleasure. As for last thoughts, I think it would be this: in 2021, no attorney should fear responding to eDiscovery requests. Attorneys who still have that fear need to start asking, “If the data exists electronically, can I use technology to extract what I need less expensively than if I put eyeballs on every document?” The answer is almost always, “Yes.” The next question those attorneys should ask is, “How do I go about extracting the information I need at the lowest possible cost?” The answer to that question may be unique to each attorney, and this is where I recommend doing some up-front research and preparation to identify the best technology solution before you are looking down the barrel at a tight discovery deadline.Ultimately, finding the right technology solution will enable you to meet every discovery request with confidence and ultimately grow your book of business. If you would like to discuss this topic further, please reach out to Casey at cvanveen@lighthouseglobal.com and/or Gordon Calhoun at Gordon.Calhoun@lewisbrisbois.com.ediscovery-review; ai-and-analyticsediscovery-process, blog, spectra, law-firm, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analyticsediscovery-process; blog; spectra; law-firmcasey van veen

We're excited to announce that season four of Law & Candor, the podcast wholly devoted to pursuing the legal technology revolution, is now available. Click the image below to binge season four now or keep scrolling for more details on the latest season. Co-hosts, Bill Mariano and Rob Hellewell, are back for season four of Law & Candor with six easily digestible episodes that cover a range of hot topics from cybersecurity to privilege tools. This dynamic duo, alongside industry experts, discuss the latest topics and trends within the eDiscovery, compliance, and information governance space as well as share key tips for you and your team to take away. Check out the latest season's lineup below:Emerging Data Sources: Get a Handle on eDiscovery for Collaboration Tools Myth Busters: The Managed Services Edition Legal Operations 101: Skills for SuccesseDiscovery Program Starter Pack: Uncover Key Ways to Build an Effective & Efficient eDiscovery ProgramManaging Cybersecurity in eDiscoveryTake the Mystery out of Machine Learning: Success Stories from Real-Life Examples and How Data Scientists Impact eDiscoveryEach episode is bingeable and available on your podcast platform of choice including Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, and Google. Follow the latest updates on Law & Candor by subscribing on the podcast home page and join in the conversation on Twitter. Catch up on past seasons by clicking the links below:‚ÄçSeason 1Season 2Season 3Special Edition: Impacts of COVID-19For questions regarding this podcast and its content, please reach out to us at info@lighthouseglobal.com.ediscovery-reviewcloud, cybersecurity, emerging-data-sources, cloud-security, tar-predictive-coding, ediscovery-process, legal-ops, managed-services, blog, ediscovery-review,cloud; cybersecurity; emerging-data-sources; cloud-security; tar-predictive-coding; ediscovery-process; legal-ops; managed-services; bloglighthouse

We are thrilled to announce the one-year anniversary of our Law & Candor podcast. One year, five seasons, and 30 episodes later, we are still here and wholly devoted to pursuing the legal technology revolution. Click the image to listen to season five now or scroll down for more details. Co-hosts Bill Mariano and Rob Hellewell are back for season five of Law & Candor with six easily digestible episodes that cover a range of hot topics from cloud migrations to managing DSARs. This dynamic duo, alongside industry experts, discuss the latest topics and trends within the eDiscovery, compliance, and information governance space as well as share key tips for you and your team to take away. Check out the latest season's line-up below:Achieving Information Governance Through a Transformative Cloud Migration Scaling Your eDiscovery Program: Self Service to Full Service Leveraging AI and Analytics to Detect PrivilegeEffective Strategies for Managing DSARsFacilitating a Smooth and Successful Large Review Project with Advanced AnalyticsTop Microsoft 365 Features to Leverage in Your eDiscovery ProgramEpisodes are created to be short and bingeable so that you can listen on the platform of your choice with ease. Check them out now or bookmark them to listen to later. Follow Law & Candor on Twitter to get the latest updates and join the conversation.Catch up on past seasons by clicking the links below:Season 1Season 2Season 3Season 4Special Edition: Impacts of COVID-19For questions regarding this podcast and its content, please reach out to us at info@lighthouseglobal.com.ediscovery-reviewcloud, information-governance, ai-big-data, blog, ediscovery-review,cloud; information-governance; ai-big-data; bloglighthouse

Season three of Law & Candor, the podcast wholly devoted to pursuing the legal technology revolution, is now available for your listening pleasure. Click the image below to binge season three now or keep scrolling for more details on the latest season. Law & Candor co-hosts, Bill Mariano and Rob Hellewell, have done it again. They have developed yet another riveting season of content by bringing on industry experts from AstraZeneca, Dentons, Dignity Health, Goulston & Storrs, GSK, and Lighthouse to discuss hot topics within the eDiscovery, compliance, and information governance space. Season three is filled with valuable takeaways, practical tips, and lots of banter along the way. See the season three episode lineup below:Tackling Big Data ChallengesData Privacy in a Post-GDPR World: Facing Regulators and Ensuring Compliance Through Rock-Solid Information Governance PracticeThe Future of On-Demand SaaS Software for Small Matters – A self-service, spectra Model StoryNew Efficiency Gains in TAR 2.0 and CMML RevealedHow Microsoft 365 and GDPR Are Driving a Proactive Approach to eDiscovery Across the GlobeeDiscovery Shark Tank - What’s Worth Your Investment in 2020?Each episode is bingeable and available on your podcast platform of choice including Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, and Google. Check them out now or bookmark them and listen later. Follow the latest updates on Law & Candor and join in the conversation on Twitter. Catch up on past seasons by clicking the links below:Season 1Season 2‍‍For questions regarding this podcast and its content, please reach out to us at info@lighthouseglobal.com.ediscovery-reviewmicrosoft, cloud, gdpr, self-service, spectra, data-privacy, ai-big-data, cloud-security, tar-predictive-coding, blog, ediscovery-review,microsoft; cloud; gdpr; self-service, spectra; data-privacy; ai-big-data; cloud-security; tar-predictive-coding; bloglighthouse

Lighthouse Microsoft 365 (M365) experts, John Holliday and John Collins, recently teamed up with Reed Smith to present the M365 in 5 Foundation Series on Reed Smith’s Tech Law Talks podcast. The series dives into operational considerations when rolling out M365 tools related to governance, retention, eDiscovery, and data security across a broad range of applications, from Exchange and SharePoint to all things Microsoft Teams.Check out the lineup below and click the titles of each podcast to give them a listen.M365 in 5 – Part 1: Exchange Online – Not just a mailboxDiscover the enhanced functionality of EXO, including new data types and the potential for enhanced governance.M365 in 5 – Part 2: SharePoint Online – The new file-share environmentHear about the enhanced file share and collaboration functionality in SharePoint Online, including real-time collaboration, access controls, and opportunities to control retention and deletion.M365 in 5 – Part 3: OneDrive for Business – Protected personal collaborationLearn about OneDrive for Business and how organizations can use it for personal document storage, such as giving other users access to individual documents within an individual’s OneDrive and acting as the storage location for all Teams Chats.M365 in 5 – Part 4: Teams – An introduction to collaborationListen to an introduction to Teams and how it is transforming the way organizations are working and communicating.M365 in 5 – Part 5: Teams Chats – Modern communicationsUncover the enhanced functionality of M365’s new instant messaging platform, including persistent chats, modern attachments, expressive features, and priority messaging, which enhance communication but can bring increased eDiscovery or regulatory risks.M365 in 5 – Part 6: Teams Channels – The virtual collaboration workspaceHear how Teams Channels are changing not only the way organizations work and collaborate, but also key legal and risk considerations that should be contemplated.M365 in 5 – Part 7: Teams Audio/Video (A/V) ConferencingDive into the functionality and controls of audio/video conferencing capabilities, including the integration of chats, whiteboards, translation, and transcription services.The Tech Law Talks podcast hosts regular discussions about the legal and business issues around data protection, privacy and security; data risk management; intellectual property; social media; and other types of information technology. For more information regarding the show, follow the link here: https://reedsmithtech.podbean.com.If you have questions about how to develop and maintain legal and compliance programs around M365, reach out to us at info@lighthouseglobal.com.microsoft-365; information-governancemicrosoft, blog, microsoft-365, information-governancemicrosoft; bloglighthouse

In case the complexities of corporate data weren’t creating enough turbulence to keep corporate and legal teams up at night, along comes a prolonged pandemic to really shake things up. Because now, a complex data landscape has also become a complex employee landscape.What has been dubbed the “great resignation” (approximately 38 million workers voluntarily quit their jobs in 2021) has left many companies shaken as they struggle to adapt their organizations to a reconfigured and remote workforce. With little time to plan for the risks and contingencies such a seismic shift would normally entail, companies are now playing catch-up, seeking ways to ensure proper data management, better responses to fast-moving litigation and internal investigations, and enhanced security as they grapple with offsite employees, transformative applications, and the impact of an exodus that may have caused company data to escape its bounds.These unique circumstances present a number of challenges for companies and their legal teams alike. In a webinar with Today’s General Counsel, I was pleased to join Scott McVeigh, industry principal from Onna, to discuss the ways in which many companies have been affected. We looked at the recent workplace disruption and considered the impact: What data risks have emerged or intensified? What efficiencies or advantages? What areas of the company data environment deserve renewed focus? What steps can internal teams take to help ensure that data concerns are addressed and legal imperatives met? A Shift to Remote Work Accelerates Transition to the CloudPrior to the pandemic, an estimated 20% of the U.S workforce was working remotely. By December, 2020, that number had increased to 71%. Even with offices now deemed safer as the pandemic wanes, it is anticipated that more than 51% of the U.S. workforce will continue to be remote or hybrid.The impact of this shift has already been profound, reshaping the use, format, and storage of data. As many as 81% of organizations say the pandemic accelerated their cloud timelines as they raced to engage with new tools and applications that flooded the market to accommodate the remote workforce. Online collaboration has now become the new normal, with document sharing apps, chat functionalities, and web conferencing becoming the dominant forces that underpin daily work. Enhanced Collaboration — A Mixed Blessing While this shift may have resulted in some efficiencies as more informal practices took hold, the explosion of collaborative data technologies has also created significant challenges, especially for data and records management, security, and legal teams. As a result, some important enterprise areas are ripe for renewed attention and innovation:Information governance models: The disrupted workforce has made information governance efforts more complicated—and more necessary. Remote collaboration and sharing applications mean more data in more places, making it harder for internal teams to create and maintain a cohesive vision of the data landscape to contain and control growing data volumes.Rapid data growth from both authorized and unauthorized tools and new forms of communication (think gifs, memes, and emojis) makes it easier for data to proliferate, morph, even disappear, which may call for modified or additional policies and procedures. From a data security standpoint, privacy breaches coupled with other security stressors are magnified as siloed data, a perennial problem, pressure-tests existing processes and policies.eDiscovery and preservation imperatives: In the implementation of cloud applications, preserving and collecting data in a defensible manner has not been a top priority. More tools enabling informal, dispersed, and fluid content challenge the paradigm of traditional collection and review. Where is a particular kind of data living and who controls it? Who is the custodian or author of content in shared collaborative spaces? With so many new data types, what is now the definition of a “document” or a conversation?Employee transitioning: As employees moved offsite or departed during the pandemic, company data may have gone with them — if not through malicious exfiltration, then just because HR and IT, with reduced teams as well, could not keep up with the onboarding and offboarding process. One top concern for organizations is that the lost data or IP could have gone to a competitor. Training requirements: With workers at a distance, training on company privacy, security, and preservation policies — which should be intensifying — may be taking a back seat to other business priorities impacted by the pandemic. Too, cultivating a data-sensitive culture is now more difficult with employees often untethered from the norms of company data access and storage and little to no face-to-face interaction with other employees and their own managers. Law Firms and Legal Departments Not Exempt from DisruptionTo complicate matters, as companies were transformed by the pandemic, so too were the law firms and legal departments that support them. Already in a state of flux, the legal market was highly impacted by both employee departures and the migration to remote work, relatively foreign to an entrenched in-office culture. Lack of attention to document management, often a law firm weakness, has just added fuel to the fire.The resignation-induced talent drain has likely affected workflows, adding to inefficiencies and duplicative work as corporate and legal knowledge, both in-house and outside, dissipated with the overall disruption of formerly routine processes and responsibilities. It has certainly impacted eDiscovery processes; legal professionals are still working to master the art of conducting discovery remotely from cloud-based data sources.Bucking the Trends: Take These Steps to Reduce RiskThe disrupted workplace calls for renewed diligence, nimbleness, and a certain amount of creativity on the part of internal teams responsible for data and its management. Most of all, it requires rigorous attention to potential risks exacerbated by a still-evolving landscape.Here are some important steps companies can take to reduce risk: Scrutinize what may now be a very different data landscape. As in pre-pandemic times, knowing where data resides and in what format is a big part of the battle. With new tools and cloud storage locations making everything even more complex, thinking through applications and the data they generate before they roll out can save time, effort, and grief down the line. Analyze: Who uses what applications? Where does the data go and how is it stored? Who has control over it? From an eDiscovery standpoint, with so much data in play, it pays to scale efforts to potential returns; focusing on the most-used data sources is more fruitful than “boiling the ocean.” Cultivate stakeholder partnerships. As the workforce transforms, partnerships among internal stakeholders, especially IT, compliance, data privacy, records management, and information security teams — in close coordination with business units — are more important than ever in controlling how and by whom data is created and used. Corporate silos only enhance risk, especially when workers are remote and unsanctioned applications may be proliferating. Remember, though, that data initiatives are most effective when they come from the top, especially if funding is required. Engage the C-suite as much as possible. Improve information governance capabilities. As data pools from multiple collaborative sources and cloud applications proliferate, making prior linear processes cumbersome and expensive, a shift in focus to the left side of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) makes even more sense now. With the right cloud-based tools and services, as well as good information governance models, teams can perform better upstream and reduce downstream costs.Foster a culture of data awareness and protection. Training, training, training — for both current and incoming employees — is critical. Sound policies mean nothing if employees are unaware of or don’t abide by them or don’t understand the nature of the risk they are meant to address. Educate employees on data “ownership” best practices. Encourage sound data hygiene and enhance onboarding and offboarding procedures to take data risks into account, especially those related to preservation imperatives. Remember that inbound data from new employees that works its way into the company can be just as problematic as data exfiltration. Review and, if necessary, update records management policies. Records management policies should be considered programmatically to align with the nature of the business. Reducing company exposure by updating policy gaps that may be caused by evolving privacy regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, etc.) should be a top priority for any company’s records and data management teams. Remember that training goes hand in hand with any policy changes.Engage experts where you need them. Data complexities of today, especially related to privacy and security, may require the expertise beyond that routinely found in-house. Be sure to work with providers and experts well-versed in today’s challenges.Leverage technology where possible, with expertise in mind. Various data automation tools can provide the power to import, manage, and modify records in ways never before possible. AI and categorization tools can be used to assess data in place, potentially mitigating the need for linear collection, processing, and review of data in discovery. Automated tools can enable a more managed examination of departing employee data. But technology not carefully deployed or without the right experts behind the scenes can diminish the potential benefits. Know what questions to ask. Be an informed and thoughtful user: implement wisely. If you are interested in this topic, feel free to reach out to me at dblack@lighthouseglobal.com. chat-and-collaboration-data; forensics; information-governanceemerging-data-sources, cloud-security, red-flag-reporting, departing-onboarding-employee, pii, blog, record-management, risk-management, chat-and-collaboration-data, forensics, information-governance,emerging-data-sources; cloud-security; red-flag-reporting; departing-onboarding-employee; pii; blog; record-management; risk-managementdaniel black

While the U.S. is figuring out privacy laws at the state and federal level, artificial and augmented intelligence (AI) is evolving and becoming commonplace for businesses and consumers. These technologies are driving new privacy concerns. Years ago, consumers feared a stolen Social Security number. Now, organizations can uncover political views, purchasing habits, and much more. The repercussions of data are broader and deeper than ever.Lighthouse (formerly H5) convened a panel of experts to discuss these emerging issues and ways leaders can tackle their most urgent privacy challenges in the webinar, “Everything Personal: AI and Privacy.”The panel featured Nia M. Jenkins, Senior Associate General Counsel, Data, Technology, Digital Health & Cybersecurity at Optum (UnitedHealth Group); Kimberly Pack, Associate General Counsel, Compliance, at Anheuser-Busch; Jennifer Beckage, Managing Director at Beckage; and Eric Pender, Senior Director at Lighthouse (formerly with H5); and was moderated by Sheila Mackay, Managing Director at Lighthouse (formerly with H5).While the regulatory and technology landscape continues to rapidly change, the panel highlighted some key takeaways and solutions to protect and manage sensitive data leaders should consider:Build, nurture, and utilize cross-functional teams to tackle data challengesDevelop robust and well-defined workflows to work with AI technology Understand the type and quality of data your organization collects and stores Engage with experts and thought leadership to stay current with evolving technology and regulations Collaborate with experts across your organization to learn the needs of different functions and business units and how they can deploy AI Enable your company’s innovation and growth by understanding the data, technology, and risks involved with new AIDevelop collaboration, knowledge, and cross-functional teamsWhile addressing challenges related to data and privacy certainly requires technical and legal expertise, the need for strong teamwork and knowledge sharing should not be overlooked. Nia Jenkins said her organization utilizes cross-functional teams, which can pull together privacy, governance, compliance, security, and other subject matter experts to gain a “line of sight into the data that’s coming in and going out of the organization.”“We also have an infrastructure where people are able to reach out to us to request access to certain data pools,” Jenkins said. “With that team, we are able to think through, is it appropriate to let that team use the data for their intended purpose or use?”In addition to collaboration, well-developed workflows are paramount too. Kimberly Pack explained that her company does have a formalized team that comes together on a bi-monthly basis and defined workflows that are improving daily. She emphasized that it all begins with “having clarity about how business gets done.”Jennifer Beckage highlighted the need for an organization to develop a plan, build a strong team, and understand the type and quality of the data it collects before adopting AI. Businesses have to address data retention, cybersecurity, intellectual property, and many other potential risks before taking full advantage of AI technology.Engage with internal and external experts to understand changing regulations Keeping up with a dynamic regulatory landscape requires expanding your information network. Pack was frank that it’s too much for one person to learn themselves. She relies on following law firms, becoming involved in professional organizations and forums, and connecting with privacy professionals on LinkedIn. As she continually educates herself, she creates training for various teams at her organization, including human resources, procurement, and marketing.“Really cascade that information,” said Pack. “Really try to tailor the training so that it makes sense for people. Also, try to have tools and infographics, so people can use it, pass it along. Record all your trainings because everyone’s not going to show up.”The panel discussed how their companies are using AI and whether there’s any resistance. Pack noted her organization has carefully taken advantage of AI for HR, marketing, enterprise tools, and training. She noted that providing your teams with information and assistance is key to comfort and adoption.“AI is just a tool, right?” Pack said. “It’s not good, it’s not bad.” The privacy team conducts a privacy impact assessment to understand how the business can use the technology. Then her team places any necessary limitations and builds controls to ensure the team uses the technology ethically. Pack and Jenkins both noted that the companies must proactively address potential bias and not allow automated decision-making.Evaluate the benefits and risks of AI for your organization The panel agreed organizations should adopt AI to remain competitive and meet consumer expectations. Pack pointed out the purpose of AI technology is for it to learn. Businesses adopting it now will see the benefits sooner than those that wait.Eric Pender noted advanced technologies are becoming more common for particular uses: cybersecurity breach response, production of documents, including privilege review and identifying Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and defensible disposal. Many of these tasks have tight timelines and require efficiency and accuracy, which AI provides.The risks of AI depend on the nature of the specific technology, according to Beckage. It’s each organization’s responsibility to perform a risk assessment, determine how to use the technology ethically, and perform audits to ensure the technology is working without unintended consequences.Facilitate innovation and growth It is also important to remember that in-house and outside counsel don’t have to be “dream killers” when it comes to innovation. Lawyers with a good understanding of their company’s data, technology, and ways to mitigate risk can guide their businesses in taking advantage of AI now and years down the road.Pack encouraged compliance professionals to enjoy the problem-solving process. “Continue to know your business. Be in front of what their desires are, what their goals are, what their dreams are, so that you can actively support that,” she said.Pender says companies are shifting from a reactive approach to a proactive approach, and advised that “data that’s been defensively disposed of is not a risk to the company.” Though implementing AI technology is complex and challenging, managing sensitive, personal data is achievable, and the potential benefits are enormous.Jenkins encouraged the “four B’s.” Be aware of the data, be collaborative with your subject matter experts, be willing to learn and ask tough questions of your team, and be open to learning more about the product, what’s happening with your business team, and privacy in an ever-changing landscape.Beckage closed out the webinar by warning organizations not to reinvent the wheel. While it’s risky to copy another organization’s privacy policy word for word, organizations can learn from the people in the privacy space who know what they’re doing well.ai-and-analytics; data-privacyprivilege, cybersecurity, ai-big-data, pii, blog, preservation, ai-and-analytics, data-privacyprivilege; cybersecurity; ai-big-data; pii; blog; preservationlighthouse

