LegalTech 2006: Vendors Showcase Innovations
When Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Kevin Harrang took the stage at LegalTech in New York, a silence overcame the audience - a silence that was intermittently disturbed by the bleeps and dings of BlackBerries, Treos and cell phones. These interruptions were fitting, considering that Harrang's keynote speech at the...
February 03, 2006 at 09:10 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Kevin Harrang took the stage at LegalTech in New York, a silence overcame the audience – a silence that was intermittently disturbed by the bleeps and dings of BlackBerries, Treos and cell phones.
These interruptions were fitting, considering that Harrang's keynote speech at the annual legal technology conference was about the evolution of technology in the legal profession. Twenty-five years ago, at LegalTech's inaugural conference, Harrang could expect complete silence during his speech. But in the 21st century, business and law are so tied to wireless and digital technologies that in any room full of lawyers, you are bound to hear the beeping of a BlackBerry – or a dozen.
This set the tone for the three-day event, one that brought together pocket-protector-wearing software engineers and lawyers looking for the magic application that will discover, retain, destroy and manage all at the push of a button and at minimal cost.
Hundreds of vendors hawked their services and software to the thousands of attendees. Sometimes it was difficult to distinguish one from the next. After seeing nearly 50 booths that service e-discovery alone, one begins to wonder how different each company's services and products really are. And the truth is, they're not that different from one another. What one company calls a “revolutionary feature,” such as context-driven searches, another company claims to have perfected three years ago. When one company claims to have serviced the largest single e-discovery conversion task, another company boasts an equally self-congratulatory statistic. For a lawyer in search of the best tool for his or her company, weeding through the winners and losers posed a difficult task.
But there are some fascinating advances in store for the corporate legal field. As vendors increasingly partner with each other, the state of e-discovery, which is currently splintered into a number of processes each requiring its own program, will hopefully become more cohesive. Eventually, there may be a one-stop service that can handle all of a company's e-discovery needs, saving time and sparing confusion.
Other advances on display at LegalTech included matter-management software that parallels wikis in structure and usage, voice recognition software that can transcribe as you speak (though this technology still lacks enough reliability to be useful for audio e-discovery requests) and software that melds e-billing and case management into one program that also benchmarks the output of your outside counsel.
Aside from the three floors of booths, there were dozens of lectures. Though most were geared toward the law firm partner, many were pertinent to the corporate counsel, including forums on e-discovery practices and vendor shopping.
But the dominant topic of conversation on the exhibit floor was the proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which go into effect in December. Many described it as the Sarbanes-Oxley of the legal-tech subfield. The new rules codify a lot of current e-discovery practices while also demanding more accountability. Although counsel laud the arrival of some clarity in this convoluted age of e-discovery, many bemoan the new rules because of their complexity and the burden it puts on them throughout the course of litigation.
LegalTech was a grand exhibition of solutions. Vendors talked up their products as if they could end legal-technology woes once and for all. But behind the optimism, behind the sales pitches, there was trepidation. It's too early to tell how the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will affect the legal landscape. But if the past is any determinant of the future, technology most likely will continue to advance to keep up with the ever-evolving legal field.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGoogle Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
Rates Will Go Up (Again), But Here's Why Profitability Might Not Be Maximized
4 minute readFinancial Services Has a Trust Problem. Can GCs Help Right the Ship?
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250