The legal technology startups weren’t letting anything keep them away from Legaltech New York this year. Despite blizzards, arctic cold temperatures, hundreds of flight delays and cancellations, the legal tech startups not only showed up, but they made their presence known.
MT>3 spent two days at Legaltech meeting with some of the brightest minds in the industry who are breaking new ground with their innovative legal technologies. Both the new and lesser known legal tech companies wowed us with their leading-edge technology solutions and roadmaps for the future. These technologies are solving the e-Discovery, investigation and data governance issues that have plagued the industry for years, as well as solving problems we didn’t even know existed.
MT>3 is excited about implementing some of these new and ground-breaking solutions to bring the world of e-Discovery, investigations and data governance to a whole new level.
In late April, U.S. government lawyers withdrew their opposition to having a special master conduct privilege review of the documents seized from Michael Cohen, the personal lawyer of President Donald Trump. They suggested a new way forward: Technology Assisted Review (TAR) to identify potentially privileged material.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas of the Southern District of New York added that he would bring on Canada’s leading Research Professor in TAR, Maura Grossman to assist with the review.
TAR is the latest buzz in e-discovery circles. The development of technology to assist with managing review, expediting review and reducing its costs varies from predictive coding, concept-clustering and other analytics tools. The potential advantages when using TAR in a privilege review include: speed, accuracy, defensibility, and transparency.
The process selected for use in this case will surely be the talk of the town in the eDiscovery and technology circles, as it has the capacity to open the floodgates for the use of TAR in future cases requiring a privilege review.
The Ontario Superior Court recently held that $1 million to conduct a document review is not, per se, unreasonable. In Ernst & Young Inc. v. Essar Global Fund Limited et. al. the Defendants argued that they should not be responsible for paying the Plaintiff’s document review costs because their own review costs were significantly less.
Justice Newbould, however, disagreed. He suggested that an apples to apples comparison was not appropriate in the circumstances. He stated that “[a] comparison of numbers alone does not permit a conclusion that the expense incurred by Algoma … was an unreasonable expense”.
While we often budget for document review of our own client’s records…. beware – the buck doesn’t necessarily stop at the end of your own document review.