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

Building on our conversation from part one, we explore some practical advice and steps for achieving equity, including the role of allies, and how this work will benefit us in the future.True equity in the workplace starts from the topWhile grassroot employee efforts can be impactful, they will never be enough if diversity is not exemplified and valued at the highest levels of an organization. This means that it is not enough for leaders to verbalize a commitment to diversity and inclusion campaigns. Leaders must also back up that commitment with action: In times of economic volatility, companies can and should continue to devote a portion of their budget to equity and inclusion initiatives, and make sure these initiatives are supported by senior leadership. — Brooke OppenheimerWhen you have leadership at the top that truly values diversity and equity in all its forms— gender diversity, racial diversity, sexual orientation diversity, etc.— that priority will flow down from the leadership to the rest of company. It is incumbent on organizations to ensure their leaders are prioritizing diversity, because the rest of the organization will follow what the leadership is exemplifying. — Ashley BaynhamWhen you have strong leadership serving in the capacity of championing equity in the workplace on a day-to-day basis, it not only sets a tone and expectation across the organization that diversity is top of mind, but it becomes seamless to follow in their footsteps. —Jeannie E. FarrenThis means that, in order to become truly equitable, organizations have a duty to break up inequitable leadership structures. Historically in corporate America, we have seen an abundance of white, hetero, male leaders in positions of power. It’s hard to think of achieving true equity within the legal industry if that power structure at the top is not diverse. To make that change, it becomes incumbent on those leaders to stand up and say, “I want to lead an organization that doesn’t just resemble me. I want to lead an organization that more strongly resembles this country as whole.” —Michelle Six Lack of gender diversity in certain roles perpetuates existing biases, leading to inadequate representation in leadership positions. —Brooke OppenheimerThis duty also applies to individual leaders. Leaders have a responsibility to not only leave the door open for women and other underrepresented groups, but also to proactively help diversify inequitable power structures:If you are fortunate enough to be trusted to be in a leadership role within your organization, you have an ongoing responsibility to continuously assess how you are applying fairness across the team on a day-to-day basis. Look around your team and make sure that the “shiny” opportunities are being spread evenly across the team and that the women on your team are being provided with the chance to be in the spotlight as often as possible. — Jeannie E. FarrenThat idea leads directly to an essential point about the power of allies…Allies are integral to the fight for gender equityTrue gender equity cannot be achieved by women alone. Equity can only be achieved when women and allies come together to support individual women and push for progress, together. If you are surrounded by people in your (personal and professional) life who share a common goal as important as equity for all, you have already accomplished one of the most difficult hurdles. — Jeannie E. FarrenBecause of longstanding historical and systemic gender inequities, our allies are often in a better position within an organization to effect real change. It is therefore imperative that allies remain vigilant, proactive, and unafraid to call out gender biases and inequities when they occur. As an ally, stay cognizant of some of the ways that unconscious or conscious gender bias can play out in the workplace. For example, if you see someone cutting off a colleague in a meeting, speak up. It becomes very hard to constantly have to champion yourself or work to overcome those gender biases on our own. And for women, there’s always a concern that championing yourself comes off as self-promotion. That’s where a third party may be in a better position to stand up and raise their voice as ally. So, my advice for allies would be: Speak up, in the moment that your voice is needed.” — Ashley BaynhamTo help facilitate this, organizations committed to diversity and inclusion can put systems in place that make it easier for individuals and allies to report instances of gender bias when it occurs.When we witness inequities, we may not stand up because we think that “others” have already raised the issue. But oftentimes, the bystander effect is at play—which leads to no one saying anything at all. This demonstrates the value of having established channels of communication so that people know who they can go to for help. It also shows us that we all have to be comfortable being a little uncomfortable if we want to fight for an equitable workplace for all. —M. Alexandra BillebIn this way, advocates and allies can create an environment that fosters organizational-wide accountability and responsibility in the fight for gender equity.Each of us can contribute in ways large and small to ensure that it isn’t just the person with the loudest voice or most senior title who is heard. And we should point out ways in which individuals and organizations are not living up to those principles. It is not enough to say what is important to us. We have to hold each other accountable when we fall short. — M. Alexandra Billeb Gender equity requires the creation of an inclusive culture that does not tolerate inequity and that supports, champions, and encourages women's contributions. —Brooke Oppenheimer It is critical to champion equity and inclusion more broadly in order to expand upon gender allies through standing up support groups and creating measurable data points for accountability. — Jeannie E. FarrenThis community of advocates and allies, committed to a culture of accountability, has a much better chance at rectifying some of the most challenging and persistent gender equity issues—for example wage inequity:One of things we can look for from our allies with decision making power is better wage transparency— so that we can more effectively advocate for better wage consistency. One of the biggest barriers to gender equity in the legal profession is unequal compensation. The gender-based wage gap still remains and the legal industry has more work to do in this regard. I believe that greater salary transparency across the legal industry will potentially lead to more wage equity, which is a goal we should all prioritize. — Michelle Six Conclusion While there are still significant obstacles ahead, our conversation with these industry leaders demonstrated that by consistently championing equity goals, women and allies can continue the progress that generations of women have made before us towards a more gender equal world. diversity-equity-and-inclusionblog, dei, diversity-equity-and-inclusionblog; deisarah moran

This year’s International Women’s Day theme is “embracing equity.” The theme challenges us to consider why “equal opportunities are not enough” and reminds us that allies are “incredibly important for the social, economic, cultural, and political advancement of women.”This challenge, presented to both women and allies alike, to keep striving for gender equity and resist settling into complacency seems particularly fitting in 2023. The past year has brought with it a growing acceptance that the only constant we can depend on is change. Three years after a global pandemic altered our world, there seems to be a growing acceptance that this constant state of unpredictability and volatility across the global economic, social, political, and ecological environments, may be “the new norm” we all talked about in 2020. This broader acceptance of instability brings with it a silver lining: A parallel realization that we cannot afford to wait for “things to return to normal” in order to continue fighting for gender equity. If we do, we risk backsliding and losing the ground that generations of women before us fought so hard to gain. For example, studies have shown that women and girls are more negatively impacted by global economic crises than men, and that the recent rise in inflation rates more negatively impacts women than men. Now more than ever, it is imperative to remain focused on the fight for gender equity. In celebration of International Women’s Day, Lighthouse invited six leaders in the legal industry to provide their perspectives and advice on this topic:Ashley Baynham, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Kaiser PermanenteM. Alexandra Billeb, Senior Practice Manager, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLPJeannie E. Farren, Director of Case Management and Technology | eDiscovery and Information Governance, MetaKayann Fitzgerald, Director of eDiscovery & Practice Technologies, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Brooke Oppenheimer, Counsel, eDiscovery, Cyber & Data Protection, Axinn Veltrop & HarkriderMichelle Six, Partner, Litigation, Kirkland & EllisThey have each consistently championed women while fighting for broader equity and inclusion within their own careers and practices. Lighthouse is honored to highlight the valuable insight these leaders provided regarding the current state of gender equity and how we can all continue to strive for progress.In part one of our series, we explore what gender equity means in 2023 and its impact on work and life. And tomorrow, part two will highlight practical advice for achieving greater equity and its benefits in the future. True gender equity is more than a woman’s presence in a conference roomBefore we can discuss how to move forward, we must first define the goal: What would it mean to achieve true gender equity? The overwhelming consensus was that in 2023, a woman’s mere presence in a meeting is not a realization of ‘gender equity.’ Rather, true gender equality comes when women not only have a seat at table, but an equal voice in the conversation: Gender equity is an intentional awareness that creates the fairness in that “seat at the table” where ideas, views and decisions are exchanged and made. While progress has been made, we still have a long way to go as a society to ensure women’s voices are heard and regarded, not ignored and unnoticed. In the words of the late Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Women belong in all places where decisions are being made… It shouldn't be that women are the exception."—Kayann FitzgeraldTrue gender equity would mean that women would never have to walk into a conference room wondering what percentage of the participants will be women. It would mean women would never have to wonder if their compensation was equal to that of a male counterpart. The fact that we must still be counted or tallied as “women lawyers” or “women in the industry” is a sign that we have not yet achieved parity. We still have an asterisk next to our name. True gender equity would mean we could eliminate that asterisk. —Michelle SixEquity for women is having a seat at the table, a voice that is heard, listened to, and respected and equal access to opportunities for leadership. —M. Alexandra BillebAchieving equity for women includes ensuring women have a seat at the table, participate in decision-making, and have their perspectives and contributions valued and respected. —Brooke OppenheimerWith that vision for gender equity in mind, our featured leaders provided a few key suggestions for individuals and organizations seeking to create a more gender equal environment. Recognize the true value of our differencesA surprising first step toward creating a truly equal environment may be to recognize our differences. At its core, diversity means variety. It means there are real immutable differences between gender identification, between races, between religions, between sexual orientations, between nationalities, etc. Rather than trying to erase those differences, individuals and companies must recognize those differences:A truly equitable world would not only give equal opportunities to women in the workplace—it would also be fully appreciative of our differences. If you look across certain industries where equal opportunities are given, there's still minimal accounting for societal and biological differences between women and men. Those differences may take a variety of forms. For example, differences in the economic status between men and women due to systemic pay inequities, differences in the mental and physical workload women often carry compared to male partners in family units, differences in the communications styles due to generational gender bias and social pressure on women, etc. A truly equitable workplace must recognize and account for those differences. —Ashley BaynhamOnly once we recognize our differences, can we then recognize and account for the true value (both intangible and monetary) those differences bring to the table:Gender equity and other diversity and equity efforts should not be relegated to a ‘nice to have’ or be put on a shelf during times of economic volatility. Having different and diverse voices represented in the room provides a real and significant value to our clients and to the business as a whole. Without it, we retreat into the predictability of hearing the same voices over and over in an echo chamber. We miss out on new and innovative ideas and lose the potential to learn from a diverse group of people who bring different perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds to the table. —Michelle SixOnce the value of diversity is accounted for, companies and law firms are less likely to marginalize equity efforts during times of economic volatility. Recognize that gender equity is not just a “women’s rights issue”In the same vein, individuals and companies are more likely to focus on rectifying gender inequities when they can clearly see how these solutions will be beneficial to a broader group. There are systemic equity issues that I don’t know how we will address as individual organizations until there is a shared societal understanding that these are issues that affect everyone—this is an obstacle at the very core. —M. Alexandra BillebWe must stay focused on providing opportunities and platforms to empower women to build each other up, while continuing to tear down stereotypes and create cultures focused on the equity mission. The quote, “Gender equality is not a woman’s issue, it is a human issue. It affects us all,” speaks loudly to this point. —Kayann Fitzgerald Historically, we have seen this dynamic play out on a larger stage. When we look back at the history of women’s rights, we can see that the equity issues that women have been fighting for generations (equal educational and career opportunities, better and more affordable childcare options, financial and wage equity, etc.) are not specific to women—they are broader human rights issues.I am fortunate to have a mother who played a significant role to me and many others regarding equity for women. She continually encouraged and pushed against the status-quo during a time where it was more common for women to be married shortly out of high school, have children, and don the homemaker hat. She networked before networking was a thing, created an enviable career in her chosen profession (nursing) while raising three children…all while scratching, clawing, and climbing the equity ladder, bringing along many a female colleague with her. —Kayann Fitzgerald Any progress that previous generations of women have made toward gender equity has exponentially made the world a better, more equitable place for everyone. Equity for women was instilled in me (by my mother) and has deeply influenced my professional endeavors…and now I have a front row seat watching my two daughters create their respective paths and define their “seat at the table.” This awareness, empowerment, and creating access to opportunities is paramount in forming a truly equitable society. —Kayann Fitzgerald Once viewed in this lens, it is easy to recognize how the work we do today to close gender equity gaps will positively impact future generations, regardless of gender. In fact, many of our featured industry leaders recommend focusing on the next generation as one the best ways to make impactful and real change. No matter our gender or background, we all desire to live in a world where our children are not negatively impacted by stereotypes or biases.A truly equitable world for women would be one where gender roles are not engrained into young girls, where young women are encouraged to pursue any career that interests them, not just ones which are stereotypically earmarked for women. —Brooke Oppenheimer I see society evolving from generation to generation in terms of how people think about gender and gender norms. I think the biggest impact we can have on the creation of a more equitable society for women continues to push for that evolution—and that starts with our children. It means stamping out perceptions of gender bias in young kids, and remaining cognizant of the unconscious biases that can develop in children. It means working to ensure that my young son and daughter know they can both play with dolls and they can both play with trucks. We need to continue to evolve past the idea from older generations that "this is for boys and this is for girls." —Ashley BaynhamThis recognition of the universally beneficial impact of closing gender equity gaps is also exemplified in in other areas traditionally associated with the fight for gender equality. For example, one area of significant improvement noted by many of our featured industry leaders was a change to more flexible work environments. Law firms especially have typically required associates to work long hours in an office in order to secure a partnership. Because women have traditionally held the role of primary caregivers in family structures, this requirement led to a high percentage of women dropping out of big law in favor of less structured work environments. For this reason, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the fight for more flexible schedules and remote work options was often primarily framed as a gender equity issue. But when the world shut down in 2020, millions of employees experienced the benefits of more flexible work environments, and pushed back against returning to offices and rigid schedules once pandemic restrictions began to fade. In terms of improvement, I think that flexible work arrangements have been a real silver lining of the COVID pandemic. We have proven, over and over, that we can be effective at our jobs at home as well as in the office and early in the morning as well as late at night. Successful organizations will be those that understand we can’t go back to 2019 with 9 to 5 schedules worked on site. —M. Alexandra BillebBecause a broader spectrum of people began to contemplate, recognize, and advocate for the benefits of flexible schedules and remote work options, organizations were pressured to make real, structural changes. In the same vein, many law firms and corporations have also made progress in broadening “maternity leave” to include “paternity leave” or “family leave,” due in part to the increasing diversity of modern family structures. Because there are now more voices advocating for the need for paid time off to spend with new children (beyond just the traditional paradigm of mothers who gave birth to biological children), many companies have begun to broaden their parental leave benefits. In turn, as more people experience the benefit paid time off provides to new parents and children, we can expect increasing advocacy for companies to open that same door for other types of caregivers.I have seen great improvement in work flexibility and a huge commitment to maternity and family leave for both men and women. However, I know that the private sector still fails to position family leave equally. Whether you’re adopting an infant or a teenager, giving birth via surrogacy, or caring for an elderly or sick family member—all of those scenarios should be afforded the same types of family leave options that an employer provides to any employee. We should be striving for a world where there is a uniform family leave policy. —Michelle SixTo impact change more quickly, women and allies can highlight the broader benefits of closing gender equity gaps. For instance, women often face higher rates of workplace burnout caused by remote working because we are still statistically more likely to be considered the primary caregiver in family structures: Working remotely for women in particular has essentially blurred all of the lines and guardrails that use to separate home-life responsibilities from work-life responsibilities. I’m seeing burnout now more than ever before, and it has forced me to become more thoughtful and creative around meeting the women on my team exactly where they are in life. This is a moment in time where we have to allow people to own their schedule, to have the flexibility to be present in their lives in ways deemed most important to them, to blaze their own unique trail and to write their own story. —Jeannie E. FarrenWhile this issue may impact more women than men, it is easy to see how guidelines and tactics that help define clearer boundaries between home and work would be universally beneficial to all remote workers, regardless of gender identity. The same can be said for broader issues that statistically have a greater and more adverse impact on women, like the pressure to cover gaps in school schedules:A significant obstacle to gender equality actually lies in the mismatch between school systems and the reality of modern work environments. In order to have career advancement, you have to be showing up at work— undistracted and focused. Unfortunately, our school systems are still working off a 1940s/1950s model of having one parent at home. That simply is not the reality for most families today. Because women often still tend to carry the physical and mental load of being the primary caregiver in a family, that school structure puts added pressure on women to work around school schedules. This pressure often includes taking more time from work than male partners to accommodate weeks of school holidays and vacations, school start, and dismissal times that do not align with traditional work schedules, etc. And those obstacles and pressure impact people with lesser means much, much harder. —Ashley Baynham Here again, while the issue may impact more women than men, it is easy to see how a better, more modern school system would benefit not only women, but children, families, and those with limited or lesser incomes. Ultimately, then, the fight for gender equity is a fight for equity for all, regardless of gender identity: I believe one the biggest obstacles in advancing equity in the workplace is assumptions. In 2023, we need to remove conventional gender roles, especially post-pandemic, to realign, invest, and lean in on workplace equity. —Kayanne FitzgeraldOnce we can quantify and recognize the value gender equity provides to women and others, the next step is to find practical ways to minimize gender equity gaps. In part two of our series, our featured industry leaders discuss tips and advice for helping us achieve these goals.diversity-equity-and-inclusionblog, dei, diversity-equity-and-inclusionblog; deisarah moran

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

Have you created, or were handed, a budget but you don’t know where to start? Or, have you managed a budget for a while but want some other perspectives on what to look for throughout the year? Well this is the post for you. As I mentioned in my prior post about creating budgets, I have managed budgets for a long time in legal, operations, and other departments, as well as gotten input on this topic from many peers. Below you will find five of my top tips.Align team goals with budget - The success of your budget increases if everyone is working toward the common goal of staying within that budget. As such, when creating your team goals as well as when creating an individual team member’s goals, they should all support what you have put in your budget. There are a number of ways to do this. First, you could put a specific goal – e.g., come within 5% of budget – in their personal goals. You could also tie a part of an employee’s bonus to the department meeting its budget. Second, you could make the goals a bit more indirect by having each employee have a goal around coming up with cost-savings measures. Finally, you could be even less direct by just ensuring that nobody has goals related to projects that do not have any budget and that all funded projects do have owners. I use all three of these concepts in combination to set up the department for budget success.Operationalize your budget review - Reviewing your spend (actuals) against your budget on a monthly basis is critical to being able to stay on budget. You should involve your team in these budget reviews. The agenda should include an update on the prior month’s spend, a discussion of anything unusual from the prior month, and a discussion about any expectations for the coming month. Be open during these discussions and encourage people to speak up. You want to foster a positive environment where people feel comfortable bringing up anything that will impact the budget. Every team member should understand how their work impacts the budget. Any team member heading up a particular project should understand the budget of that project and where they are vis-à-vis budget. Transparency of this information will allow people to make well-informed decisions.Constantly look for ways to get better – automation and different suppliers - Even if you are at or under budget, it is important to continuously look for ways to get more efficient with resources. This can be done in conjunction with monthly budget reviews as your team will likely have some great suggestions. There are three main questions I ask:What can be automated? What can be outsourced?Are there opportunities to get better pricing from any outsourced providers (including technology)?Of these three, I lean towards automation because of the dramatic cost savings over time, but also the additional benefits. Automation will typically have an initial cost to fund the development effort. However, that initial investment can eliminate certain resources for a long period, sometimes even bringing ongoing costs to $0. Automation also can provide information, such as auditing and data, that were not available with manual methods. For example, implementing an e-billing solution not only saves on the people cost for reviewing bills, but also gives better visibility into where the money is being spent, leading to new areas for savings.Always have a plan B and C - Things change as the year goes on – revenue may not come in as expected, there could be a global pandemic that impacts your business, or you could decide to fund a higher priority business item – and you may be asked to change or reduce your budget. This can be frustrating but you should be ready for unexpected changes. The first thing you can do to be ready is to know what you will cut first, second, and third, etc. When you have a prioritized list, you can respond to any budget cuts or freezes pretty quickly. Second, you should have alternative, cheaper ways to still move forward on your top legal department strategy or strategies. For example, instead of hiring a full-time employee to manage and implement your e-billing system, perhaps you can hire a temporary employee, consultant, or an intern to move you forward on the research and design phases. Also consider whether you can move forward with any projects in phases or by doing a scaled back proof of concept first. For example, you could procure fewer licenses of your e-billing system and implement it for only 10% of matters (e.g., litigations over $1M). Both of these moves will allow you to still advance your project, but for a lower cost. The proof of concept also has the added benefit of allowing you to demonstrate the value of the project to the business, thereby making any associated budget requests for a full-scale implementation easier to get approved.Communicate changes early - A budget is an estimate based on your knowledge at one point in time. It won’t be perfect and you will have to make changes. Make sure you understand the process to communicate those changes. As soon as you have knowledge of anything that will be significantly under or over budget, which you will likely get from your monthly budget review, make sure to communicate that. If it is something that will put you over budget, make sure to have the details about why the spend is necessary, what alternative options you have looked into, and what benefits will come to the business from this spend. The threshold for when to communicate these changes differs at each organization so be sure to work with your partners in the finance organization to understand what is expected at your organization.legal-operationsediscovery-process, legal-ops, blog, legal-operations,ediscovery-process; legal-ops; bloglighthouse

Legal professionals often take for granted that the eDiscovery software they leverage in-house must come with capability tradeoffs (i.e., if the production capability is easy to use, then the analytics tools are lacking; if the processing functionality is fast and robust, then the document review platform is clunky and hard to leverage, etc.).The idea that these tradeoffs are unavoidable may be a relic passed down from the history of eDiscovery. The discovery phase of litigation didn’t involve “eDiscovery” until the 1990s/early 2000s, when the dramatic increase in electronic communication led to larger volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) within organizations. This gave rise to eDiscovery software that was designed to help attorneys and legal professionals process, review, analyze, and produce ESI during discovery. Back then, these software platforms were solely hosted and handled by technology providers that weren’t yet focused entirely on the business of eDiscovery. Because both the software and the field of eDiscovery were new, the technology often came with a slew of tradeoffs. At the time, attorneys and legal professionals were just happy to have a way to review and produce ESI in an organized fashion, and so took the tradeoffs as a necessary evil.But eDiscovery technology, as well as legal professionals’ technological savvy, has advanced light years beyond where it was even five years ago. Many firms and organizations now have the knowledge and staff needed to move to a “self-service, spectra” eDiscovery model for some or all of their matters – and eDiscovery technology has advanced enough to allow them to do so. Unfortunately, despite these technological advancements, the tradeoffs that were so inherent in the original eDiscovery software still exist in some self-service, spectra eDiscovery platforms. Today, these tradeoffs often occur when technology providers attempt to develop all the technology required in an eDiscovery platform themselves. The eDiscovery process requires multiple technologies and services to perform drastically different and overlapping functions – making it nearly impossible for one company to design the best technology for each and every eDiscovery function, from processing to review to analytics to production.To make matters worse, the ramifications of these tradeoffs are much wider than they were a decade ago. Datasets are much larger and more diverse than ever before – meaning that technological gaps that cause inefficiency or poor work product will skyrocket eDiscovery costs, amplify risk, and create massive headaches for litigation teams. But because these types of tradeoffs have always existed in one form or another since the inception of eDiscovery, legal professionals still tend to accept them without question.But rest assured best-in-class technology does exist now for each eDiscovery function. The trick is being able to identify the functionality that is most important to your firm or organization, and then select a self-service, spectra eDiscovery platform that ties all the best technology for those functions together under one seamless user interface.Below are three key steps to prepare for the research and purchasing process that will help drastically minimize the tradeoffs that many attorneys have grown accustomed to dealing with in self-service, spectra eDiscovery technology. Before you begin to research eDiscovery software, you’ve got to fully understand your firm or organization’s needs. This means finding out what eDiscovery technology capabilities, functionality, and features are most important to all relevant stakeholders. To do so:Talk to your legal professionals and lawyers about what they like and dislike about the current technology they use. Don’t be surprised if users have different (or even opposing) positions depending on how they use the software. One group may want a review platform that is scaled down without a lot of bells and whistles, while another group heavily relies on advanced analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. This is common, especially among groups that handle vastly different matter types, and can actually be a valuable consideration during the evaluation process. For instance, in the scenario above, you know you will need to look for eDiscovery software that can flex and scale from the smallest matter to the largest, as well as one that can create different templates for disparate use cases. In this way, you can ensure you purchase one self-service, spectra eDiscovery software that will meet the diverse needs of all your users.Communicate with IT and data security teams to ensure that any platform conforms with their requirements.These two groups often end up being pulled into discussions too late once purchasing decisions have already been made. This is unfortunate, as they are integral to the implementation process, as well as to ensuring that all software is secure and meets all applicable data security requirements. Data security in eDiscovery is non-negotiable, so you want to be sure that the eDiscovery technology software you select meets your firm or organization’s data security requirements before you get too far along in the purchasing process.Create a prioritized list of the most important capabilities, functionality, and attributes to all the stakeholders once you’ve gathered feedback.Having a defined list of must-haves and desired capabilities will make it easier to vet potential technology software and ultimately help you identify a technology platform that fits the needs of all relevant stakeholders.ConclusionWith today’s advanced technology, attorneys and legal professionals should not have to deal with technology gaps in their self-service, spectra eDiscovery software, just as law firms and organizations should not have to blindly accept the higher eDiscovery cost and risk those gaps cause downstream. Powerful best-in-class technology for each step of the eDiscovery process is out there. Leveraging the steps above will help you find a self-service, spectra eDiscovery software solution that ties all the functionality you need under one seamless, easy-to-use interface.For more detailed advice about navigating the purchasing process for self-service, spectra eDiscovery software, download our self-service, spectra eDiscovery Buyer’s Guide here. ediscovery-review; ai-and-analyticsself-service, spectra, review, analytics, processing, blog, production, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analyticsself-service, spectra; review; analytics; processing; blog; productionsarah moran

