This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Your company received a document subpoena in a legal dispute in which it is not involved. If the subpoena issued is in federal litigation, your company is likely responsible for the cost of compliance, especially if it has a connection to the litigation. Who covers the expense in responding to it? In United States v. 11 cv 4071 (N.D.
But we wanted to provide some concise guidance to help you think through the information governance and discovery challenges of unexpected large-scale remote access. Perfection in the discovery process is not required or possible. Don’t abandon your thoughtful discovery response programs. Reasonable and proportional efforts are.
But we wanted to provide some concise guidance to help you think through the information governance and discovery challenges of unexpected large-scale remote access. Perfection in the discovery process is not required or possible. Don’t abandon your thoughtful discovery response programs. Reasonable and proportional efforts are.
READ ARTICLE #2) Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSP): A Look at the Value and Benefits Using ALSPs saves money not only because of lower rates, but efficiencies gained from specialization, technology, and project management. READ ARTICLE #3) Building Legal Workflow Automation (Where to Start?)
As AI innovation accelerates, this case exemplifies the growing tension between technological progress and regulatory oversight. However, the issuance of subpoenas to Nvidia and several other companies marks a critical step forward in the investigation. Despite the company’s assertions, the DOJ’s concerns persist.
Its no surprise that experts estimated 2025 would bring a 50% reduction in manual efforts for reviewing and drafting contracts, thanks to smarter tools and technology. Percipient changes the game with a solution that combines advanced AI technology and expert human review. This approach blends advanced technology with human expertise.
The Special Master wrote: The Motion concerns Allergans request to compel Revance to search the personal devices of four individuals for documents responsive to Allergans discovery requests. An acceptable use of personal devices was to connect to Revance information technology systems that directly or indirectly supported its business.
Niches with common attributes such as high volume tasks that take up a disproportionate portion of lawyers’ time (think non-disclosure agreements or sales agreements), or legal processes that are amenable to documented process-driven workflows that can be automated by technology (like electronic discovery).
As AI technology advances, the ethical and legal frameworks surrounding its use are increasingly challenged, making this lawsuit a crucial step in combating digital exploitation. Leveraging investigative tools and subpoena authority, the city attorney’s office aims to uncover and dismantle these networks. This is sexual abuse.”
According to the Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology-Assisted Review , early case assessment, or ECA, is a “term generally used to describe a variety of tools or methods for investigating and quickly learning about a Document Collection for the purposes of estimating the risk(s) and cost(s) of pursuing a particular legal course of action.”
Attendees will gain insights into how AI-driven strategies, including Technology-Assisted Review (TAR), can enhance first-level document review, privilege log creation, and regulatory compliance while mitigating risks and controlling costs. Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) has become standard practice.
As forensic and e-discoverytechnology continues its advancement, collection search precision increases. This means that legal teams must not overlook collecting data from these tools when gathering information for investigations , regulatory compliance, and subpoena compliance.
The foundation of the LDI model was built on the concept of uniting people, process, and technology to address legal data complexities. The updated workflows in areas such as litigation and dispute resolution, regulatory requests, third-party subpoenas, and internal investigations now better align with global legal standards.
This gathering brought together a diverse group of architects and visionaries from across the legal and technology sectors, underscoring the collective commitment to reshaping the future of legal practice through innovation and collaboration.
Google’s “subpoena attack,” where emails appeared as bona fide communications from Google, exemplifies this threat. The risk of phishing attacks is not limited to Gmail alone. All email platforms are susceptible to fraudulent alerts and malicious links, which can lead to security breaches.
In her current role, Katie focuses on leveraging technology like AI to improve the litigation process for lawyers. Kristin explained that DISCO’s vision is to create great legal technology that helps lawyers find evidence faster. Through DISCO Pro Bono, they donate their technology to support pro bono legal matters.
But with digital transformation comes legal complexity–especially when responding to subpoenas for electronic communications. Failure to comply with the SCA when responding to subpoenas can lead to significant legal and financial repercussions, reputational damage, and even loss of customer trust. the actual text of an email).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content