You know that cleaning out the garage is a good idea. You would have more storage space and would even be able to put the car into the garage, which is better for security, for keeping it clean, and for ensuring an easy start on a frozen winter morning. Even if you don’t have a garage, you likely have an equivalent example such as a loft or that cupboard in the kitchen, yet somehow these tasks are often put off and rarely top of the “to do” list. Information governance often falls in this category; a great idea that struggles to make it to the top ahead of competing corporate priorities.For both the garage and information governance, the issue is the creation of a compelling business case. For the garage, the arrival of a new car or a spate of car thefts in the area is enough to push this task to the front. For information governance, the business case might be that a company is enlightened enough to realize that its data is an under-utilized asset or it might be a question of time and effort being wasted in the struggle to find the information when needed. However, these positive drivers might not be enough. Sometimes you need to look at the risk if nothing is done.In our view, building a strong business case for information governance will be a laconic combination of both the carrot and the stick. This blog will focus on the stick because that is often the hardest factor to spell out in clear terms. We will take you on a journey through the GDPR fines that have been levied since it came into force in May 2018, show how European regulators see information governance as an essential element of a companies’ data protection obligations, and give you the necessary background to prepare your business case.Why address information governance now? It is worth just pausing to ensure we are all talking about the same thing, so let’s define information governance. You can see Gartner’s definition here. For our purposes, we can talk in simpler terms and define information governance as “the people, processes, and technology involved in seeking to ensure the effective and efficient creation, storage, use, retention, and deletion of information.”Now, let’s turn to the GDPR. The total of fines under the GDPR, since it came into force in May 2018, approaches €300m. The big fines usually relate to processing personal data without good reason or consent (e.g. Google - €50m), or for inadequate security leading to data breaches (e.g. British Airways - £20m). As a result, many organizations prioritize this type of work.However, after a thorough trawl, we see a growing body of decisions where fines have been imposed by regulators for information governance failures. In our view, the top 5 reported “information governance” fines are:€15m Deutsche Wohnen (Berlin DPA) – set aside on procedural grounds​€2.25m Carrefour (France)​€290,000 HUF (Hungary)​€250,000 Spartoo (France)​€160,000 Taxa4x35 (Denmark)​GDPR fines, in detailThe largest fine is the Deutsche Wohnen matter. In 2017, the Berlin Data Protection Authority (DPA) investigated Deutsche Wohnen and found its data protection policies to be inadequate. Specifically, personal data was being stored without a necessary reason and some of it was being retained longer than necessary. In 2019, the DPA conducted a follow-up investigation and found these issues were not sufficiently remedied and thus issued a fine of €15m. The Berlin DPA explained that Deutsche Wohnen could have readily complied by implementing an archiving system which separates data with different retention periods thereby allowing differentiated deletion periods, as such solutions are commercially available. In February 2021, Criminal Chamber 26 of the District Court of Berlin closed the proceedings on the basis the decision was invalid and not sufficiently substantiated. The Berlin DPA had not specified the acts by the management of the company that supposedly led to a violation of the GDPR. The Berlin DPA has announced it would ask the public prosecutor to file an appeal.​ It would be a mistake to interpret the nullification of the fine as evidence that information governance / data retention is not an important issue for DPAs. Such an interpretation would be ignoring that fact that there is no criticism as to the substance of the findings made by the Berlin DPA in relation to Deutsche Wohnen’s approach to data retention.Holding data without necessary purpose or not actively deleting data has been a theme of fines by other DPAs as well. In Denmark, the Data Protection Authority recommended fines for similar inadequacies as follows:1.2m DKK (€160,000) on Taxa4x35. A DPA inspection discovered that although customer names were deleted after 2 years, their telephone numbers remained for 5 (as a key field in the CRM database)1.1m DKK (€150,000) on Arp-Hansen Hotel Group. Personal data was being stored longer than was necessary and in breach of Arp-Hansen’s own retention policies​1.5m DKK (€200,000) on ID Design. A routine DPA inspection revealed old customer data not being adequately deleted.​ Although, like Deutsche Wohnen, this fine was subsequently reduced on technical grounds, the commentary on the corporate information governance policies still holds.In France, three fines have been imposed relating to the holding customer data well past what the regulators deemed necessary:In the Carrefour​ matter, there was a fine of €2.25m​ for various infringements including that Carrefour had retained the data of more than 28 million inactive customers, through its customer loyalty programme, for an excessive period.In SERGIC​, there was a fine of €400,000​ for various infringements including that SERGIC had stored the documents of unsuccessful rental candidates beyond the necessary time to achieve the purpose for which the data was collected and processed​.In Spartoo​, there was a fine of €250,000​ for reasons including that Spartoo retained data for longer than was necessary for more than 3 million customers​. In Spartoo, the regulators also called out that the company had not set up a retention period for customer and prospect data​, did not regularly erase personal data​, and retained names and passwords in a non-anonymised form for over 5 years​.Although the authorities in France and Denmark have been the most active, they are not alone. In Hungary, HUF​ was issued with a fine of approximately €290,000​ based on the absence of a retention policy for a database containing personal data. And in Germany, Delivery Hero failed to delete accounts of former customers who had not been active on the company’s delivery service platform for years ​and was fined €195,000.Other authorities may not yet have imposed fines, but their attention is turning in the direction of information governance. A number of DPAs have issued guidance, the scope of which includes data retention (e.g. the Irish DPA, in Sept 2020, on how long COVID contact details should be retained; the French DPA, in October 2020, on how long union-member files should be retained)​.How to get started on your business caseThere is a genuine threat to companies stalling in relation to information governance, particularly around personal data. The decisions to date represent a small percentage of the activity in this area, as many of the violations are dealt with by regulators directly. We don’t know what, if any, settlements have been agreed upon, but the decisions that we have located are helpful and instructive for building the business case for prioritizing this work.The first thing to do is create an internal overview for why this area matters – use the above to show that there is risk and that regulators are paying attention. Hopefully, our overview will help you to identify the size of the stick. As to the carrot, that will be very company-specific, but our clients who have successfully made the case focus on the efficiency gains that can be made if information is properly governed as well as the opportunity to mine more effectively their own information for its real business value. Next, take a look at your policies and areas that may require adjustment based on the above in order to gain some insight into the scale of the activity. Now your business case should be taking shape. You might also consider looking wider than the GDPR, such as the increasing number of state data protection frameworks within the US.We recognize this process is an oversimplification and each step requires a significant time investment by your organization, but spending time focusing on the necessity of retaining personal data, as well as the length of retention (and subsequent deletion), are critical elements in minimizing your risk.information-governancedata-privacy, blog, record-management, information-governance,data-privacy; blog; record-managementlighthouse

Below is a copy of a featured article written by Kimberly Quan of Juniper Networks and John Del Piero of Lighthouse for Bloomberg Law.Whether it's Teams, Slack, Zendesk, GChat, ServiceNow, or similar solutions that have popped up in the market over the last few years, collaboration and workflow platforms have arrived. According to Bloomberg Law's 2020 Legal Technology Survey, collaboration tools are being used by 77% of in-house and 44% of law firm attorneys. These tools are even more widely used by workers outside of the legal field.With many companies planning to make remote working a permanent fixture, we can expect the existing collaboration tools to become even more entrenched and new competitors to arrive on the scene with similarly disruptive technologies.This will be a double-edged sword for compliance and in-house legal teams, who want to encourage technology that improves employee productivity, but are also wary of the potential information governance and eDiscovery risks arising because of these new data sources. This article explains the risks these tools can pose to organizations and provides a three-step approach to help mitigate those risks.Understand Litigation and Investigation RiskThe colloquial and informal nature of collaborative tools creates inherent risk to organizations, much like the move from formal memos to email did 20 years ago. Communications that once occurred orally in the office or over the phone are now written and tracked, logged, and potentially discoverable. However, a corporation's ability to retain, preserve, and collect these materials may be unknown or impossible, depending on the initial licensing structure the employee or the company has entered into or the fact that many new tools do not include features to support data retention, preservation, or collection.Government agencies and plaintiffs’ firms have an eye on these new applications and platforms and will ask specifically about how companies and even individual custodians use them during investigations and litigations. Rest assured that if a custodian indicates during an interview or deposition that she used the chat function in a tool like Teams or Slack, for example, to work on issues relevant to the litigation, opposing counsel will ask for those chat records in discovery. Organizations can mitigate the risk of falling down on their eDiscovery obligations because of the challenges posed bycollaboration tool data using this three-step approach:Designate personnel in information technology (IT) and legal departments to work together to vet platforms and providers.Develop clear policies that are regularly reviewed for necessary updates and communicated to the platform users.Ensure internal or external resources are in place to monitor the changes in the tools and manage associated retention, collection, and downstream eDiscovery issues.Each of these steps is outlined further below.Designate IT & Legal Personnel to Vet Platforms and Providers‍Workers, especially those in the tech industry, naturally want to be free to use whatever technology allows them to effectively collaborate on projects and quickly share information.However, many of these tools were not designed with legal or eDiscovery tasks in mind, and therefore can pose challenges around the retention, preservation and collection of the data they generate.Companies must carefully vet the business case for any new collaboration tool before it is deployed. This vetting process should entail much more than simply evaluating how well the tool or platform can facilitate communication and collaboration between workers. It also involves designating personnel from both legal and IT to work together to evaluate the eDiscovery and compliance risks a new tool may pose to an organization before it is deployed.The importance of having personnel from both legal and IT involved from the outset cannot be understated. These two teams have different sets of priorities and can evaluate eDiscovery risks from two different vantage points. Bringing them together to vet a new collaboration tool prior to deployment will help to ensure that all information governance and eDiscovery downstream effects are considered and that any risks taken are deliberate and understood by the organization in advance of deployment. This collaborative team can also ensure that preservation and discovery workflows are tested and in place before employees begin using the tool.Once established, this dedicated collaborative IT and legal team can continue to serve the organization by meeting regularly to stay abreast of any looming legal and compliance risks related to data generation. For example, this type of team can also evaluate the risks around planned organizational technology changes, such as cloud migrations, or develop workflows to deal with the ramifications of the near-constant stream of updates that roll out automatically for most cloud-based collaborative tools.Develop Clear Policies That Are Regularly Reviewed‍The number of collaborative platforms that exist in the market is ever evolving, and it is tempting for organizations to allow employees to use whatever tool makes their work the easiest. But, as shown above, allowing employees to use tools that have not been properly vetted can create substantial eDiscovery and compliance risks for the organization.Companies must develop clear policies around employee use of collaborative platforms in order to mitigate those risks. Organizations have different capabilities in restricting user access to these types of platforms. Historically, technology companies have embraced a culture where innovation is more important than limiting employees’ access to the latest technology. More regulated companies, like pharmaceuticals, financial services, and energy companies, have tended to create a more restrictive environment. One of the most successful approaches, no matter the environment or industry, is to establish policies that restrict implementation of new tools while still providing users an avenue to get a technology approved for corporate use after appropriate vetting.These policies should have clear language around the use of collaboration and messaging tools and should be frequently communicated to all employees. They should also be written using language that does not require updating every time anew tool or application is launched on the market. For instance, a policy that restricts the work-related use of a broad category of messaging tools, like ephemeral messaging applications, also known as self-destructing messaging applications, is more effective than a policy that restricts the use of a specific application, like Snapchat. The popularity of messaging tools can change every few months, quickly leading to outdated and ineffective policies if the right language is not used.Make sure employees not only understand the policy, but also understand why the policy is in place. Explain the security, compliance, and litigation-related risks certain types of applications pose to the organization and encourage employees to reach out with questions or before using a new type of technology.Further, as always with any policy, consider how to audit and police its compliance. Having a policy that isn't enforced issometimes worse than having no policy at all.Implement Resources to Manage Changes in Tools‍Most collaboration tools are cloud-based, meaning technology updates can roll out on a near-constant basis. Small updates and changes may roll out weekly, while large systemic updates may roll out less frequently but include hundreds of changes and updates. These changes may pose security, collection, and review challenges, and can leave legal teams unprepared to respond to preservation and production requests from government agencies or opposing counsel. In addition, this can make third-party tools on which companies currently rely for specific retention and collection methodologies obsolete overnight.For example, an update that changes the process for permissions and access to channels and chats on a collaborative platform like Teams may seem like a minor modification. However, if this type of update is rolled out without legal and IT team awareness, it may mean that employees who formerly didn't have access to a certain chat function may now be able to generate discoverable data without any mechanism for preservation or collection in place.The risks these updates pose mean that is imperative for organizations to have a framework in place to monitor and manage cloud-based updates and changes. How that framework looks will depend on the size of the organization and the expertise and resources it has on hand. Some organizations will have the resources to create a team solely dedicated to monitoring updates and evaluating the impact of those updates. Other organizations with limited internal access to the type of expertise required or those that cannot dedicate the resources required for this task may find that the best approach is to hire an external vendor that can perform this duty for the organization.When confronted with the need to collect, process, review, and produce data from collaboration tools due to an impending litigation or investigation, an organization may find it beneficial to partner with someone with the expertise to handle the challenges these types of tools present during those processes. Full-scale, cloud-based collaboration tools like Microsoft Teams and Slack are fantastic for workers because of their ability to combine almost every aspect of work into a single, integrated interface. Chat messaging, conference calling, calendar scheduling, and group document editing are all at your fingertips and interconnected within one application. However, this aspect is precisely why these tools can be difficult to collect, review, and produce from an eDiscovery perspective.With platforms like Teams, several underlying applications, such as chat, video calls, and calendars, are now tied together through a backend of databases and repositories. This makes a seemingly simple task like “produce by custodian” or “review a conversation thread” relatively difficult if you haven't prepared or are not equipped to do so. For example, in Teams communications such as chat or channel messages, when a user sends a file to another user, the document that is attached to the message is no longer the static, stand-alone file.Rather, it is a modern attachment, a link to the document that resides in the sender's OneDrive. This can beg questions as to which version was reviewed by whom and when it was reviewed. Careful consideration of versioning and all metadata and properties will be of the utmost importance during this process, and will require someone on board who understands the infrastructure and implications of those functions.The type of knowledge required to effectively handle collection and production of data generated by the specific tools an organization uses will be extremely important to the success of any litigation or investigation. Organizations can begin planning for success by proactively seeking out eDiscovery vendors and counsel that have experience and expertise handling the specific type of collaboration tools that the organization currently uses or is planning on deploying. Once selected, these external experts can be engaged early, prior to any litigation or investigation, to ensure that eDiscovery workflows are in place and tested long before any production deadlines.ConclusionCloud-based collaboration tools and platforms are here to stay. Their ability to allow employees to communicate and collaborate in real time while working in a remote environment is becoming increasingly important in today's world. However, these tools inherently present eDiscovery risks and challenges for which organizations must carefully prepare. This preparation includes properly vetting collaboration tools and platforms prior to deploying them, developing and enforcing clear internal policies around their use, monitoring all system updates and changes, and engaging eDiscovery experts early in the process.With proper planning, good collaboration between IT and legal teams and expert engagement, organizations can mitigate the eDiscovery risks posed by these tools while still allowing employees the ability to use the collaboration tools that enable them to achieve their best work.Reproduced with permission. Published March 2021. Copyright © 2021 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.800.372.1033. For further use, please contact permissions@bloombergindustry.com.chat-and-collaboration-data; ediscovery-review; microsoft-365emerging-data-sources, blog, corporate, chat-and-collaboration-data, ediscovery-review, microsoft-365,emerging-data-sources; blog; corporatebloomberg law

Legal tech was no match for 2020. Everyone’s least favorite year wreaked havoc on almost every aspect of the industry, from data privacy upheavals to a complete change in the way employees work and collaborate with data.With the shift to a remote work environment by most organizations in the early spring of 2020, we saw an acceleration of the already growing trend of cloud-based collaboration and video-conferencing tools in workplaces. This in turn, means we are seeing an increase in eDiscovery and compliance challenges related to data generated from those tools – challenges, for example, like collecting and preserving modern attachments and chats that generate from tools like Microsoft Teams, as well compliance challenges around regulating employee use of those types of tools.However, while collaboration tools can pose challenges for legal and compliance teams, the use of these types of tools certainly did help employees continue to work and communicate during the pandemic – perhaps even better, in some cases, than when everyone was working from traditional offices. Collaboration tools were extremely helpful, for example, in facilitating communication between legal and IT teams in a remote work environment, which proved increasingly important as the year went on. The irony here is that with all the data challenges these types of tools pose for legal and IT teams, they are increasingly necessary to keep those two departments working together at the same virtual table in a remote environment. With all these new sources and ways to transfer data, no recap of 2020 would be complete without mentioning the drastic changes to data privacy regulations that happened throughout the year. From the passing of new California data privacy laws to the invalidation of the EU-US privacy shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) this past summer, companies and law firms are grappling with an ever-increasing tangle of regional-specific data privacy laws that all come with their own set of severe monetary penalties if violated. How to Prepare for 2021The key-takeaway here, sadly, seems to be that 2020 problems won’t be going away in 2021. The industry is going to continue to rapidly evolve, and organizations will need to be prepared for that.Organizations will need to continue to stay on top of data privacy regulations, as well as understand how their own data (or their client’s data) is stored, transferred, used, and disposed of.Remote working isn’t going to disappear. In fact, most organizations appear to be heading to a “hybrid” model, where employees split time working from home, from the office, and from cafes or other locations. Organizations should prepare for the challenges that may pose within compliance and eDiscovery spaces.Remote working will bring about a change in employee recruiting within the legal tech industry, as employers realize they don’t have to focus talent searches within individual locations. Organizations should balance the flexibility of being able to expand their search for the best talent vs. their need to have employees in the same place at the same time.Prepare for an increase in litigation and a surge in eDiscovery workload as courts open back up and COVID-related litigation makes its way to discovery phases over the next few months.AI and advanced analytics will become increasingly important as data continues to explode. Watch for new advances that can make document review more manageable.With continuing proliferation of data, organizations should focus on their information governance programs to keep data (and costs) in check.To discuss this topic further, please feel free to reach out to me at SMoran@lighthouseglobal.com. ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-review; legal-operationscloud, analytics, emerging-data-sources, data-privacy, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-review, legal-operations,cloud; analytics; emerging-data-sources; data-privacy; ai-big-data; blogsarah moran

The project included replacing expensive third-party archives with native tools in M365, utilizing an automation solution that Lighthouse had recently prototyped for a large global manufacturer, and other breakthroughs the institution was unable to make before engaging with Lighthouse. Our work with the institution helped unblock their Microsoft 365 deployment and ultimately led to disclosure to regulators for institution’s intent to use M365 as system of record.SIFIs have long wished for a better way to meet their mutability requirement. Historically, they have relied on archiving solutions, which were designed years ago and are poorly suited for the data types and volume we have today. For years, people in the industry have been saying, “Someday we’ll be able to move away from our archives.” It wasn’t until the introduction of M365 native tools for legal and compliance that “someday” became possible.Data Management for SIFIs is Exceptionally ComplexThe financial services industry is one of the most highly regulated and litigious sectors in the world. As a result, companies tend to approach transformation gradually, adopting innovations only after technology has settled and the regulatory and legal landscape has evolved.However, the rate of change in the contemporary world has pushed many financial heavyweights into a corner: They can continue struggling with outdated, clunky, inadequate technologies, or they can embrace change and the disruption and opportunities that come with it.From an eDiscovery perspective, there are three unique challenges: (1) as a broker-dealers, they have a need to retain certain documents in accordance with specific regulatory requirements that govern the duration and manner of storage for certain regulated records, including communications (note that the manner of storage must be “immutable”). This has traditionally required the use of third-party archive solutions that has included basic e-discovery functionality. (2) As a highly regulated company with sizable investigation and litigation matters, they have a need to preserve data in connection with large volumes of matters. Traditionally, preservation was satisfied by long-term retention (coupled by immutable storage) and without deletion. Today, however, companies seek to dispose of legacy data—assuming it is expired and not under legal hold—and are eager to adopt processes and tools to help in this endeavor. (3) They have a need to collect and produce large volumes of data—sometimes in a short timeframe and without the ability to cull-in-place. This means they are challenged by native tooling that might not complete the scale and size of their operations. This particular company’s mission was clear: to use M365 as a native archive and source of data for eDiscovery purposes. To meet this mission, Lighthouse needed to establish that the platform could meet immutability and retrievability requirements—at scale and in the timeframe needed for regulatory and litigation matters. Lighthouse Helps a Large Financial Institution Leverage M365 to Replace Its Legacy Archive SolutionLighthouse is perfectly positioned to partner with financial services and insurance organizations ready to embrace change. Many on our team previously held in-house legal and technology roles at these or related organizations, including former in-house counsel, former regulators, and former heads of eDiscovery and Information Governance. Our team’s unique expertise was a major factor in earning the trust and business of a major global bank (“the Bank”). The Bank first engaged with Lighthouse in 2018, when we conducted an M365 workshop demonstrating what was possible within the platform—most notably, at the time, the potential for native tools to replace their third-party archives. Following the workshop, the Bank attempted, together with Microsoft, to find a viable solution. These efforts stalled, however, due to the complexity of the Bank’s myriad requirements. In 2020, the Bank re-engaged Lighthouse to supports its efforts to fully deploy Exchange and Teams and, in doing so, to utilize the native information governance and e-discovery toolset, paving way for the Bank to abandon its use of third-party archiving tools for M365 data. Our account team had the nuanced understanding of industry regulations, litigation and regulatory landscape, and true technical requirements needed to support a defensible deployment.As a result, we were able to drive three critical outcomes that the bank and Microsoft had not been able to on their own: (1) A solution adequate to meeting regulatory requirements (including immutability and retrievability). (2) A solution adequate to meeting the massive scale required at an institution like this. (3) A realistic implementation timeline and set of requirementsLighthouse Ushers the Bank Through Technical and Industry MilestonesWe spent six months designing and testing an M365-based solution to support recording keeping and e-discovery requirements for Teams and Exchange (including those that could support the massive scalability requirements). The results of these initial tests identified several gaps that Microsoft committed to close. The six month marked a huge milestone for the financial services industry, as the Bank disclosed to regulators their intent to use M365 as system of record. This showed extreme confidence in Lighthouse’s roadmap for the Bank, since a disclosure of this nature is an official notice and cannot be walked back easily. Over the next few months, we continued to design and test, partnering with Microsoft to create a sandbox environment where new M365 features were deployed to the Bank prior to general availability, to ensure we were able to validate adequate performance. During this time, Microsoft made a series of significant updates to extend functionality and close performance gaps to meet the Bank’s requirements. Finally, in February 2021, all the Bank’s requirements had been met and they went live with Teams—the first of their M365 workload deployments. That configuration of M365 met only some of the Bank’s need, however, so Lighthouse had to enable additional orchestration and automation on top. As it happens, we had recently done this for another company, creating a proof of concept for a reusable automation framework designed to scale eDiscovery and compliance operations within M365. Building on this work, we were able to quickly launch development of a custom automation solution for the Bank. This project is currently underway and is slated to complete in June, coinciding with their deployment of Exchange Online.Lighthouse Enables Adoption of Teams and Exchange and Scales M365 Compliance FunctionalityCompliant storage of M365 communications using native tools, rather than a third-party archive. Scaled and efficient use of M365 eDiscovery, including automation to handle preservation and collection tasks rather than manual processes or simple PowerShell scripts.Improved update monitoring, replacing an IT- and message-center-driven process with a cross-functional governance framework based on our CloudCompass M365 update monitoring and impact assessment for legal and compliance teams.Framework for compliant onboarding of new M365 communication sources like Yammer. Framework for compliant implementation of M365 in new jurisdictions, including restricted country solutions for Switzerland and Monaco. Framework to begin expanding to related use cases within M365, such as compliance and insider risk management. Lighthouse Paves the Way for Broader M365 Adoption Across the Financial Services IndustryFollowing the success of this project, we have been engaged by a dozen other large financial institutions interested in pursuing a similar roadmap. The roadblocks we removed for the Bank are shared across the sector, so the project was carefully watched. With the Bank’s goals confidently achieved and even surpassed, its peers are ready to begin their own journey to sunset their archives and embrace the opportunities of native legal and compliance tools in M365.

Two Months to Tackle Three Million DocumentsA financial institution with an urgent matter had two months to review 3.6M documents (2.4TB of data).With that deadline, any time that reviewers spent on irrelevant documents or unnecessary tasks risked missing their deadline. So outside counsel called on Lighthouse to help efficiently review documents.AI and Experience Prove Up to the ChallengeUsing our AI-powered review solution, we devised an approach that coordinated key data reduction tactics, modern AI, and search expertise at different stages of review.Junk Removal and Deduplication Set the Stage We started by organizing the dataset with email and chat threading and removing 137K junk documents. Then we shrank the dataset further with our proprietary deduplication tool, which ensures all coding and redactions applied to one document automatically propagate to its duplicates. AI Model Removes 1.5 Million Nonresponsive Documents To build the responsive set, we used our AI algorithm, built with large language models for sophisticated text analysis. We trained the model on a subset of documents then applied it to all 2.2M TAR-eligible documents, including transcripts from chat platforms. The model identified 80% of the documents containing responsive information (recall) with 73% accuracy (precision). The final responsive set consisted of 650K family-inclusive documents—18% of the 3.6M starting corpus. AI Supports Privilege Detection, QC, and Descriptions Our AI Privilege Review solution supported reviewers in multiple ways.First, we used a predictive AI algorithm in conjunction with privilege search terms to identify and prioritize potentially privileged documents for review. During QC, we compared attorney coding decisions with the algorithm’s assessment and forwarded any discrepancies to outside counsel for final privilege calls. For documents coded as privileged, we used a proprietary generative AI model to draft 2.2K unique descriptions and a privilege log legend. After reviewing these, attorneys left nearly 1K descriptions unchanged and performed only light edits on the rest.Search Experts Surface the 300 Documents Most Important for Case Prep Alongside the production requirements for the Second Request, Lighthouse also supported the institution’s case strategy efforts. Each tranche of work was completed in 4 days and within an efficient budget requested by counsel, who was blown away by the team’s speed and accuracy. Using advanced search techniques and knowledge of legal linguistics, our experts delivered: 130 documents containing key facts and issues from the broader dataset, for early case analysis. 170 documents to prepare an executive for an upcoming deposition. Beating the Clock Without Sacrificing Cost or QualityWith Lighthouse Review—including the strategic use of state-of-the-art AI analytics—outside counsel completed production and privilege logging ahead of schedule. The financial institution met a tough deadline while controlling costs and achieving extraordinary accuracy at every stage.

Searching for Evidence in 8TB of Chat and Technical Data Senior executives at an information technology company suspected that former employees had utilized company resources and intellectual property when starting a rival company. To determine whether litigation was called for, executives needed to find the most relevant documents within 8TB of processed data. The data was extremely complex, dating back 6+ years and consisting mostly of Slack data and attachments including highly technical documents, applications, logs, and related system files—tallying over ten million files. The company engaged a senior partner at an AM50 law firm, who recommended using keyword search terms, filters, and targeted linear review to find the “smoking gun” documents—which was estimated to take several months. The company came to Lighthouse looking for a faster, more strategic search alternative for their investigation. Pinpointing Key Docs with Linguistic Analysis Two Lighthouse search and linguistics experts met with company executives to learn exactly what information they suspected the former employees had misappropriated. From there, our experts created linguistic-based search criteria that go well beyond keywords, taking into consideration the unique vocabulary and syntax of software engineers and developers, the conversational quirks of Slack and other chat-based communications, and the coded language used by people who are trying to get away with something. The team delivered documents in 2 batches, refining their search based on input from the executives—and resulting in only 39 files for the company to review. Getting Results—and a Start on Case Strategy—in Days In less than 10 days, 2 Lighthouse experts pierced the subterfuge in the employees’ chat messages to reveal patterns in their behavior and attempts to cover their tracks. In all, we found 39 documents representing possibly questionable conduct, which required only 141 hours of eyes-on review. In comparison, using conventional analytics would have identified 5-20% of the search population as key documents—up to 50K documents to review in this matter. So in the end, Lighthouse saved the company over 3 months and nearly $200K.Armed with knowledge of the key events, timelines, and context of conversations buried within the data, the company was primed to begin litigation efforts and had a team ramped up to perform additional searches when needed.Lighthouse KDI vs Linear Review

Firms Needed Fast Analysis of 25M Documents More than a dozen international law firms—including a Joint Defense Group (JDG) of 11 firms and several firms representing defendants outside the JDG—were engaged in a complex cluster of cases spanning over 30 US jurisdictions. The total document tranche included over 25M documents. The firms needed to find and understand the key players, timelines, and nuances involved in each litigation, while also preparing for hundreds of depositions, witness interviews, hearings, and trials scheduled across the litigation universe. However, traditional approaches to fact-finding and litigation (i.e., document review, keyword searches, etc.) were drowning case teams in extraneous and duplicative information. They came to Lighthouse looking for a strategic, unified approach to fact-finding, led by experts who could deliver the key documents, information, and details the case teams needed—and nothing more. Custom Workflows Power Consistency, Speed, and Efficiency Our experts started by creating a topic map across matters, which helped them quickly provide case teams with the core themes in each jurisdiction while reducing redundant search work. From there, as case strategy for each matter developed, the Lighthouse team drilled down into more nuanced fact-finding to help surface the documents case teams needed to learn the key details of each matter, through strategies like: State/Jurisdictional Overview Workflow – We used advanced search technology to target key documents in incoming productions and categorize them by jurisdiction, providing case teams with an immediate thematic overview of key facts and timelines. Re-Deployable Linguistic Model Workflow – Lighthouse linguists developed models based on intimate knowledge of the language used within the datasets, then deployed them within proprietary search technology to sort documents into tiers based on the likelihood that they contained key information. Deposition Kit Bundle Workflow – By bundling deposition kit requests from the same jurisdictions and departments together, we could search across smaller collections of documents and take a deponent-agnostic approach. Previously Delivered Name Hit Workflow – We provided case teams with documents from previously delivered results, giving them an advanced start on deposition preparation while further reducing duplicative searching. These repeatable workflows significantly reduced the volume of searching and coordination required across matters and enabled Lighthouse experts to quickly zero-in on the exact documents needed—without wasting counsels’ time with redundant and unimportant documents. Critical Docs Found and Delivered Across Dozens of Matters and Hundreds of Kits Over the course of two years, Lighthouse experts prepared dozens of case teams for complex litigation and handled a deluge of competing deadlines, priorities, and ad hoc requests (totaling as many as 70 requests at a time). For the Joint Defense Group, this meant: Over 1,150 deposition kits across 24 matters, encompassing 245K unique documents Over 100 state overviews across 21 different jurisdictions, encompassing 80K documents For law firms representing individual defendants, Lighthouse provided an additional:150 deposition kits, encompassing 13K documents 30 defensive overviews across 20 jurisdictions, encompassing 6K documents 1.3K documents in response to ad hoc requests and trial support Each delivery was limited to essential information—including key themes and players in every jurisdiction, potential gaps in productions, lists of hot/sensitive documents and potential deponents, and key strategy documents—and avoided redundant and unimportant documents. The combination of innovative workflows and cutting-edge technology enabled Lighthouse to keep our team small and consistent throughout the engagement, so the entire effort was achieved by a handful of Lighthouse experts with institutional knowledge of every matter. Since this engagement, we have used the same workflows for other clients facing complex Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)—making Lighthouse key document identification one of the most valuable and scalable litigation technology solutions on the market today.

The Lighthouse team of SMEs applied their dedication to exemplary customer experience and unique strategy of marrying compliance, security, IT, and legal needs to help a global chemistry solutions and specialty material producer meet the ever-evolving security and compliance demands and challenges facing international manufacturing and regulations to effectively deploy Microsoft Purview across workstreams while preparing for needs and reducing costs. Global Leader in Chemistry Solutions Transforms Enterprise Data Protection with Microsoft Purview An international producer of commercial chemicals and specialty materials upholds a commitment to people safety and well-being as part of their core tenets. As cyber risks increased along with data volumes, the organization extended their commitment to safety to include the security of data accessed, produced, and stored within their enterprise. Now, the company has implemented a comprehensive data protection program using the entire Microsoft 365 Information Protection suite. After careful design, the team is piloting the solution before a global rollout. A Commitment to Physical and Digital Safety As one of the world’s largest acetyl products manufacturers and a top-tier producer of high-performance engineered polymers, the company supplies chemicals across major industries and for a variety of industrial and consumer applications. Over 10,000 employees in offices, technical centers, and 50+ manufacturing facilities work to realize a vision of improving the world and everyday life through people, chemistry, and innovation—with products that impact the lives of millions. For the organization, an operational approach rooted in well-being has always meant physically safe working environments for employees, and safe solutions for their customers and their communities. However, in this digital age, they have expanded their notion of safety to include data protection for employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which they operate. The company’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) notes that committing to data protection means a “higher level of assurance—making sure that our security controls keep pace with the threats that surround us every day and seek to exploit vulnerabilities in companies like us every day. You can’t stand still. You always have to evolve—you always have to get better, otherwise you’re devolving, and you’re getting worse, and becoming more vulnerable.” Advancing Data Protection with a Trusted Partner A few years ago, when the company decided to make the move to the cloud, they chose Microsoft 365 E5 and Microsoft Azure, building on their longstanding use of Microsoft technologies. Prior efforts to overhaul their data protection program had been unsatisfactory. However, with access to new Microsoft Purview capabilities, the Information Security team saw an opportunity to try again. They hoped to utilize the full breadth of the Microsoft 365 Information Protection suite including Information Protection Classification and Labeling, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), and Insider Risk Management solutions. Microsoft tapped Security Solutions and Advanced Specialization Designation-Information Protection and Governance Partner Lighthouse Global to lead the engagement for their ability to effectively understand complex compliance needs across IT, security, and legal departments. They hoped that together they could develop a solution to realize the investment they’d made in Microsoft 365, and to support their corporate commitment to safety for both employees and customers. “If you were to interview a bunch of companies, those who have actual, very successful DLP and data labeling programs typically have a hodgepodge of solutions that get melded together,” reflected the CISO, “and that’s where Lighthouse was successful…we’ve been able to leverage the investment…and get it to work, [and not] have to go spend more money to hodgepodge together a solution.” Developing a Comprehensive, Scalable Solution The Lighthouse team started by holding a series of working sessions to align the company’s vision and requirements and design the implementation approach. Using Microsoft Compliance Check, Lighthouse scanned the company’s environment to get an understanding of current state activity and sensitivity intelligence. The team also reviewed existing policies and approaches for the handling of sensitive data and data loss prevention to identify any areas of opportunity or gaps that could exist. From there, the combined teams were able to successfully design and configure a holistic data protection solution leveraging multiple Microsoft Purview products including Data Loss Prevention, Information Protection, and Insider Risk Management. Starting with data classification, the team defined the sensitive information types that needed to be identified. From there, they developed a set of sensitivity labels corresponding to the data protection policy. This set of classification techniques and labels were generated in the course of both Data Loss Protection and Insider Risk Management implementation, ensuring a comprehensive data life cycle protection program from content identification through insider threat analysis. Finally, the Lighthouse team supported the integration of the Microsoft products with the company’s third-party HR software to feed HR data into the Data Theft by Departing Employee Policy, enabling the creation of a truly end-to-end solution. Fulfilling a Mission of Security The company’s dedication to safety, security, and well-being across applications and contexts drove this project’s success. “Because we see security as part of our commitment to people and innovation, we take a uniquely holistic approach and have strong support all the way up to our board of directors,” says the company’s CISO. The CISO also credits Lighthouse’s unwavering commitment to partnership. “They helped us not only implement the technology and guide us through some of the critical points to consider as we implemented the technology, but also the process and decision points with data—which ultimately, in the end, actually worked,” they conclude. Now, with the design and implementation of the Microsoft Purview-based Data Protection program behind them, the organization’s information security team is focused on operationalizing the program through a series of pilots scheduled over the next year. Their ultimate goal is total, global implementation of the solution—and total, global protection for all employee and customer data. Corporate Case Studymicrosoft; big-datamicrosoft-365; data-privacy

A global biotech achieves consistent and efficient document review with Lighthouse review. Key Actions Coordinating efforts across disparate review teams and counsel Integrating advanced AI and other innovations on an incremental basis ‍ Key Results Streamlined and efficient approach to document review Saving more than $340,000 through a tailored workflow in one recent matter A Lack of Coordination Drove High Costs and Complexity Document review for a global biotech was expensive and inconsistent, due to a high frequency of litigations with often overlapping timelines and different outside counsel. Lighthouse had been managing the company’s electronically stored information (ESI) for years, saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars through plans and policies introduced over time. After learning of our expertise in managed review, the company hired Lighthouse to bring order and efficiency to that domain as well. Laying a Foundation with Standard Protocols Our first order of business was to establish universal standards across matters, outside firms, and review vendors. These included: Upstream changes , such as data management protocols that made documents easier to search and sort. Overarching review protocols , such as QC process guidelines and specifications for production. Changes to specific tasks , such as refining privilege filters and standardizing coding layouts so review performance could be compared across different matters and teams. A Lighthouse review manager trained all current firms and vendors and was on hand to monitor progress and answer questions, as well as onboard new firms and vendors as needed. Increasing Efficiency Through Technology Over time, Lighthouse gradually introduced accelerators to help increase efficiency and cost savings. Initially, this consisted of: Deduplication improvements , through strategies like single-instance review and normalized deduplication. Review accelerators such as privilege log automation and redaction automation. To drive even more savings, Lighthouse led the company through a test-and-learn process for building workflows around advanced AI and other, more in-depth technology. The process involved trying out a new technology on a live matter, then conducting a post-mortem to clarify what worked and what could be improved. In this way, Lighthouse and the company developed a rubric for determining which workflows were the right fit for different matters. Streamlined, Aligned, and Eager to Keep Innovating In 5 years, Lighthouse transformed the company’s disconnected, manual, expensive approach to document review into a coordinated and robust program that boosts efficiency at every level. For one recent matter—a patent litigation with a tight timeline overlapping the winter holidays—this review program drove extraordinary efficiency and savings. Tailoring the client playbook for the specific matter, the review manager designed a complex workflow that reduced eyes-on review: The initial dataset of almost 8M documents was reduced to a corpus of 388K through deduplication, culling, and removal of embedded and redundant documents. The population was further reduced through search hit only protocols and by employing a continuous active learning (CAL) model, stopping review when responsive documents became scarce. Finally, Lighthouse reunited document family members, automatically giving members tied to responsive documents the coding of their source docs. In the end, Lighthouse: Reduced eyes-on review to just 92K documents (25% of the documents promoted to review) Saved the company an estimated $341,000 in review costs Going forward, the company is ready to increase its use of technology, including classifiers built with advanced AI and an automated workflow for redactions of personally identifiable information (PII). Corporate Case Studyai-and-analytics; ediscovery-reviewediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics, biotech

Lighthouse leveraged linguistic expertise and cutting-edge analytics to efficiently locate only the documents that mattered in a complicated, year-long antitrust criminal investigation and trial. What They Needed Senior executives from a global food manufacturing company faced federal criminal antitrust charges related to allegations of 15 instances of price fixing over a five-year period. A joint defense team comprised of outside counsel representing each of the executives was assembled by the company. The prosecution expected to make rolling productions of evidence up to and through the trial. As those productions rolled in, the joint defense team could tell that many of the evidentiary documents, timelines, and conversations that were key to the prosecution’s case were taken out of context or failed to include all the exculpatory evidence. However, the joint defense team was having trouble finding key evidence because much of the nuance was located within piecemeal chat conversations and complex bid spreadsheets that were buried among millions of similar documents. The joint defense team needed a document search team that was nimble and could quickly identify the most important documents to the defense and share them across the team. They came to Lighthouse because we could quickly identify key documents with accuracy and nuance. How We Did It Lighthouse first organized a central search desk, where all members of the joint defense team could go for document search requests, with results shared across three defense teams. Next, the Lighthouse team located the most important documents related to each of the 15 episodes of price-fixing allegations, on a priority basis. They used linguistic expertise to create narrow searches, taking into consideration the nuance of acronyms, slang, and terminology used within the company and the food manufacturing industry. They also leveraged Lighthouse’s proprietary, cutting-edge search analytic tools to look for key information buried in hundreds of thousands of Excel spreadsheets and chat messages. As the government produced more documents, the Lighthouse team refreshed their searches, looking for key documents in each new production and quickly sharing results across the defense team. As defense preparations continued throughout the year, we we supported all aspects of trial preparation, including two mock trials, all witness preparation binders, and the James hearing. Lighthouse support will continue through the criminal trial for the senior executives, due to our proven success in supporting ad hoc search requests and providing results in real time. The Results The Lighthouse team efficiently delivered incredibly accurate results, saving the underlying client more than $3M thus far. Out of an always-in-flux review population that eventually grew to over 16M documents, Lighthouse was able to cull through the irrelevant data to find and deliver only the most important documents for the defense team’s utilization. In the end, that amounted to less than 1% of the initial review population, including: 4.7K documents for the joint defense group to defend the episodes of alleged price fixing 5.3K documents for defense team’s specific ad hoc and witness kit requests (an average of 400 documents per witness kit) In comparison, a traditional linear review using search terms and conventional analytics performed by multiple case teams typically results in 5-20% of the data population being tagged as “key documents.” This volume would then be funneled to the case teams for review as well, where they would waste valuable time and resources looking at hundreds of thousands of irrelevant or run-of-the-business documents. In addition to cost-efficiency, the team has gained expertise in the key events, timelines, and context of conversations buried within the data. As such, the team is now a critical resource to the defense, supporting all stages of the investigation and assisting in pivot ad hoc requests. Examples include finding a unique pricing document buried among volumes of near duplicates, as well as the relevant context surrounding a single line of a chat message. In the end, Lighthouse saved the underlying company significant time and money that could not have been achieved otherwise. Additionally, our expertise in the data was a critical resource to the joint defense team, which relied on Lighthouse at each step of trial preparation. Lighthouse expert support will continue throughout the criminal trial. ‍ Corporate Case Studyantitrust; ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-reviewantitrust, ai-and-analytics-ediscovery-review, kdi, key document identification

In-house legal and compliance teams use Lighthouse Spectra, a cloud-based, self-service legal technology platform, to achieve a more efficient and scalable approach to compliance monitoring. Our self-service technology keeps clients well ahead of audits and compliance risks, while lowering the costs and inefficiencies inherent to compliance monitoring, particularly for companies working in heavily regulated industries. Clients avoid the processing fees and wait times that burden compliance reviews by quickly and easily loading their own data. Then, they leverage industry leading technology to create repeatable, scalable compliance workflows that quickly cull out irrelevant data and uncover key information. The results are lower risk, faster results, and unprecedented savings. Repeatable and Effective Self-Service Compliance Investigation Workflow Below, we’ve detailed a sample self-service compliance workflow—including real results that our clients have achieved at each step during internal investigations. Similar workflows have been used by our clients to deliver up to 96% reduction in document review and over $800K in savings across a single investigation. Step 1: Automated Data Upload, Processing, and Deduplication What it does : Reduces administration time, speeds up investigation setup, reduces hosting costs, reduces review population by removing duplicates Lighthouse self-service automation features reduce the manual set up tasks that often delay the start of an investigation (data import, processing, etc.). Clients can leverage Lighthouse’s native file managing technology at this point to significantly reduce hosting costs—by only loading native files if or when they’re necessary to the investigation. Once data is uploaded and processed, clients can deploy Lighthouse deduplication technology to immediately remove redundant data. Results : Enabled an investigation team to start analysis one week earlier than standard processing; reduced data population by 25%. Step 2: ECA Culling and Search Term Iteration What it does : Reduces review populations by removing irrelevant documents Once processed and deduplicated, clients use our customized culling and search term iteration processes to swiftly narrow the scope of documents for review. Results : Reduced review population of an internal investigation by over 78%. Step 3: Thread Suppression and Proprietary Review Technology What it does : Reduces review populations by identifying the most unique documents Clients can then implement customized workflows that combine email thread suppression with Lighthouse review technology to identify the most unique documents. Results : Reduced review population of an internal investigation by over 50%. Step 4: Lighthouse TAR and Advanced Analytics What it does : Finds the key documents that matter to investigations. After the culling process, clients often deploy Lighthouse’s Continuous Active Learning TAR workflows to find relevant documents. Once reaching a point of diminishing returns, advanced analytics such as clustering, categorization, and concept searches can be deployed to ensure that no relevant documents were left behind. Results : Reduced review population of an internal investigation by over 60%. Corporate Case Studyspectra; self-service, spectra; compliance-and-investigationsediscovery-review; client-success; ai-and-analyticsCase-Study; client-success; ai-and-analytics; analytics; Compliance-and-Investigations; Corporate; Corporation; data-analytics; eDiscovery; fact-finding; healthcare-investigations; investigations; machine-learning; predictive-coding; Processing; risk-management; self-service, spectra; Spectra; TAR; TAR-Predictive-Coding; technology-assisted-review; edicovery-review; ai-and-analytics

A global transportation company was under investigation for possible infractions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in India. The company’s legal counsel needed to quickly produce responsive documents and find key documents to prepare their defense. Key Results 4M total documents reduced to 250K through 2 rounds of responsive review, with precision rate and recall of 85% or higher. 810 key documents quickly delivered to outside counsel, saving them hours of review and gaining more time for case strategy. A Complex Dataset Requiring Nuanced Approaches The company collected 2M documents from executives in India and the U.S. Information in the documents was extremely sensitive, making it critical to produce only those documents related to the India market. This would be impossible for most TAR tools, which use machine learning and therefore can’t reliably differentiate between conversations about the company’s business in India from discussions solely pertaining to U.S. business. Finding key documents to prepare a defense was challenging as well. The company wanted to learn whether vendors and other third parties had bribed officials in violation of the FCPA, but references to any such violations were sure to be obscure rather than overt. Zeroing In On the Right Conversations Lighthouse used a hybrid approach, supplementing machine learning models with powerful linguistic modeling. First, our linguistic experts created a model to remove documents that merely referred to India but didn’t pertain to business in that market, so that the machine learning TAR wouldn’t pull them into the responsive set. Then our responsive review team developed geographic filters based on documents confirmed as India-specific and used those filters to train the machine learning model. The TAR model created an initial responsive set, which our linguists refined even further with an additional model, based on nuances of English used in communications across different regions of India. By the end, our hybrid approach had reduced the corpus by 97%, with an 87% precision rate and 85% recall. Once this first phase of review was successfully completed, Lighthouse dove into an additional 2M documents collected from custodians located in India. Finding Key Documents Among Obfuscated Communications To help inform a defense, our search specialists focused on language that bad actors outside the company might have used to obfuscate bribery. The team used advanced search techniques to examine how often, and in what context, certain verb-noun pairs indicating an “exchange” were used (for instance, commonly used innocent pairings like give a hand vs. rarer pairs like give reward). The team could then focus on the documents containing language indicating an attempt to conceal or infer. $1.7M Saved, 810 Key Documents Found to Support Defense Lighthouse performed responsive review on two datasets of 2M documents each, reducing them to less than 250K and saving the client more than $1.7M. Out of the 237K responsive documents, Lighthouse uncovered 810 hot docs spanning 7 themes of interest. The work was complete in just 3 weeks and enabled outside counsel to provide the best defense to the underlying company. Corporate Case Studykdi; key-document-identification; case-study; investigations; reviewediscovery-review; client-success; ai-and-analyticsCase-Study; client-success; ai-and-analytics; analytics; document-review; eDiscovery; fact-finding; investigations; KDI; key-document-identification; keyword-search; TAR; TAR-Predictive-Coding; technology-assisted-review; machine-learning; transportation-industry; automotive-industry; edicovery-review; ai-and-analytics

A healthcare provider needed help simplifying ESI hosting for a complex series of 14 related matters across 9 states (and growing). Lighthouse went above and beyond—providing a unified workflow from hosting to review. Key Actions Quickly migrated 11M documents from existing Relativity and non-Relativity databases into a single repository, supported by AI Created one sophisticated workflow—from ESI storage to managed review—for over 14 matters across 9 states (and any other matters that arise in the future) Leveraged advanced technology to facilitate data re-use, data reduction, and review efficiency ‍ Key Results Avoided duplicate collections, hosting, and review of 1.2M documents Instantaneously provided production sets to all 14 matters, giving local counsel time to focus on unique matter documents before production Set case teams up for success in future matters with a readymade data repository, workflow, and trained review team—exponentially increasing the client’s ROI Data Everywhere and No One to Turn To A large healthcare provider was facing a growing number of separate but related litigations. With 14 ongoing matters in 9 different jurisdictions, the company’s data was spread out across multiple ESI vendors and a variety of review databases. The hosting costs of this data sprawl was threatening to explode the company’s overall budget. And with each case team and vendor taking their own approach to case strategy and review, in-house counsel was busy herding cats rather than managing overall litigation strategy. They came to Lighthouse desperately seeking a way to consolidate their overall eDiscovery approach to these matters. A Streamlined Solution for Multiple Matters, from Hosting Through Review Lighthouse seamlessly integrating all related matters into an advanced document repository. Backed by AI, this repository connected insights across matters and maximized work product reuse. Using this repository as a base, our experts built a sophisticated eDiscovery workflow for all 14 individual matters. Each process in every individual matter—from hosting to document review—was purposefully designed around insights and data from all other related matters. The result of this holistic approach was more efficient, consistent, and accurate eDiscovery across every matter—at a much lower cost than could ever have been achieved with a traditional siloed approach. Here’s how we did it: Faster, More Versatile Migration Capabilities With our advanced technology and unique migration expertise, Lighthouse quickly migrated 11M documents from existing databases—including Relativity and non-Relativity—into an advanced AI-backed document repository. At the outset, the team worked closely with the client to understand the scope, types of data, and future needs, so that the migration flowed quickly and efficiently. This approach meant that the client only had to process data once, rather than paying for processing and re-processing data with every matter. Individual case teams also immediately reaped the benefit of data and insights from every related matter, including matters that had already been successfully litigated. This helped counsel anticipate issues in their own matters, while re-using review work product for greater efficiency and consistency—ultimately saving costs and improving matter outcomes. One Hash for Unprecedented Cross-Matter Deduplication and Efficiency Unlike other data storage repositories, the Lighthouse AI-backed repository adds a hash system unique to Lighthouse. This technology normalizes documents before adding a hash value, extending our deduplication power and allowing us to identify all duplicate documents beyond what is possible using traditional deduplication technology. Our unique AI hash system also enabled faster insights into opposing party productions. The Lighthouse team used the system to compare newly received productions in one matter against documents previously received in other matters. Where matches were found, any issue coding one case team applied to a document was carried over and applied to new matching documents. This helped facilitate case team collaboration and a consistent legal strategy across matters. Broad Bench of Data Experts Rather than paying separate vendors for expertise in individual matters, in-house counsel and local case teams leaned on Lighthouse’s unified bench of subject matter experts—including ESI processing and hosting, advanced analytics, and review specialists. These experts worked together as a dedicated client service team, providing a uniquely holistic view of the entire array of related matters. However, individual specialists tagged in to perform work only when their expertise was needed, ensuring that the company didn’t rack up expensive invoices for consulting services they didn’t need or use. When our experts were called in to help, they were able to identify areas for greater efficiency and cross-matter consistency that would have been impossible if the client had remained with a siloed approach to each matter. For example, before review began, Lighthouse review experts counseled individual case to teams to implement a coding layout for each jurisdiction that facilitated work product reuse and consistency across matters. As new related matters come up, our experts will bring their deep institutional knowledge to continue to drive these types of unique efficiency and consistency gains. A Strategic Approach Leads to Faster Reviews and Productions Once data was migrated into the document repository, Lighthouse review experts designed one strategic review plan for all 14 matters that lowered costs and maximized data reuse and cross-matter insights. As part of this plan, Lighthouse created one national review database and separate jurisdiction-specific review databases. Then, Lighthouse experts used advanced AI and review technology to isolate a core set of 150K documents within the 11M documents housed in the repository that were most likely to be responsive across all jurisdictions. This core set was published to the national review database and fully reviewed by an experienced Lighthouse review team trained by our review managers to categorize each document for both national and jurisdictional responsiveness. After review, Lighthouse copied this strategic production set to each jurisdictional database. This approach kept hosting costs drastically lower for each individual matter, while providing all local case teams with an immediate first production, well ahead of production deadlines. Corporate Case Studyai; ai-and-analytics; analytics; artificial-intelligence; big-data; case-study; corporation; corporate; data-analytics; data-re-use; data-reuse; document-review; ediscovery; ediscovery-migration; healthcare-litigation; litigation; managed-review; prism; tar; tar-predictive-coding; technology-assisted-reviewediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successAI, ai-and-analytics, analytics, artificial-intelligence, Big-Data, Case-Study, Corporation, Corporate, data-analytics, Data-Re-use, Data-Reuse, data-re-use, document-review, eDiscovery, eDiscovery-Migration, healthcare-litigation, litigation, managed-review, Prism, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, technology-assisted-review, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

A large healthcare provider faced a series of related matters requiring document review. Lighthouse designed and executed a single review workflow that provided accurate, consistent, and efficient productions. Lighthouse Managed Review Results Efficient, compliant productions across 14 matters in 9 states (and counting) Nuanced document review performed by one experienced review team, eliminating the need to train multiple review teams Case teams avoided re-reviewing 150K core documents by reusing 100K high-quality review decisions and redactions A Perfect Storm of Review Complexities A large healthcare provider was facing 14 related matters across 9 states. The initial corpus of documents numbered 11M, with each jurisdiction adding more. While each matter shared a core set of relevant issues, they all had their own unique relevancy scope and were being handled by different outside counsel and eDiscovery teams. The corpus was also littered with personally identifiable information (PII) that required identification and redaction by review teams before production. Combining Expertise and Tech to Drive Efficiency The company turned to Lighthouse because of our extensive experience working on complex document review. Our review managers developed a sophisticated workflow to reduce the number of documents requiring review and re-review across jurisdictions by leveraging advanced technology. Custom Workflow Enables Work Product Reuse To lower costs and maximize consistency across matters, Lighthouse created an overall document repository and review database, as well as separate jurisdictional databases. The team migrated all 11M documents into the document repository and used advanced AI and review technology to isolate a core set of documents that were most likely to be responsive across all jurisdictions. Our review managers efficiently worked with all outside counsel teams to validate this core set. They also suggested and implemented a coding layout for each jurisdiction to facilitate work product reuse and consistency across matters. One Skilled Review Team and Review Process for All Matters Our combination of managed review, advanced technology, and custom data re-use workflow resulted in a single document set that met all jurisdiction-specific production requirements. These documents were duplicated across all databases for immediate production in multiple matters. To get to this caliber of review, our review managers used technology to reduce the number of documents needing eyes-on review to 90K and trained an experienced review team on both universal and jurisdictional responsiveness. Technology was also used to expedite PII redaction and propagate coding to the core set of 150K documents. Unprecedented Review Time and Cost Savings With Lighthouse’s review approach, each case team had more freedom in how they structured their post-production workflows. Our approach also provided stricter control of data and enabled more accurate and predictable billing for the client. Further, all 14 matters now had an initial production ready at the push of a button. In addition to lowering costs, this gave local counsel additional time to assess case strategy, with the first production available in advance of agreed-upon deadlines. Instantaneous Initial Production for Multiple Matters Beyond the stellar review outcomes achieved across each matter, Lighthouse’s strategic workflow and use of technology also saved the client an impressive $650K—a delightful surprise to the client, who was prepared to pay more for such a complex litigation series. As new related matters arise, the client can engage a trained and experienced review team ready to hit the ground running. Corporate Case Studycase-study; ai; ai-and-analytics; analytics; artificial-intelligence; big-data; corporation; corporate; data-analytics; data-re-use; data-reuse; document-review; ediscovery; litigation; prism; pii; phi; healthcare; healthcare-litigation; hipaa-phi; managed-review; review; tar-predictive-coding; technology-assisted-review; tar; productionediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, AI, ai-and-analytics, analytics, artificial-intelligence, Big-Data, Corporation, Corporate, data-analytics, Data-Re-use, Data-Reuse, data-re-use, document-review, eDiscovery, litigation, Prism, PII, PHI, Healthcare, healthcare-litigation, PII, PHI, HIPAA-PHI, managed-review, document-review, review, TAR-Predictive-Coding, technology-assisted-review, TAR, Production, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

Over the course of five months, Lighthouse delivered approximately 4,500 documents for review—out of the 2.3 million document review set—for a Fortune 100 health insurance provider. The Challenge Complex internal False Claims Act investigation 2.3M total documents for review Five-month timeline and tight budget Lighthouse Key Actions Provided curated weekly deliveries of the most important, inclusive documents for review—with no redundant or duplicative versions Compiled summary reports of each delivery (including highlights of high-priority information) to expedite counsel review Out of 2.3M documents, identified and delivered just the 4,500 documents counsel needed to review in order to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis Key Results for Counsel Immediately gained a grasp on the relevant facts and timelines hidden within a massive review set—without wasting time reviewing irrelevant information Quickly developed a deeper understanding of the underlying risks and nuances of the investigation, through consistent and iterative communication with Lighthouse search experts Confidently completed the investigation on time and within budget—even after large volumes of new data were added mid-investigation A Challenging Internal Investigation into False Claims Act Violations A Fortune 100 health insurance provider was pursuing an internal investigation involving potentially improper diagnosis practices undertaken by a wholly-owned provider group. The scope of the investigation included analysis of reimbursements processed across 20+ disease categories, potentially triggering False Claims Act violations. With 2.3M documents to review, it was unclear how the internal investigation would be completed within a constrained budget and timeline. Counsel reached out to Lighthouse for help. Lighthouse Hands Counsel the Keys to a Focused, Efficient Investigation A small team of Lighthouse information retrieval, legal, data science, and linguistic experts immediately began working with counsel to understand the specific allegations at issue, as well as catalogue the various sources of data that needed to be investigated. The team then designed and executed a battery of complex searches tailored to find instances of fraud or wrongdoing related to the allegations at hand. By staying in close communication with counsel, the Lighthouse team ensured that new search requirements and data sources were quickly integrated into the workstream to support fact development. On a weekly basis, Lighthouse delivered a streamlined set of documents responding to counsel’s evolving theory of the case. These deliveries also included a detailed breakdown of the categories of documents identified each week, descriptions of relevant internal processes and policies, and flagging of high-priority documents of particular interest to counsel. Each delivery was distilled down to only the most inclusive, non-redundant versions of relevant documents. In addition to keeping pace with ongoing requests and deliverables, the Lighthouse team also re-executed previous searches to address waves of new data rolling in midway through the engagement. A Faster and More Comprehensive Investigation Resolution Over the course of five months, Lighthouse delivered approximately 4,500 documents for review—out of the 2.3 million document review set. The Lighthouse deliveries encompassed everything counsel needed to know in order to resolve their investigation—and nothing more. The team accomplished this precision through deep subject matter expertise surrounding the allegations and underlying issues at play, consistent and effective communication with counsel, expert topic-based searching, and additional proprietary data analytics to remove unnecessary duplicative content. By the end of their short engagement with Lighthouse, counsel had developed a comprehensive understanding of the pertinent risk areas and confidently completed their investigation—on time and within budget. Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; fact-finding; document-review; investigations; kdi; key-document-identification; keyword-search; insurance-industry; analytics; ai-and-analyticsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, fact-finding, document-review, investigations, KDI, key-document-identification, keyword-search, insurance-industry, analytics, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

Lighthouse experts uncover key evidence in just two weeks eliminating 97% of document set. The Challenge Complex internal investigation into potential employee fraud 627K total documents Two-week timeline Key Results for Counsel Confidently completed a complex fraud investigation in just two weeks—without fear of missing critical information Significantly mitigated risk to the company through the identification of previously unknown internal control gaps Lighthouse Key Actions Executed 22 strategic searches, based on expert analysis, to identify all relevant evidence of employee fraud and misconduct Uncovered hidden information, previously unknown to counsel, that revealed additional acts of fraud, embezzlement, and misconduct by targeted employees—as well as potentially problematic internal control gaps Out of 627K documents, identified and delivered, just the 16K documents counsel needed to review in order to conduct a comprehensive fact investigation A Complex Employee Fraud Investigation The audit division of a health insurance provider was pursuing an internal investigation involving potentially concealed employee conflicts of interest with external vendors. The allegations involved possible defrauding of the parent organization through noncompliant contract and billing practices, as well as embezzlement of membership incentives for personal use and gain. With approximately 627K documents to review on an exceptionally tight timeline of two weeks, it was unclear how a comprehensive internal investigation would be completed to ensure proper due diligence. Counsel reached out to Lighthouse for help. Lighthouse Experts Quickly Uncover Key Evidence A small team of Lighthouse information retrieval, legal, data science, and linguistic experts immediately began working with counsel to understand the specific allegations at issue. As part of this work, the Lighthouse team catalogued the various sources of data that needed to be investigated. Based on counsel’s theory of the case, the team devised eight main search themes that would enable them to find instances of fraud or wrongdoing related to the allegations at hand. Over the course of the short two-week engagement, the Lighthouse team completed 22 discrete searches with corresponding deliveries based on expert analysis of the eight priority search themes. Each delivery was distilled down to include only the most inclusive, non-redundant versions of relevant documents so counsel wasn’t bogged down by reviewing a slew of duplicative and/or irrelevant documents. Over the course of searching, Lighthouse experts quickly uncovered new key information that was previously unknown to counsel. This information revealed a picture of internal control gaps used to circumvent company policies, leading to problematic vendor contract arrangements and suspect billing practices. Separately, the Lighthouse team also uncovered details of relevant personal circumstances of targeted employees. This new information shed light on the potential motivation for bad acts, including substantial personal debt, resentment of parent company controls, and personal relationships with superiors in the management reporting structure. Significant Risk Mitigation and Faster Investigation Resolution with Lighthouse In just two weeks, Lighthouse delivered a targeted set of approximately 16K documents, out of a total 627K in the review set. The Lighthouse deliveries represented everything counsel needed to know about the possible fraudulent employee activity—including concealed information that posed significant risk to the company if it had been left undiscovered. The team was able to accomplish this precision through deep subject matter expertise regarding the fraud allegations, comprehensive metadata analysis and emotional content detection, consistent and effective communication with counsel, expert topic-based searching, and exhaustive content deduplication. With Lighthouse’s partnership, counsel quickly gained a thorough understanding of the internal controls, potential fraud, and the embezzlement issues at play—ultimately enabling them to significantly mitigate risk and complete their investigation in just two weeks. Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; fact-finding; document-review; investigations; kdi; key-document-identification; keyword-search; insurance-industry; analytics; ai-and-analytics; fraud-detectionediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, fact-finding, document-review, investigations, KDI, key-document-identification, keyword-search, insurance-industry, analytics, ai-and-analytics, fraud-detection, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

By partnering with Lighthouse, clients reduce their data and save millions of dollars while ensuring quality and security. What They Needed Recently, Lighthouse was brought in by the Department of Justice (DOJ) of a large western US state who had to produce data for a high-stakes, multi-million dollar breach of contract matter. The client was dissatisfied with their current eDiscovery panel and was looking for a new provider who could help centralize eDiscovery with document review, use advanced technologies to reduce data, and ensure quality and security. How We Did It To kick things off, Lighthouse and the client team met to discuss the key goals and expected outcomes of this particular case. It became very clear that the client wanted to reduce data in a defensible way and so our team of legal and technology experts got to work. At the start of the matter, our team collected and processed more than 3.5TBs of client source data (i.e. 9M documents) as well as 98K documents that had been produced by opposing counsel and 135K documents that had been produced by 22 various third parties. In addition, we collected approximately two dozen mobile devices as well as advised and assisted outside counsel on a declaration defending the process for collection and production of mobile devices. Next, we brought in the use of best-in-class technology. We leveraged our search consulting team to apply our early case assessment (ECA) tool to the data after processing, and less than 14% of the original corpus (i.e. 1.2M documents) was promoted from the ECA database. Within the ECA environment, we assisted the client with culling, search term iteration, and helped the client to develop and sample search terms for use during negotiations with opposing counsel. After agreeing upon and validating search terms with opposing counsel, the result set was promoted from ECA for review. Within the review environment, we instituted a technology assisted review (TAR) workflow to reduce the overall review population to 420K documents (a 65% reduction after applying ECA) and prepared defensibility reports for opposing counsel. Finally, we used our thread suppression technology to suppress duplicative emails. ‍ We then developed a custom automated workflow to incorporate confidential de-designation decisions from 16 co-defendants on individual documents and reproduced them. An additional 155K documents were loaded directly to review without culling. For review of the remaining ~500K records, we then implemented our managed review solution—managing a review team (provided by our trusted review partner) through a very successful first pass review, privilege review, and privilege log creation process. ‍ The Results Ultimately, the client produced 260K documents in this matter and saved significant time and money. Lighthouse was able to reduce the original corpus by more than 95% through the use of best-in-class technology and our legal, review, and technology experts. Because of the service quality, support, breadth of capabilities, and expertise exhibited during the matter, the client has since migrated several active matters from different providers to Lighthouse. ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; ediscovery; tar; tar-predictive-coding; investigations; analytics; predictive-coding; privilege; privilege-reviewediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, eDiscovery, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, investigations, analytics, predictive-coding, privilege, privilege-review, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

Lighthouse partners with a healthcare company, saving $145K in document review costs after reducing review time by 90% through a custom review process. How We Did It Initial Processing Lighthouse used our proprietary processing automation to ingest, load, and deduplicate a total of 690K documents. Our deduplication process was able to immediately achieve a 25% data reduction by removing 175K documents. ECA Culling and Search Term Iteration Results Next, Lighthouse applied our customized culling and search term iteration processes to the 143K eligible documents and families. This process removed 81K documents, reducing the review population by over 55%. Thread Suppression and Proprietary Review Technology Results Lighthouse then implemented a customized workflow that combined email thread suppression with our proprietary review technology to identify the most unique documents. This process removed a total of 31K documents from the review population, thereby reducing the review population by another 50%. Lighthouse TAR and Advanced Analytic Results After the culling process, Lighthouse’s Review & Advanced Analytics team guided counsel through a Continuous Active Learning TAR workflow to find relevant documents. Once we reached a point of diminishing returns, we leveraged advanced analytics such as clustering, categorization, and concept search to ensure that no relevant documents were left behind. Our TAR and advanced analytics removed 17K documents, representing another 50% in data reduction. Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; tar; tar-predictive-coding; ai-and-analytics; analytics; predictive-coding; healthcare-litigation; healthcare; processing; machine-learningediscovery-review; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, ai-and-analytics, -analytics, predictive-coding, healthcare-litigation, Healthcare, Processing, machine-learning, ediscovery-review

Lighthouse's proprietary AI technology solves a unique data deduplication challenge while migrating over 25 terabytes for an extensive healthcare system. Key Results In 5 months, Lighthouse migrated four databases—with 25 TBs of data—all while keeping the databases active for review and production for current matters. Leveraging our AI technology, Lighthouse created an innovative solution for a large volume of Lotus Notes files originally processed as HTML files by a legacy processing tool. This solution ensured that any new Lotus Notes files would deduplicate against the migrated data, regardless of the file type or the tool used for processing. A Challenging Data Deduplication Problem A large healthcare system had been hosting its data (over 25 TBs of data across four databases) on another vendor’s platform for nearly a decade. The company knew it was time to modernize its eDiscovery program with Lighthouse. In order to do so, all 25 TBs would need to be migrated over to Lighthouse for hosting and future processing. However, in addition to data migration, the company also had a unique deduplication challenge due to the previous vendor’s original processing tool. The company’s data had originally been processed with the vendor’s legacy processing tool—which processed Lotus Notes data as HTML files, rather than the more modern EML version. The prior processing of these files into an HTML format meant that whenever duplicate Lotus Notes files were added to the database and processed using a more modern processing tool, those EML files would not deduplicate against the older HTML files in the databases. With over half their data consisting of Lotus Note files processed by the older tool in HTML format, the company was concerned that this issue would significantly increase review cost and slow down review time. Thus, in addition to the overall migration process, the company came to Lighthouse with an unfortunate Catch-22: in order to modernize its processing and eDiscovery capabilities, it was losing the ability to deduplicate a majority of its data with each new ingestion. Lighthouse Migration Expertise Because of the volume of new clients moving to Lighthouse for eDiscovery support, Lighthouse has developed an entire practice group dedicated to data migration. This group is adept at creating customized solutions to the unique challenges that often arise when migrating data out of legacy systems. The team works closely with each client to understand the scope, types of data, challenges, and future needs so that the data migration process is seamless and efficient. The Lighthouse migration team quickly got to work gathering information from the healthcare company to start this process, paying particular attention to the Lotus Notes deduplication issue. Once all relevant information was gathered, Lighthouse worked with stakeholders from the organization to form a comprehensive migration plan that minimized workflow disruption and included a detailed schedule and workflow for future data. In the process, Lighthouse also developed a custom solution for the Lotus Notes issue using our proprietary AI technology. An Innovative Solution: Lighthouse AI Lighthouse’s advanced AI technology can create a unique hash value for all data, no matter how it was originally processed. The Lighthouse migration team leveraged this innovative technology to create a unique hash value for the Lotus Notes files that were originally processed as HTML files. That hash value could then be matched against any new Lotus Notes files that were added to the database by the company, even when those files were processed as EML files. With this proprietary workflow, the healthcare company was able to seamlessly move to Lighthouse’s eDiscovery platform, which was better equipped to serve its eDiscovery needs—without losing the ability to deduplicate its data. Set Up for Success In just five months, Lighthouse completed a seamless migration of the healthcare company’s data by creating a custom migration plan that minimized blackouts and kept all databases up and running. Importantly, Lighthouse also leveraged its proprietary AI to create an innovative solution to a complex problem, ensuring continued deduplication capability and reduced discovery costs. ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; ai; ai-and-analytics; ai-big-data; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; ediscovery-migration; prism; processing; project-management; healthcareediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, AI, ai-and-analytics, AI-Big-Data, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, eDiscovery-Migration, Prism, Processing, Project-Management, Healthcare, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

Top ten global law firm revitalizes their eDiscovery program with Lighthouse Managed Services for one predictable, recurring price. What They Needed After years of carrying hefty infrastructure costs and operating with limited access to emerging eDiscovery solutions, one of the ten largest law firms globally decided to look for a new eDiscovery partner that could advance their existing eDiscovery program without the burden of unpredictable, piecemeal pricing and sub-par technology. In particular, the firm was interested in a predictable cost model that would provide them with access to forensics, information governance, and eDiscovery experts as well as innovative new analytic and chat technology. To further complicate things, they had less than two months to migrate all of their existing data to the newly selected vendor before they would have to renew payments with their existing vendor. How We Did It Lighthouse Managed Services was a natural fit for this cutting-edge client. We were selected as the firm’s eDiscovery provider because it was clear we could provide a wide-range of subject-matter experts, access to best-in class technology (particularly our proprietary Spectra ® and SmartSeries ™ , as well as third-party tools like Nuix, Relativity, and Brainspace) and deliver within their tight timeline requirements – all for one predictable, recurring price. After the selection process, Lighthouse immediately tackled the migration of over 130 cases and ~13 TB of the firm’s data from their existing vendor’s environment to the Lighthouse environment within the 45-day requirement. Once the cases were restored, we worked with the firm to develop custom workflows that would allow the new data to flow through active migrated matters seamlessly without loss of deduplication, matter-level settings, or work product. We then developed a comprehensive eDiscovery playbook for our client detailing customized, repeatable, and defensible eDiscovery processes for every stage of the EDRM. We also began technology training sessions to allow our client to effectively utilize their access to tools like Relativity and Brainspace, as well as our proprietary Spectra and SmartSeries technology. Further, Lighthouse developed a custom Relativity template to ensure the user experience in Relativity mirrored the law firm’s workflows for continuity. We scheduled bi-weekly meetings with the Lighthouse Product Development team to keep the firm’s team abreast of new features on the horizon as well as allow the firm an opportunity to influence the overall product roadmap. All of this work was completed under a predictable, recurring pricing model, with custom reports around the firm’s matters and metrics. Results Overall, Lighthouse Managed Services surpassed of all the firm’s expectations – completely revitalizing their eDiscovery program for one predictable pricing model. We successfully completed the entire data migration within 45 days, without any disruption to case teams. Once migrated, our client was elated with the access Lighthouse provided to the best technology on the market, as well as the comprehensive training we offered their teams which enabled them to leverage these tools more effectively. In particular, Spectra enabled the firm to administer matters autonomously while getting data into a review platform at a much greater speed than ever before. Since the time of the launch, this client has started over 90 new matters in Spectra, leveraging the analytics, predictive coding, automated redaction, privilege log creation, and chat messaging tools that make our self-service solution the best in its class. Providing all these comprehensive services under a recurring, predictable processing model allowed this client to successfully manage cost recovery and integrate with their client billing seamlessly. Law Firm Case Studycase-study; ediscovery; self-service, spectra; spectra; analytics; processing; managed-review; document-review; review; law-firmediscovery-review; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryCase-Study, client-success, eDiscovery, self-service, spectra, Spectra, analytics, Processing, managed-review, document-review, review, Law-Firm, ediscovery-review

Lighthouse collected, processed, and imaged 550 GB of data in less than 96 hours, saving a client from an eight-figure sanction. What They Needed Lighthouse’s client, an Am Law 100 firm, had to respond to a request for production in a highly sensitive matter. The client originally contracted another eDiscovery service provider for collection, processing, and production. Much of the collected data was corrupt and the other service provider was unable to handle a large majority of the data. Facing an eight–figure sanction if the production deadline was missed, the client abandoned their provider and contacted Lighthouse. Lighthouse had 14 days to resolve corrupt data, process the data, identify and segregate the already reviewed data, provide the unreviewed data for review, and produce the responsive data. Complicating matters even further, the data set was sizeable—550GBs—and the client needed at least a week to review the data before production. How We Did It Collect, Analyze, Repair A close inspection of the data revealed that another on-site collection would be necessary in order to deal with the corrupt data. On February 9, two forensic experts from Lighthouse collected three email exchange servers totaling 550 gigabytes. Lighthouse was able to repair some of the corrupt data; however, some data was corrupt at the source. This corrupt data could not interfere with the production to the government so Lighthouse processed the non-corrupt data overnight. The client then requested additional searching and culling for a specific list of custodians. Reduce, Process, Deliver As a result of the way the data was stored, Lighthouse had to navigate through a large number of files to identify the data belonging to the list of custodians. Ultimately, Lighthouse was left with 245 gigabytes which it further culled and filtered. Lighthouse’s experts then segregated 8,000 documents that the client previously reviewed so that the client did not have to waste time re-reviewing these documents. With the deadline looming, Lighthouse immediately imaged the documents for review. Lighthouse provided client with just over 25,000 images for review on February 13. Results As a result of Lighthouse’s speed and ability to handle the corrupt data, the client avoided an eight-figure sanction. In a matter of 96 hours, Lighthouse forensically collected 550 gigabytes from three email exchange servers, extracted 245 gigabytes from those servers, identified 8,000 documents in a corrupted media environment, and imaged over 25,000 documents. Law Firm Case Studybig-data; case-study; collections; ediscovery; forensics; law-firm; processing; production; project-managementediscovery-review; digital forensics; client-successBig-Data, Case-Study, collections, eDiscovery, digital forensics, Law-Firm, Processing, Production, Project-Management, ediscovery-review, digital forensics

A prominent law firm leveraged a cloud-based software solution to increase efficiency and scale, resulting in significant costs savings. What They Needed A mid-sized East Coast law firm­—known for its expertise and experience in complex and high-stakes matters—was looking for new software to replace its in-house legacy technology. Their in-house tool did not provide the level of sophistication or throughput the team needed to continue to scale their work for their clients. In assessing their potential new partner, the firm required access to best-in-class technology, in particular Relativity and Nuix, as the firm’s employees were already familiar with these platforms. In addition, they wanted to leverage automation to have repeatable processes that would save both themselves and their clients time and money. ‍ How We Did It Lighthouse Spectra was selected for its simple and intuitive interface that allows users to internally manage client matters across best-in-class technology – including Relativity, Nuix, and even Brainspace. With Spectra, the firm can now start matters immediately, without having to go through the vendor solicitation and/or statement of work processes, creating real time savings. And the monthly subscription price for Spectra gave them more transparency around billing and greater cost control to help them stay within their budget. The onboarding and training processes were quick, due to the experience of the internal team coupled with the ease of use of Spectra’s. After the initial deployment of Spectra, the firm started processing client data through the tool immediately. They were able to get these matters through processing (Nuix) to review (Relativity) within a few hours, rather than an entire day or more, as was typical with their previous in-house solution. We can go from soup to nuts without having to reinvent the wheel each time. It is truly self-service. — Law Firm The Results Soon after onboarding, the firm took on a couple quick-turn and complex matters that they were able to handle more quickly due to the speed and scale of Spectra, as well as the support of Spectra team. In one instance, they received a request late in the work day that needed to be turned around within a short period of time. Prior to deploying Spectra, that would have taken some hands-on experience and a day’s worth of time. With Spectra, they were able to process it as soon as they received it and it was available for review within a few short hours. In another instance, the firm received a request with a pressing deadline where the document set consisted of approximately 95% foreign-language text. Quickly translating the text to English was imperative to firm’s success. To solve this problem, the Spectra team pointed the firm to a machine language translation tool that easily integrates with Spectra. By deploying the integrated translation service on the workspace, documents submitted for translation were loaded back into the workspace as easily as if it was performing a mass edit. This provided an easy solution for the firm for this particular matter, and now that it’s integrated, the feature is available to the firm on demand. By moving to Spectra, the law firm was able to leverage best-in-class technology, gain more transparency and control around the entire eDiscovery process, and create efficiencies and therefore, reduce costs for themselves and their clients. Leveraging Spectra, the law firm can now do more with less and scale their business to support their clients’ growing needs. ‍ Law Firm Case Studycase-study; ediscovery; self-service, spectra; spectra; ai-and-analytics; analytics; processing; tar-predictive-coding; technology-assisted-review; tar; law-firmediscovery-review; client-successCase-Study, client-success, eDiscovery, self-service, spectra, Spectra, ai-and-analytics, analytics, Processing, TAR-Predictive-Coding, technology-assisted-review, TAR, Law-Firm, ediscovery-review,

With Spectra, Penningtons Manches Cooper accelerated their ediscovery workflow and created a more efficient and cost-effective process. What They Needed Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP, a leading UK and international law firm, was looking for an innovative solution to enable more efficient and cost-effective management of their increasing eDiscovery needs. At the same time, they also wanted a solution that would not require a large investment in hardware, additional personnel, or training. When the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper reached out to Lighthouse about their needs, we suggested Spectra, our cloud-based, self-service eDiscovery solution that would enable the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper to easily run their matters in a more efficient and predictable manner. Additionally, the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper also wanted the option of leveraging experienced, knowledgeable, and on-demand assistance as required. Because Spectra offers the ability to seamlessly transition a matter from self-service to Lighthouse’s full-service team of eDiscovery experts, it provided the Penningtons Manches Cooper team a level of reassurance that there would always be help on hand should it be needed. The team at Penningtons Manches Cooper agreed that Spectra was the right eDiscovery solution for them. How They Did It Penningtons Manches Cooper partnered with Lighthouse to deploy Spectra, which was implemented within three months from initial proof of concept to rollout with live matters. Primary areas of focus during the implementation were training, process design, and internal change management. The project began with roundtable sessions to fully understand the scope and ensure that deployment was customized to fit Penningtons Manches Cooper’s requirements, deliverables, and goals. And because Spectra is a cloud-based solution, there was no capital expenditure or additional IT resourcing required for implementation. This allowed for a flexible approach, fast implementation, and low ongoing maintenance for Penningtons Manches Cooper. Once the tool was initially implemented, the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper identified a suitable matter to be used in a proof of concept. Lighthouse trained key Penningtons Manches Cooper personnel on how to use Spectra, and together the two teams worked to create a scalable and repeatable workflow for particular work types. All items were recorded in a bespoke playbook, which fully documents Spectra’s capabilities and process as well as specific Penningtons Manches Cooper requirements. Next, Lighthouse provided training to the wider Penningtons Manches Cooper team on Spectra, Brainspace, and Lighthouse’s proprietary SmartSeries® tools to enable the firm to leverage automated redaction, chat, and other emerging solutions. Due to the simplicity and on-demand nature of Spectra, the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper was able to realize a 1 to 4-hour reduction in the time it takes to create a matter and upload data into Relativity. Further, Lighthouse developed a custom Relativity template. to ensure the user experience in Relativity is mirrored across matters and complements the firm’s workflows. Following the successful trial period, Penningtons Manches Cooper has identified and managed many other matters in Spectra with very little external support. Setup of each new matter has been reduced significantly, in some circumstances by up to 2-3 days, as there has been a significant reduction in the number of steps required to instruct external eDiscovery vendors, including no need to gather price proposals, no delay while vendors run conflict checks, and no need for any additional contract negotiation. As a consequence, each legal team was typically able to begin reviewing documents on the same day the data was received by the firm. In conjunction with the above, predictable and recurring billing practices were implemented and custom reports were developed around the firm’s matters and metrics. This, in turn, will allow Penningtons Manches Cooper to manage cost recovery and integrate billing for a more seamless and efficient process. The Results Penningtons Manches Cooper partnered with Lighthouse to roll out Spectra, which enabled their team to control the process from the very start and create efficiency and predictability of cost and process. By using Spectra, the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper was able to create matters in Relativity and Brainspace as well as upload and process data quickly, all within a simplified and intuitive interface. The use of best-in-class technology, combined with repeatable process and in-house expertise, created a tangible benefit, ensuring eDiscovery and document review are completed with minimal cost, a savings which can be passed on directly to the client. Law Firm Case Studycase-study; financial-services-industry; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; self-service, spectra; spectra; analyticsediscovery-review; client-successCase-Study, client-success, financial-services-industry, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, self-service, spectra, Spectra, analytics, ediscovery-review

Lighthouse Spectra helps a considerable healthcare organization gain control, pricing transparency, and efficiency gains in the eDiscovery process. What They Needed A large healthcare organization was looking to solve their eDiscovery challenges around speed and cost. Specifically, they needed to increase their overall efficiency, and have more control over their matters with truly transparent and lower ediscovery-related costs. How We Did It Lighthouse Spectra was chosen to help achieve these key goals. Spectra is a self-service, on-demand eDiscovery tool with a transparent subscription-based pricing model. Spectra users can also access a full-time project management team at Lighthouse, whenever needed – all for one predictable price. Spectra onboarding was tailored to the users’ needs and focused on teaching users how to use Spectra itself, as well as when and how to use Brainspace, an analytics engine available inside the platform. Since Spectra is built with an intuitive interface, it only took a few short trainings over the course of a few weeks for the users to become comfortable using it. The Lighthouse team also ensured that Relativity and Spectra were customized to the organization’s specific needs. Our teams ensured that all customized permissions and views were set up within Relativity and worked with the organization to create custom Relativity templates to apply their standard coding pallets, rule-based coding propagations, pre-baked saved searches, standard views/layouts, imaging profiles, and more. Additionally, the Lighthouse team also assisted in building a continuous multi-model learning (CMML) workflow for their team to leverage within Spectra. Once set up was complete, the organization immediately started leveraging Spectra to process their data and run search terms as needed on a variety of diverse case types, including labor and employment cases, internal investigations, and OIG requests. The Results By moving to Spectra, the healthcare organization gained more control over their eDiscovery processes, created more efficient workflows, and achieved significant cost savings with transparent and predictable pricing. Since deploying the tool, the organization found that using the search and analytics capabilities of Spectra reduced the volume of natives to just 4.5% of the total hosted volume, minimizing the count of documents being reviewed by 95%. The custom Relativity template prevents the need to reinvent the wheel with each new matter and drive consistency across their portfolio. Further, the CMML workflow allows the organization to prioritize review of documents that are most likely to be responsive, as well as minimize the number of documents that go to review. Both of these enhancements allowed the organization to increase their overall speed from collection to production while lowering their overall eDiscovery-related costs. Through these new workflows and processes, the healthcare organization has achieved both defensibility and affordability and reduced review time from days to hours. This has resulted in an overall savings of $500K in their first year with Spectra.\ Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; self-service, spectra; spectra; ai-and-analytics; analytics; processing; tar-predictive-coding; technology-assisted-review; tar; healthcareediscovery-review; client-successCase-Study, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, self-service, spectra, Spectra, ai-and-analytics, analytics, Processing, TAR-Predictive-Coding, technology-assisted-review, TAR, Healthcare, ediscovery-review

Lighthouse partners with a global law firm to meet a 60-day production deadline for an 11.5 million-document population, saving the firm millions. What They Needed A global law firm was representing a large analytics company being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for antitrust activity. The company faced an extremely aggressive production deadline—approximately 60 days to collect, review, and produce responsive documents from an initial data population of roughly 11.5M. How We Did It The firm partnered with Lighthouse to create a workflow to execute multiple work streams simultaneously (collections, processing, TAR, privilege review, and logging) to ensure the company could meet the production deadline. Lighthouse expert teams managed the entire process, implementing daily standup calls and facilitating communication between all stakeholders to ensure that each workflow was executed correctly and on time. Lighthouse clients that leverage our AI technology to its full potential can realize even more cost savings and efficiency. For example, in this case, this global law firm would have seen the removal of close to 420K documents from privilege review that our AI accurately (as verified in the qc process) deemed to be highly unlikely or unlikely to be privilege. The Lighthouse team also provided strategic and defensible review methods to attack data volume and increase overall efficiency throughout the project. This included Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and email thread suppression in combination with our proprietary AI-technology and privilege log application. The different work streams that Lighthouse designed and executed to reduce the time, burden, and expense of review included: Lighthouse Forensic Collection : Lighthouse’s dedicated expert forensic team implemented a workflow to perform all initial collections, as well as all refresh collections across M365 mailboxes, Teams data, OneDrive, and SharePoint. TAR 1.0 : Lighthouse implemented predictive coding via a TAR 1.0 workflow to systematically find and remove non-relevant documents in a defensible manner. Not relevant documents that fell below the cutoff score were removed from the review population to reduce privilege review. Non-TAR Review : A detailed file analysis was conducted on documents that could not be scored via the TAR model by Lighthouse experts to remove non-responsive documents from eyes-on responsiveness review. Email Threading : Once TAR 1.0 reached stability and a cutoff score was achieved, Lighthouse applied email thread suppression on the documents above the cutoff score to further decrease privilege review and the production set overall. Managing Teams data : The Lighthouse team leveraged our proprietary chat tool to deduplicate Microsoft Teams data. Using the tool, the team stitched Teams messages back together in a format that allowed outside counsel to easily see the conversation in totality (e.g., who was part of the thread, who entered/left the chat room, who said what, at what time, etc.). The tool then integrated and threaded chat messages with search and filtering capabilities for review directly in Relativity. Privilege Review : Even as collections, TAR 1.0, email threading, and document review workflows were ongoing, the Lighthouse advanced analytics team leveraged technology in combination with their expertise to drastically reduce the privilege review set and guard against inadvertent production of privileged documents: Lighthouse Strategic Privilege Reduction : Lighthouse data reduction experts worked with outside counsel to analyze the data to identify large categories of documents that could be safely removed from privilege review, such as two large tranches of calendar items that were pulled into the privilege review. Lighthouse also ran a separate header-only privilege screen across and located a pattern in the privilege hits, which outside counsel confirmed were not privileged and removed from privilege review. AI-enabled Privilege QC : To minimize risk and increase efficiency of privilege review, Lighthouse deployed our advanced AI-technology, which uses multiple algorithms to analyze the text and metadata of documents, enabling highly accurate privilege predictions. First, it analyzed the entire review workspace and identified additional privileged documents that were not picked up by the conventional privileged screen approach. Then, the tool was utilized in privilege review QC workflows where it helped reviewers overturn first and second level privilege calls. Privilege logging application : Lighthouse also leveraged our privilege logging application to automate privilege log generation, saving outside counsel significant time and driving consistent work product in creating their privilege log. The Results Lighthouse forensic collection collected roughly 11.5M documents from more than 600 unique datasets and over 90 custodians, spanning M365 mailboxes, Teams data, OneDrive, and SharePoint sources. Lighthouse’s TAR 1.0 workflow then dramatically reduced the document population for privilege review, ultimately removing over 6M documents in full families from review, thereby delivering a savings of nearly $6.2M. The Lighthouse team’s detailed file analysis of non-TAR universe resulted in an additional 640K files removed from responsiveness review—encompassing close to a 90% reduction in the non-TAR review volume and delivering a savings of roughly $640K. Our email thread suppression process then removed another 1.1M documents from review (for a savings of $1.1M), while the Lighthouse proprietary chat tool removed over 63K Teams items and generated over 200K coherent transcript families from 1.3M individual messages. Law Firm Case Studycase-study; antitrust; ediscovery; tar; tar-predictive-coding; law-firm; hsr-second-requests; investigations; mergers; ai-and-analytics; ai-big-data; artificial-intelligence; ai; acquisitions; analytics; predictive-coding; prism; privilege; privilege-review; name-normalization; microsoft; emerging-data-sources; forensics; collectionsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; antitrust; chat-and-collaboration-data; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Antitrust, eDiscovery, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, Law-Firm, HSR-Second-Requests, investigations, Mergers, ai-and-analytics, AI-Big-Data, artificial-intelligence, AI, Acquisitions, analytics, predictive-coding, Prism, privilege, privilege-review, name-normalization, microsoft, Emerging-Data-Sources, digital forensics, collections, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics, antitrust, chat-and-collaboration-data

Cleary Gottlieb and Lighthouse save millions of dollars and thousands of hours in HSRs Second Request for Fortune 500 company. What They Needed A global Fortune 500 electronics company received an HSR Second Request from the Department of Justice (DOJ), with an extremely aggressive timeline to reach substantial compliance. They engaged Cleary Gottlieb (“Cleary”), a global technology-savvy and innovative law firm with extensive experience handling challenging Second Requests. After Cleary led negotiations with the DOJ to reduce the scope of the investigation, the client was faced with 3.3M documents to review—a significant subset of which included CJK language documents that would require expensive and time-consuming translation. To further complicate matters, the DOJ and Cleary remained engaged in ongoing scope negotiations, resulting in additional data being added throughout the project. Cleary knew that conventional TAR technology was not capable of evaluating a dataset with ever-changing review parameters. How Cleary and Lighthouse Did It CJ Mahoney, counsel and head of the eDiscovery and litigation technology group at Cleary, has extensive experience working on complex HSR Second Requests and has pioneered a number of different analytics-driven methods to reach substantial compliance in the past. Based on prior joint success in innovating new ways to use this technology to improve privilege analytics, CJ immediately saw the potential of Lighthouse’s proprietary AI technology for this challenge. Together, CJ and the Lighthouse data scientists developed a unique training workflow to achieve highly precise responsive prediction results on this challenging dataset. CJ secured the DOJ’s first-ever approval of this workflow with Lighthouse’s proprietary AI technology. Immediately after approval, responsive and privilege analysis and review began simultaneously, enabled by AI technology. For responsiveness, the teams utilized an active learning TAR workflow wherein subject matter experts reviewed a control set of randomly selected documents. After only a few training rounds, the system reached stability and began scoring the remaining dataset for responsiveness. A privilege classifier was built based on 20K previously confirmed privilege calls and applied to score all documents in the privilege workspace. The teams used a combination of the analytic results and privilege terms to identify potential privileged documents. All documents within this set that were scored as “highly likely to be privileged” were immediately routed to reviewers for review and privilege logging. Conversely, documents scored as “unlikely to be privileged” were removed from privilege review after Cleary’s attorneys verified the accuracy of the results using a random sample. Further, the teams used the privilege classifier to identify additional privilege documents that had not hit on privilege terms. As the timeline for substantial compliance approached, negotiations with DOJ regarding relevant timeframes and custodians continued, resulting in the near-constant addition and removal of documents from the dataset. The Lighthouse and Cleary teams managed the ever-changing dataset with ease using the Lighthouse technology and workflow developed by the teams. The Results Using a specialized TAR workflow leveraging advanced AI, the teams delivered highly accurate responsive classification, resulting in more than 500K (or more than 40%) fewer documents requiring further review and production to the DOJ, when compared to legacy TAR tools. By creating a smaller volume of documents requiring production, the amount of privilege and foreign language review was also lessened. For example, 120K fewer foreign language documents were included in the final responsive set compared to legacy TAR tool results. This reduction of review and translation saved approximately $1M alone. For the client, the smaller responsive set meant faster production turnaround times, lower overall costs, and risk mitigation through the decreased chance for inadvertent production of non-responsive documents. The Lighthouse and Cleary partnership resulted in the removal of 200K documents from privilege review beyond what could have been possible through conventional methods, leading to cost savings of $1.2M and time savings of 8K review hours. The team further mitigated risk to the client by identifying privilege documents that did not hit on standard privilege terms. The Cleary and Lighthouse partnership resulted in substantial compliance with the HSR Second Request, increased risk mitigation, faster document review, and remarkable savings for the client. Law Firm Case Studycase-study; antitrust; ediscovery; tar; tar-predictive-coding; law-firm; hsr-second-requests; investigations; mergers; ai-and-analytics; ai-big-data; artificial-intelligence; ai; acquisitions; analytics; predictive-coding; prism; privilege; privilege-review; tech-industryediscovery-review; antitrust; ai-and-analytics; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryCase-Study, client-success, Antitrust, eDiscovery, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, Law-Firm, HSR-Second-Requests, investigations, Mergers, ai-and-analytics, AI-Big-Data, artificial-intelligence, AI, Acquisitions, analytics, predictive-coding, Prism, privilege, privilege-review, tech-industry, ediscovery-review, antitrust, ai-and-analytics

A global pharmaceutical company leverages Lighthouse's AI-powered analytics to reduce legal spending, increase efficiency, and decrease risk in their matters. Driving Value on Individual Matters The pharmaceutical company first came to Lighthouse for better, faster review for a single matter. Leveraging our unparalleled range of advanced analytics accelerators, our experienced review managers and expert consultants created a custom review workflow that significantly reduced data volume, expedited review, and increased the accuracy of data classification. Individual Matter Review Workflow and Metrics Driving Value Across All Matters Based on the results from the first matter and Lighthouse’s ability to attain even more review efficiency by connecting matters, the company sent additional matters to Lighthouse. Applying advanced AI across the company’s matters resulted in deeper matter insights and upleveled the accuracy of classification models in ways that that would be impossible on one single matter. As each new matter is added, Lighthouse AI identifies data that overlaps with past and concurrent matters. This has two impacts at the outset: 1) significant processing cost savings and unprecedented 2) early insights into new matters. These insights empower counsel to make more strategic, data-backed decisions from the start, leading to extraordinary downstream efficiencies and significantly reduced risk. For example, across five currently connected matters for the company, Lighthouse AI showed that: “Outside Counsel A” email domains were coded privileged over 95% of the time. Emails with a government email domain on the communication were coded privilege 15% of the time. 20K documents of Custodian B were collected and processed across multiple matters, but only 10 documents were ever actually reviewed. Custodian C’s documents were reviewed and produced across multiple matters, with a 0% privilege rate. Lighthouse AI-powered insights and connections supercharge the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency for each subsequent matter. Past attorney work product and metadata are used to reduce the need for eyes-on review and improve the consistency and accuracy of review for responsiveness, privilege, PII, confidentiality, redactions, and more. Driving Value into The Future The efficiency and risk mitigation benefits continue to grow for the pharmaceutical company with each new matter. A true big data technology, the more data Lighthouse advanced analytics ingests, the deeper and more nuanced its decision-making and insights become. Opportunities for data and attorney work product re-use will also grow with each new matter ingested, amplifying the company’s ROI into the future. Corporate Case Studycase-study; ai; ai-and-analytics; analytics; artificial-intelligence; big-data; corporation; corporate; data-analytics; data-re-use; data-reuse; document-review; ediscovery; litigation; prism; privilege; privilege-review; pii; phi; pharmaediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryCase-Study, client-success, AI, ai-and-analytics, analytics, artificial-intelligence, Big-Data, Corporation, Corporate, data-analytics, Data-Re-use, Data-Reuse, data-re-use, document-review, eDiscovery, litigation, Prism, privilege, privilege-review, PII, PHI, Pharma, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

Lighthouse helps global British bank resolve critical risks during a major technology overhaul. Key Actions Microsoft referred Company to Lighthouse to address eDiscovery needs within Microsoft 365 (M365) Lighthouse assembled a team whose members had former expertise gained from stakeholder departments that were affected by the unresolved needs Key Results Compliance risks were successfully remediated using native M365 tools The Company used its new platform to avoid the need for add-on services or vendors What They Needed M365 Implementation Yields Data Risk Management As one of the nation’s largest financial institutions, the Company’s move to M365 required exceptional time and care—further complicating compliance requirements for record-keeping, data protection, and regulated conduct, and ultimately placing demands on M365 that created uncertainty of whether the platform could be resolved. The complex compliance requirements fueled an internal audit, revealing several risks related to the Company’s management of unstructured data, including its practices for retention, deletion, preservation, and protection of sensitive information. The Company asked Microsoft for help—and Microsoft referred the Company to Lighthouse. Tight Deadlines, Exceptional Solutions Lighthouse was tasked to explore whether M365’s native information governance (IG) and eDiscovery tools could address the risks identified in the audit. The team launched a series of workshops, interviews, and research tasks to: Educate stakeholders about M365’s native capabilities for records and information management (RIM) and IG Define stakeholders’ needs and current workflows regarding RIM and IG Analyze gaps in the current state Test and propose new workflows using native M365 tools Executives intensely monitored this project, as every identified risk was critical, so the pressure on the teams’ proposed workflows was tremendous—not to mention a tight 12-week timeline. Lighthouse prevailed, fielding a team of experienced peers with the Company stakeholders. Every business group—from records management to IT that were responsible for remediating risks—was paired with a Lighthouse consultant who had previously filled a similar role at a comparable institution. Our experts gained rapid credibility with each stakeholder group, and they ultimately accomplished a unified solution that was acceptable to all parties. Our solution succeeded in remediating all flagged risks using RIM and IG workflows within M365. It required the Company to upgrade its M365 licensing agreement from E3 to E5, but the company agreed that the added cost was more than worth it. In the end, Lighthouse achieved two key wins: 1) demonstrating to the Company that M365 could meet even the most stringent security and compliance needs, and 2) securing a new trusted partnership with the customer that has continued to develop. ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; big-data; cloud-migration; cloud; cloud-services; corporate; corporation; emerging-data-sources; information-governance; ediscovery; microsoft; legacy-data-remediation; risk-management; record-management; financial-services-industrymicrosoft-365; information-governance; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-information-governanceCase-Study, client-success, Big-Data, Cloud-Migration, cloud, Cloud-Services, Corporate, Corporation, Emerging-Data-Sources, Information-Governance, eDiscovery, microsoft, Legacy-Data-Remediation, microsoft, risk-management, Record-Management, financial-services-industry, microsoft-365, information-governance

Lighthouse saves insurance giant millions of dollars during major technology upgrade. Key Actions Microsoft referred the Company to Lighthouse to resolve existing concerns from the Company’s IT and legal departments that were stifling their automation and transition process to Microsoft 365 (M365). Lighthouse held educational workshops on eDiscovery tools within M365, and devised a comprehensive plan for the compliance. Key Results Unblocked the M365 transition effort and enhanced the partnership between legal and IT. Compliance concerns were answered within M365, saving the company millions of dollars in retaining or updating legacy data management systems. What They Needed Legal Concerns Churn 11th Hour Nightmare for IT Department In 2017, a nationwide insurance giant initiated a transition from an on-premises Microsoft solution to a cloud-based M365 solution fueled by gain from cost, performance, and security improvements. Years later, and well past the intended launch date, the Company’s legal team suddenly halted the transition entirely due to concerns of M365’s eDiscovery capabilities, specifically, how M365 would handle the identification, preservation, and collection of email, instant messages, and files for the Company. The legal department insisted the company retain its custom-built archival solution until all compliance concerns were allayed. These demands put the IT department in an extremely tough spot after having already invested several years into the transition to M365. If forced to extend their aging, on-premises solution, the team would face substantial costs. To help unstick the implementation project, Microsoft suggested the Company engage Lighthouse to assist. Lighthouse immediately understood the legal team’s concerns and acted swiftly to address the Company’s insistence on exercising the transition to M365 with great caution, all while remaining vigilant of the Company’s receipt of hundreds of new legal matters monthly. The sensitive nature of data in this industry and the complex regulatory environment made the potential risk related to mismanagement very high. The process was intricate and complex, and required high-level integration to mitigate the significant risks that were specific to individual privacy regulations, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Hands-on Experience and High-touch Service Bridge the Gaps Lighthouse fielded a team of experts with direct experience in the same or similar roles as the various client stakeholders, ranging from IT to records management, corporate legal, and public affairs. This hand-selected team led a three-part process with their counterparts from the Company: Providing education on the eDiscovery aspects of M365 Analyzing current workflows and performance, and expressing their desired future state Devising a high-level design document for how relevant parties could conduct eDiscovery tasks in compliance with the requirements while using M365 The first two processes helped restore unity among stakeholders, while the design document delivered on the legal team’s concerns, including specified settings for a range of M365 applications and components, such as Exchange Online, SharePoint Online, OneDrive for Business, and Teams. The design document made room for process automation and/or custom workflows, as well as for third-party system integration (for compliance archive, legal hold, matter management, etc.). The initial project success led to a continuing relationship between the Company and Lighthouse, and over time Lighthouse has become a critical element in the Company’s ongoing M365 implementation and adoption journey helping them in charting a path forward. Corporate Case Studycase-study; big-data; cloud-migration; cloud; cloud-services; ccpa; corporate; corporation; data-privacy; data-protection; emerging-data-sources; information-governance; ediscovery; microsoft; gdpr; legacy-data-remediation; legal-holds; risk-management; insurance-industry; record-managementmicrosoft-365; data-privacy; information-governance; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-information-governanceCase-Study, Big-Data, Cloud-Migration, cloud, Cloud-Services, ccpa, Corporate, Corporation, Data-Privacy, data-protection, Emerging-Data-Sources, Information-Governance, eDiscovery, microsoft, gdpr, Legacy-Data-Remediation, Legal-Holds, microsoft, risk-management, insurance-industry, Record-Management, microsoft-365, data-privacy, information-governance

Lighthouse bridges internal gaps during technology overhaul and solves longstanding compliance issues for a German multinational healthcare manufacturer. Key Actions Lighthouse engaged company stakeholders in operational planning and received funding from Microsoft to devise and integrate a premium Microsoft 365 (M365) add-on to existing Purview Premium eDiscovery, which resolved an outstanding compliance need. Key Results The proof-of-concept achieved a zero-trust security model integrated with third-party software, and satisfied the barring of critical needs for the Company that centralized IT and legal departments after years of dysfunction. What They Needed Automating a transition to M365 commonly yields a clash between IT, legal, and compliance stakeholders if the decision to convert was spearheaded by IT and made without consulting legal and compliance teams. Typically, during planning or implementation of converting to M365, legal teams ask IT how the new platform will manage compliant and defensible processes, and if IT doesn’t have the answers, the project stalls. This was the situation facing a multinational manufacturing Company that engaged Lighthouse for help during the spring of 2020. At that time, the Company was several years into its M365 transition, and the legal teams’ requirements for adoption of native M365 compliance tools barred a complete transition. Pressure to adopt the tools escalated as M365 workloads for content creation, collaboration, and communication were already rolled out, creating an increasingly large and complex volume of data with significant degrees of risk. Lighthouse Responds to Need and Launches New Technology In partnership with Microsoft Consulting Services, Lighthouse organized a companywide M365 “reset,” hosting a three-day workshop to revamp the transition process and generate an official statement of work. The strategic goal was to streamline the stakeholders from litigation, technical infrastructure, cybersecurity, and forensics teams that previously failed to align. The workshop fielded critical topics geared to encourage constructive discussions between stakeholders and to strengthen departmental trust. The outcome of these discussions eventually enabled the company to move forward with critical compliance updates, including the collection and parsing of Microsoft Teams data, and the management of myriad files and email attachments. Lighthouse took stock of the current state, testing potential solutions, and arrived at a proof-of-concept for an eDiscovery Automation Solution (EAS) that augmented existing M365 capabilities to meet the legal team’s security requirements and remediate any performance gaps. Microsoft recognized the potential value of the EAS for the wider market, ultimately leading to Microsoft funding for the proof-of-concept. Inside the eDiscovery Automation Solution (EAS) Technology Azure-native web application designed to orchestrate the eDiscovery operations of an M365 subscriber through Purview Premium eDiscovery automation Maximized Microsoft Graph API “/Compliance/eDiscovery/” functions and other Microsoft API Simplified to Azure AD trust boundary, targeting the M365 tenant hosted within, and enabling full governance of identity and entitlement throughout Azure and M365 security features Benefits Achieved a zero-trust security model Authorized high-velocity, high-volume eDiscovery tasks without outside technology through automation and orchestration of existing M365 eDiscovery premium capabilities native to M365 Mobilized integration with third-party software included in the Company’s eDiscovery workflows Amplified workload visibility by automatically surfacing relevant Mailboxes, OneDrives, and other M365 group-based technologies dependent upon selected Custodians’ access Corporate Case Studybig-data; case-study; cloud-migration; cloud; cloud-services; cloud-security; corporate; corporation; data-privacy; emerging-data-sources; information-governance; ediscovery; microsoft; manufacturing-industry; risk-managementchat-and-collaboration-data; ediscovery-review; microsoft-365; data-privacy; information-governance; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-information-governanceBig-Data, Case-Study, Cloud-Migration, cloud, Cloud-Services, Cloud-Security, Corporate, Corporation, Data-Privacy, Emerging-Data-Sources, Information-Governance, eDiscovery, microsoft, manufacturing-industry, risk-management, chat-and-collaboration-data, ediscovery-review, microsoft-365, data-privacy, information-governance

Lighthouse's forensics experts found hidden clues missed during an internal investigation, proving a departing employee was stealing company data. Lighthouse Key Results By quickly engaging Lighthouse forensics experts: The company stopped proprietary and sensitive information from being disseminated and used by competitors. The company’s law firm was able to quickly take action against the employee, preventing any further malfeasance or damage. Investigation Overview Week 1 Day 1 – 4 — Employee uploads company data onto a personal Google Drive account over the span of four days. ‍ Day 4 – 5 — An internal investigation concludes that all company data has been deleted from the employee’s personal data sources and no further action is needed. However, the company’s outside counsel calls in Lighthouse forensics experts to perform a separate investigation for affirmation. ‍ Day 6 — Lighthouse forensics experts find evidence missed during the company’s internal investigation, indicating that the laptop provided to internal investigators was a “decoy,” and that the employee had actually transferred the proprietary company data onto an as-of-yet undisclosed laptop. Week 2–4 Outside counsel uses Lighthouse’s findings to file a restraining order against the employee and elicit a confession wherein the employee admitted they had downloaded the proprietary data onto a secret laptop—owned by another business. Week 6 Lighthouse forensics team is provided access to the additional laptop and the employee’s private Google Drive account. Although there is no company data stored on the drive, the Lighthouse team dives deeper and immediately finds that the employee had restored the previously deleted company data back to their Google Drive account, transferred it the secret laptop, and then deleted it again from the Google Drive account. These findings enable outside counsel to take additional remediating actions. Suspicious Activity by a Departing Employee Raises Alarm Bells During routine internal departing employee analysis, a global company was alerted to the fact that an employee had uploaded more than 10K files containing sensitive proprietary data to a personal Google Drive account. The company immediately launched an internal investigation and engaged their outside counsel. Over the course of the internal investigation, the employee admitted they had uploaded company data to their Google Drive, and then used an external hard drive to transfer that data onto a personal laptop. However, the employee avowed that all company data had since been deleted—which the company’s IT team confirmed by examining all three data sources. However, due to the sensitivity of the data, outside counsel wanted additional reassurance that the employee was no longer concealing proprietary company data. The law firm had previously relied on Lighthouse forensics experts for similar investigations and knew that they could count on Lighthouse expertise to find any hidden clues that would point to additional hidden data. Finding the Forensic Breadcrumbs Week 1 The Lighthouse forensics team received access to forensic images of the employee’s personal laptop and external hard drive within one week of the first suspicious upload. The team immediately noticed that the employee’s data tracks conflicted with the timelines and statements provided by the employee during the company’s internal investigation. Key Evidence Found by Lighthouse Forensics Experts The external hard drive used to transfer company data had not been plugged in to the personal laptop during the relevant time frame. File paths identified on the external hard drive (which show the file locations where data was downloaded upon connection) did not match those on the personal laptop provided to internal investigators. This evidence led the Lighthouse team to conclude that the laptop provided by the employee was not the laptop used to download company data—and that a different laptop with the stored proprietary company data existed but had not been disclosed by the employee. Week 2–4 A Lighthouse forensics expert provided a sworn declaration explaining the evidence found during the examination of the employee’s personal devices. The company’s law firm used this declaration to file a restraining order to stop the employee from continuing to steal or disseminate proprietary data. The law firm also used Lighthouse’s findings to elicit a confession from the employee, admitting that they had been secretly working part-time for another business, and had transferred the company’s proprietary data onto a laptop provided to the employee by that business. Week 6 Within two weeks of the Lighthouse forensics expert’s sworn declaration, the Lighthouse team was provided access to the laptop owned by the other business, as well as the employee’s personal Google Drive account. Lighthouse’s inspection of the Google Drive did show that all company data had been deleted, as had been confirmed by internal investigators. However, Lighthouse immediately went deeper into the Google Drive and found conclusive evidence that the employee had subsequently “restored” the deleted proprietary data just a few days after the internal investigation ended, in an attempt to continue with the data theft. Key Evidence Found by Lighthouse Forensics Experts Despite the fact that no company data was stored on the employee’s personal Google Drive account at the time Lighthouse received access to it, Lighthouse forensics experts went above and beyond to do a deeper forensic dive into the user activity log, email account, and internet searches stored on the Google Drive. That deeper analysis showed that: Two days after the internal investigation ended, the employee began conducting numerous internet searches for ways to “restore” deleted files on Google Drive. Two weeks later, the employee emailed a private IT company asking for help restoring deleted Google Drive files. One day after sending that email, thousands of files were restored to the employee’s Google Drive. Those restored files were once again deleted a few days later. Before the restored files were re-deleted, the employee downloaded some of the files containing company data to the “secret” laptop owned by another business. Keeping a Lid on Pandora’s Box The evidence found by Lighthouse forensics experts after their initial examination of the employee’s personal devices enabled the company’s law firm to take legal action against the employee less than one month after the first suspicious data upload. Within one day of being provided access to the employee’s personal Google Drive account, Lighthouse forensics experts were able to find exactly how and where the stolen proprietary and sensitive data was hidden. This enabled the company to permanently prevent any dissemination of that proprietary and sensitive data to competitors. ‍ ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; g-suite; forensics; investigations; collections; fraud-detection; red-flag-reporting; departing-onboarding-employeedigital forensics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, -G-Suite, digital forensics, investigations, collections, fraud-detection, Red-Flag-Reporting, Departing-Onboarding-Employee, digital forensics

Lighthouse experts distilled crucial information from millions of produced documents for a client's legal strategy during a Department of Justice investigation. Key Actions Lighthouse created 35 deposition kits by conducting two large-scale data investigations—and addressing multiple ad-hoc emergency investigations in the process—on an initial production set of six million documents, identifying the 4,100 most relevant items. Lighthouse adhered to a complex delivery schedule so the case team had time to prepare for each deposition. ‍ Key Results Counsel was well-prepared for 35 depositions using the deposition kits delivered by Lighthouse. Instead of spending time and review cycles finding they evidence, they used the bandwidth they saved to hone their legal strategy. ‍ Responding to a Fast-Moving Government Investigation, with a Merger on the Line When two of the largest publishing companies in the country entered a merger deal, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reacted with a large anti-trust investigation. Pursuant to an HSR Second Request, the companies produced a combined six million documents to the DOJ. In response, the DOJ sought to depose 35 individuals within a few months’ time. This left outside counsel with just two months to prepare for the defense of a massive potential merger, including intensive preparation for all 35 depositions. To do so, they knew they would need to find every shred of relevant information hidden within those six million documents—as quickly as possible. Executing a Plan for Better Legal Strategy When the law firm reached out to Lighthouse for help, our agile search team of analytic, legal, and linguistic experts immediately got to work, consulting with counsel to understand the specifics of the investigation, as well as the case team’s initial strategy for response. Using this background, the Lighthouse team mapped out a information search plan leveraging advanced volume reduction technologies and linguistic search models, delivering: Comprehensive deposition kits for all 35 deponents. Each kit was scheduled to be delivered well ahead of the corresponding deposition date, and included summaries of Lighthouse experts’ findings and highlights of notable documents and facts, in order to give counsel adequate time to prepare for each deposition. Key and relevant documents related to the DOJ’s anti-trust concerns and outside counsel’s defense strategies. These documents, provided on a rolling timeline, were uncovered by conducting two large scale data investigations: one to find all documents related to determining which publishers participated in or won the auctions, and another to find all documents necessary to facilitate the creation of an all-encompassing book auction timeline. Given the legal and analytic expertise of our specialists, Lighthouse search results often uncovered new areas of importance for the case team. When the case team responded to this new information with urgent follow-up search requests (with results sometimes needed in 24 – 48 hours), our team also boosted efforts to provide the requested information. Powering Counsel with Knowledge—and Time By partnering with Lighthouse, the case team stayed focused on preparing for depositions and crafting a response to the DOJ’s concerns to the merger, instead of conducting database searches and reviewing irrelevant or redundant documents. In just two months, Lighthouse found and delivered the 4,100 documents the case team needed, out of an initial population of six million documents. This included creation and delivery of 35 deposition preparation kits, all documents related to the case team’s strategy for responding to the DOJ’s antitrust concerns (delivered on a rolling basis), and results of six ad hoc case team investigation requests. All deposition kit and derivative search deliveries met or exceeded counsel’s delivery deadline expectations. Law Firm Case Studycase-study; document-review; ediscovery; fact-finding; kdi; key-document-identification; law-firm; hsr-second-requests; investigations; mergers; acquisitionsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; antitrust; client-successCase-Study, client-success, document-review, eDiscovery, fact-finding, KDI, key-document-identification, Law-Firm, HSR-Second-Requests, investigations, Mergers, Acquisitions, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics, antitrust

Lighthouse applies language models and human expertise to uncover critical evidence. What We Did Outside counsel for a large construction firm partnered with Lighthouse to identify key documents Lighthouse used its proven iterative process to reduce the review set Collaborative approach continuously incorporated counsel’s insights into model results Key Results 92,000 documents reduced to 871 Key handwritten reports identified using metadata Counsel freed to focus on most important documents Review completed within the 3-week deadline Piecing Together Contract History Without a Guide A large construction company facing a breach-of-contract suit retained outside counsel. Because personnel involved in the contract were no longer employed by the contractor, the law firm needed to reconstruct the agreement’s history based on related documents and communications. However, with just three weeks for review, a keyword search returned more than 90,000 items. The firm needed a way to identify the most critical documents rapidly and accurately. Iterating and Adapting to Unearth Critical Information The Lighthouse team applied advanced technology and review expertise to get the job done. Counsel provided Lighthouse with 15 topics relevant to contractual changes, such as cost, delays, and weather conditions. The team identified an initial set of documents using linguistic modeling. The law firm provided feedback to update the search models. The insights of the experienced attorneys directed the investigation, while Lighthouse people and technology accelerated the discovery of relevant information. As new topic areas emerged, Lighthouse adapted. They identified additional contractors involved in the dispute and concerns such as employee discontent and time-keeping accuracy. As the search proceeded, they captured important documents even though they were outside the original search parameters. Most importantly, Lighthouse used metadata to highlight relevant site incident reports, the contents of which were not searchable. The law firm could review salient reports in depth, discovering key information concerning the disputed contract. Ensuring Response Readiness Over four iterations, Lighthouse escalated 871 key documents related to 16 case themes, in addition to the handwritten incident reports. Lighthouse data retrieval experts highlighted key language in Relativity and coded and prioritized critical documents to expedite review. Using a powerful combination of linguistic models and case experience, Lighthouse shrank the unwieldy dataset to a manageable size and brought the most critical information to the forefront. Counsel could focus their resources on the most relevant data and maximize value for their client. By the end of the third week and final delivery, the attorneys were well-prepared for negotiations and litigation. Law Firm Case Studycase-study; document-review; ediscovery; fact-finding; kdi; key-document-identification; law-firm; ai-and-analytics; analyticsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryCase-Study, client-success, document-review, eDiscovery, fact-finding, KDI, key-document-identification, Law-Firm, ai-and-analytics, analytics, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

Lighthouse proprietary, technology-enabled strategy for finding key documents gives counsel a strategic advantage in a challenging HSR Second Request. Key Results In just three weeks, the Lighthouse team found the 1K most important documents out of an initial data population of 19M documents. Lighthouse experts began flowing key documents to the case team just three days after the initial kickoff meeting. Lighthouse saved counsel at least a month’s worth of preparation time for witness interviews and defense planning by efficiently finding the most important documents. A Mountain of Data and a Short Timeline A global technology company and their two outside counsel teams needed to quickly prepare a winning defense in a high-stakes, time-sensitive, Department of Justice (DOJ) Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Second Request. To do so, they would have to identify and review all potentially damaging (or alternatively, helpful) documents within an initial data population of 19M documents. Finding the most important documents within that massive data volume—in less than one month—presented a Herculean task. A Proprietary Solution for Finding the Most Important Documents Lighthouse’s technology-enabled search strategy is led by information retrieval experts with decades of industry experience, who utilize robust search technologies that support large data volumes beyond industry-standard tools. Together, this combination of cutting-edge technology and data expertise quickly surfaces critical documents, streamlining legal analysis and case preparation for case teams. Handing Over the Keys to a Strategic Defense With no time to lose, Lighthouse TAR and review experts were able to whittle down the 19M documents to just over 990K responsive documents for production to meet substantial compliance. Simultaneously, Lighthouse experts quickly got to work finding the most important documents for the case team. Rather than relying on keyword culling, the Lighthouse team analyzed the data population and leveraged proprietary algorithms to safely reduce the universe to documents that contained the unique content the case team needed. From there, a team of six data retrieval experts leveraged proprietary search technology and institutional knowledge of the client’s data, gleaned from working with the company in a managed services capacity, to find key documents that were critical to the case team. Our experts used an iterative process and had weekly meetings with the case team so that they could instantly integrate counsel and witness feedback throughout the project, which helped yield more accurate search results. With this process, the Lighthouse team began flowing key documents to the case team just three days after the initial kickoff meeting. Over the course of the next three weeks, the Lighthouse team provided a total 1K key documents (out of a 990K responsive documents) in eight rolling deliveries. By gaining immediate access to these documents and eliminating the need for time-consuming and costly manual review, Lighthouse saved the team at least a month’s worth of preparation time for witness interviews and defense preparation. Law Firm Case Studyantitrust; case-study; document-review; ediscovery; fact-finding; kdi; key-document-identification; tar; tar-predictive-coding; law-firm; hsr-second-requests; investigations; mergers; acquisitionsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; antitrust; client-successAntitrust, Case-Study, document-review, eDiscovery, fact-finding, KDI, key-document-identification, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, Law-Firm, HSR-Second-Requests, investigations, Mergers, Acquisitions, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics, antitrust

Lighthouse partners with a rapidly expanding pharmaceutical company to streamline its eDiscovery workflow and meet obligations more efficiently. What They Needed A large pharmaceutical client received subpoenas from several regulators. The subpoenas covered multiple product lines, implicated 60 custodians, and virtually all the company’s email. The client’s IT group identified over 35TBs of data requiring collection, processing, and review. Complicating matters further, the company had only 60 days to respond, well outside its estimated time of nine months to complete the project. Faced with this near impossible timeline, the client looked to Lighthouse for support. How We Did It Relying on procedures outlined in a jointly developed eDiscovery Playbook, Lighthouse’s data collection and forensics experts worked closely with the client’s legal and IT groups to implement a defensible strategy that greatly reduced the amount of data requiring collection. Experts from Lighthouse’s Advisory Services group worked with the client to implement a legal hold and data retention policy, customized to the various subpoenas. Lighthouse provided a unified review database, allowing outside counsel (who was responding to separate subpoenas) to leverage each other’s work product, greatly reducing review costs and preventing the inadvertent production of privileged and other sensitive materials. The Results Our combined efforts reduced the originally estimated 35TBs of data requiring review to less than 3TBs. By greatly reducing the amount of data requiring processing and review, the client saved significant review costs and reduced the estimated project completion time from nine months to only four weeks. Review cost reductions were achieved by leveraging Lighthouse’s project management team as well as the company’s proprietary suite of technology-assisted review offerings. These, and other efficiencies discovered during the project, have been implemented in future matters, continuing to drive down costs and increase value. Corporate Case Studyadvisory-services; big-data; case-study; collections; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; forensics; information-governance; investigations; pharma; privilege; privilege-review; processing; project-management; tar; tar-predictive-coding; technology-assisted-reviewediscovery-review; digital forensics; ai-and-analytics; information-governance; client-successAdvisory-Services, Big-Data, Case-Study, collections, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, digital forensics, Information-Governance, investigations, Pharma, privilege, privilege-review, Processing, Project-Management, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, technology-assisted-review, ediscovery-review, digital forensics, ai-and-analytics, information-governance

Lighthouse red flag report prevents proprietary data from being taken by departing employee. Key Actions A global company partnered with Lighthouse to create a proactive departing employee program to prevent data loss and theft. Lighthouse forensics experts prepared Red Flag Reports for every departing employee that fell within a specific category of employees. Each report outlined the risks associated with the departing employee based on a skilled forensic examination of their activity and data. Soon after implementing the program, a Lighthouse Red Flag Report alerted the company to suspicious activity by a departing employee indicating a high risk for data loss. Key Results Because of Lighthouse’s analysis and quick response, the company was able to: Prevent sensitive data from being disseminated outside the company. Avoid costly litigation associated with proprietary data loss. Reevaluate the departing employee’s severance package due to breach of contract, resulting in additional cost savings. ‍ What They Needed A global company was dealing with an increased risk of data loss and theft from departing employees. The company retains large volumes of proprietary data spread across their entire data landscape. Much of that data is also highly sensitive and would create a competitive disadvantage for the company if it were to end up in competitors’ hands. The company was also facing a higher volume of employee turnover—especially within roles that had access to the company’s most sensitive data (e.g., company executive and management roles). The company was concerned that these factors were creating a perfect storm for data theft and loss. They realized they needed a better system to catch instances of proprietary data loss before any data left the company. Company stakeholders reached out to Lighthouse because they knew our forensics team could help them build a proactive, repeatable solution for analyzing and reporting on departing employee activity. How We Did It Lighthouse forensics experts worked with the company to create a custom departing employee program for data loss prevention. With this program, Lighthouse experts prepared a Red Flag Report for every departing employee that fell within specified high-risk categories (e.g., employees above a specific seniority level, or employees that had access to highly sensitive company data, etc.). Each Red Flag Report was prepared by a Lighthouse forensics expert and summarized the data theft risk associated with the underlying employee. Every report contained: A high-level summary of the risk of data theft presented by the employee. A collection of attachments with highlights and comments by the Lighthouse forensics examiner (for example, a list of files stored in an employee’s personal cloud storage account, with an explanation of why that activity may indicate a higher risk of data theft). A forensic artifact categorization with associated risk ratings (e.g., if there were no suspicious search terms found during a scan of the employee’s Google search history, the examiner assigned that category a lower risk rating of “1”). Recommended next steps, with options for substantiating high-risk employee behavior. Reports were delivered to a cross-functional group of company stakeholders, including IT, human resources, and legal groups. The Results The Lighthouse program very quickly paid off for the company. Soon after initiation, Lighthouse escalated a Red Flag Report for a departing employee that showed a high risk of data loss. Specifically, the Lighthouse forensics examiner flagged that the employee had connected two different external thumb drives containing sensitive company data to their laptop. This activity was flagged by the Lighthouse forensics examiner as high risk because: The employee had already been directed by the company to return any device that had corporate data saved on it; and The employee had previously indicated that they didn’t have any devices to return. As soon as Lighthouse escalated the Red Flag Report, company stakeholders scheduled an interview with the employee. This interview resulted in the employee admitting that they had taken corporate data with them, via the two thumb drives. Because Lighthouse was able to quickly flag the employee’s suspicious activity, the company was able to retrieve the thumb drives before the proprietary data was disseminated to a competitor. The company was also able to reevaluate the employee’s severance package due to the breach of company policy, resulting in a significant cost saving. Even more importantly, the company now has a proven, proactive, and customized solution for preventing data loss and theft by departing employees—implemented by Lighthouse’s highly skilled forensics team. ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; forensics; investigations; collections; fraud-detection; red-flag-reporting; departing-onboarding-employeedigital forensics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, digital forensics, investigations, collections, fraud-detection, Red-Flag-Reporting, Departing-Onboarding-Employee, digital forensics

A leading energy company gained the flexibility to use self-service technology and full-service expertise as needed, reducing costs and optimizing outcomes. Key Actions A multinational energy company sought eDiscovery efficiency and scalability A seamless combination of self-service Lighthouse Spectra eDiscovery and full-service Lighthouse consulting enabled them to meet a wide range of needs Minor matters can be addressed with low-cost self-service tools A full-service Lighthouse team applies in-depth review expertise to complex matters Key Results $50,000 year-over-year cost reduction 100+ hours freed for matter-critical work Flexibility to meet varying matter requirements Training improved speed and accuracy of self-service eDiscovery What They Needed A multinational energy company wanted to stop relying on an expensive patchwork of third-party eDiscovery providers and adopt a unified, cost-effective strategy. It sought transparent pricing and self-service access to the latest technology, including Relativity and Brainspace. At the same time, it needed a consistent team of experienced eDiscovery and review experts for more in-depth needs. How We Did It Lighthouse listened closely as the company described its desire for greater scalability and efficiency. We proposed a seamless combination of self-service capabilities on the Lighthouse Spectra platform and a dedicated full-service team for complex matters. This proven, flexible approach minimizes cost for minor matters while ensuring available capacity and expertise for complex projects. The Lighthouse Spectra support team accelerated onboarding through technical assistance and training. After completing a proof of concept, the client immediately began ingesting matters into Spectra. At the same time, we assembled a dedicated full-service team to be ready when needed. The Results Using the intuitive, familiar Lighthouse Spectra experience—incorporating Relativity and Brainspace functionality—the client rapidly discovered and reviewed data for internal investigations, subpoenas, and other minor matters. They no longer needed to license and manage Relativity and Brainspace separately, benefitting from a predictable, fixed-fee pricing model that fits their budget and scales to meet their needs. The Lighthouse team simplified data processing and exception handling, freeing resources to focus on strategic aspects of a given matter. As soon as a case warranted, they could triage it to the full-service team directly from the Spectra workspace. The result is a more responsive, cost-effective eDiscovery strategy, saving the company hundreds of hours and almost $50,000. Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; self-service, spectra; spectra; energy-industry; analyticsediscovery-review; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryCase-Study, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, self-service, spectra, Spectra, energy-industry, analytics, ediscovery-review

Lighthouse goes beyond linear review to help a global technology company make its case to the IRS. Key Actions Targeting critical case documents with Key Document Identification rather than performing linear review on the whole document set. Identifying key events that took place within specific hours, by applying advanced linguistic modelling to overcome challenges presented by multiple time zones and different time stamp formats within email traffic. Key Results 1.5 million total documents reduced to roughly 37,500. Results in 100-500% less time and at 90-240% lower cost than linear review. Building a Case for Tax-Exempt Lunches A global technology company was facing IRS scrutiny over the complementary lunches the company provided to staff. Full-time workers were comped the meals because, the company claimed, staff were required to respond to emergencies during lunch hours. The IRS was dubious of that claim and inclined to consider the lunches a taxable benefit. To prevent the meals from being taxed, the company needed to demonstrate to the IRS that, over a two-year period, at least 50% of employees at its San Francisco office had in fact responded to an emergency between the hours of 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. local time. For evidence, the company had 1.5 million documents—mostly emails—pertaining to about 1,000 employees. The company reached out to Lighthouse for help finding the best case-building documents within those 1.5 million. Lighthouse offered its Key Document Identification service. Rather than prioritize documents for linear review, the Lighthouse team promised to identify the most valuable and evidential documents—and do so in less time and at a lower cost. Hacking Through the Haystack The Lighthouse team eliminated less-valuable documents in stages. First, they used an advanced algorithm to remove junk and duplicative documents, reducing the document set to 943,000 (a 38% reduction). Among those, the team targeted San Francisco employee names and emails, which brought the total down to 484,000 (an additional 49% reduction). From here, the team employed nuanced, multi-layered linguistic search techniques to zero in on the most necessary and informative documents. Along the way, Lighthouse encountered a number of challenges that would have thwarted other search tools and teams. One of these was the knot of different time stamps attached to emails: the last in time email in every thread was converted to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), while every previous email in the thread was stamped according to the local time zone of the sender. The Lighthouse team circumvented this by searching the emails’ metadata, which converted all times to UTC. Using this metadata, the team was able to search using a single timeframe (6 to 9 p.m. UTC, corresponding with 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Pacific). Another challenge was looping together all emails stemming from the same incident, so that Lighthouse could provide the company with a complete account of each emergency response (and avoid counting a given emergency more than once). The team did this by flagging one email tied to a specific emergency and using proprietary threading technology to propagate that flagging to all other emails associated with that emergency. Finally, the Lighthouse team had to classify documents by level of emergency, to help the company build the strongest case. The emergency level of some documents was already classified, thanks to a system installed by the company toward the end of the two years under investigation. But for the majority of documents, it was unknown. Lighthouse was able to classify them using advanced search features of proprietary technology, which identified key terms like “time-sensitive” and other ways emergencies were referenced in the document population. Major Savings and Critical Insights In only two weeks, a two-person team delivered on Lighthouse’s promise to help the company gather evidence, shrink the document population, and save time and money. Had the company tried to build a case with linear review instead, it would have taken up to 5 times longer and cost up to twice as much. Of the 1.5 million total documents, Lighthouse escalated approximately 37,500 (2.5% of the original dataset). To help with case building, the team sorted documents into three tiers of descending priority: employees responding to high-level emergencies during the lunch hour, employees responding to any level of emergency during the lunch hour, and employees responding to high-level emergencies at any time in the day. The Lighthouse team also normalized the metadata for all documents to make it easy for company counsel to see which employees were involved in each document and thread. Across the three tiers: 78% of San Francisco employees were tied to at least one document 74% were tied to at least one non-propagated document (i.e., an email associated with a unique emergency) 68% were the sender of at least one non-propagated document This strongly suggested that more than 50% of employees actively responded to emergencies in the target timeframe and helped counsel hit the ground running in collecting the facts to prove it. Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; fact-finding; document-review; investigations; kdi; key-document-identification; keyword-search; tech-industry; analyticsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successCase-Study, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, fact-finding, document-review, investigations, KDI, key-document-identification, keyword-search, tech-industry, analytics, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

Spectra, Lighthouse's cloud-based eDiscovery software, saved a pharmaceutical company cost by managing eDiscovery for a third-party subpoena in-house. What They Needed Faced with yet another third-party subpoena, a large pharmaceutical company started to question how they could address these types of matters in a more cost-effective manner. Although sometimes larger in terms of data volume, these types of matters aren’t generally complex and commonly don’t require the expertise and oversight of an outside vendor to manage the eDiscovery process. This case, in particular, had a large data volume with a low dollar value, so the company wanted to explore options outside of the traditional vendor and outside counsel review and production process. How They Did It Lighthouse had been exploring the idea of Spectra, our cloud-based, user-driven eDiscovery solution, with this client for some time and this third-party subpoena seemed to be the perfect fit for their first run. Although the matter was a bit larger in nature, with over 150 GBs of email, it could easily be self-driven by the client’s in-house team of experts within the Spectra environment. To begin, the Spectra team onboarded the client’s team into the tool and provided training, documentation, and access. From there, the client kicked off the matter and uploaded all the documents into Nuix to be processed with the click of a button. Nuix then quickly processed this data and loaded the resulting documents into Relativity for review. Upon investigation of the resulting ~750K document set, the client decided that instead of taking the time to craft and test search terms to identify the potentially relevant files, they preferred to engage Lighthouse’s Focus Discovery team to further reduce and refine the files needing to be reviewed. As a first step, all documents were run through Brainspace to flag lesser included emails that could be removed from the review. Out of the 771,825 documents loaded to Relativity, 168,628 (or 22% of the population), were able to be removed from the review entirely. Next, the client sent Lighthouse’s Focus Discovery team a request for production as well as the subpoena to aid in the search term creation and optimization process. The Focus group worked with the client to create and then optimize the search terms until only ~5,000 hits (0.6% of promoted docs) were flagged for review. At this point, the client team was able to organize the review and review the documents to ensure privilege was considered. Finally, the ~250 relevant documents were produced inside of Spectra and delivered for service to the other side. ‍ The Results Overall, the client was not only able to save significant money on linear review due to a reduced data volume, but also on the traditional review process, as they did not have to outsource it and instead could run their matter in one easy-to-use solution, while accessing on-demand expertise of the Focus Discovery team. The experience thus far has been overwhelmingly positive and the client now has an easy-to-use, self-service solution for handling third-party subpoenas (and other similar matters) in a more cost-effective manner. ‍ ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; self-service, spectra; spectra; analytics; pharma; ai-and-analytics; processingediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, self-service, spectra, Spectra, analytics, Pharma, ai-and-analytics, analytics, Processing, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics