LegalTech Highlights In-house E-discovery Trend
Over the past 26 years, LegalTech New York has become a sort of holy pilgrimage for legal technologists, who come from across the country, and in some cases the world, to find out about hot new gadgets, software and services for the new year. This year the annual trade show,...
February 06, 2007 at 04:47 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Over the past 26 years, LegalTech New York has become a sort of holy pilgrimage for legal technologists, who come from across the country, and in some cases the world, to find out about hot new gadgets, software and services for the new year.
This year the annual trade show, which took place from Jan. 29-31, played host to three floors of exhibitors, seven series of seminars and three keynote addresses. Hundreds of in-house counsel, law firm attorneys and technologists converged in Midtown Manhattan, many hoping to find answers to the questions the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have given rise to such as, “How can I quickly respond to a discovery request without missing crucial, responsive documents?” and “How can I cull my data to cut down on review costs later in the process?” and, of course, “Can someone help me understand what my IT people are saying to me?”
Of course exhibitors were eager to supply answers to these questions, mostly in the form of a sales pitch. But behind the marketing speak, the free pens and bowls of Hershey Kisses, there was a revolution going on. In light of the new rules, vendors are scrambling to change their focus. Whereas a year ago, many were still pitching primarily to law firms, the overwhelming majority is now catering to the in-house market.
That's why it's no wonder the two biggest buzz words overheard at the show were “systematize” and “in-sourcing.” Sure, the two terms reflect the usual cryptic qualities of tech jargon, but they also go to show that the legal technology market is aware that e-discovery is becoming an in-house process.
When vendors talk about how their products can help systematize e-discovery, they're really saying they can help a company simplify e-discovery into one adjustable set of steps. When they say in-sourcing, they're talking about eliminating the reliance on law firms and designating in-house personnel, whether legal or IT, to head up e-discovery initiatives.
All this boils down to the biggest trend of 2007–bringing the e-discovery process in house. As the year goes on, expect new innovations catering to legal departments and more coverage of how to streamline vendor selection, work with business and IT personnel and minimize e-discovery costs in light of the new rules.
Over the past 26 years, LegalTech
This year the annual trade show, which took place from Jan. 29-31, played host to three floors of exhibitors, seven series of seminars and three keynote addresses. Hundreds of in-house counsel, law firm attorneys and technologists converged in Midtown Manhattan, many hoping to find answers to the questions the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have given rise to such as, “How can I quickly respond to a discovery request without missing crucial, responsive documents?” and “How can I cull my data to cut down on review costs later in the process?” and, of course, “Can someone help me understand what my IT people are saying to me?”
Of course exhibitors were eager to supply answers to these questions, mostly in the form of a sales pitch. But behind the marketing speak, the free pens and bowls of Hershey Kisses, there was a revolution going on. In light of the new rules, vendors are scrambling to change their focus. Whereas a year ago, many were still pitching primarily to law firms, the overwhelming majority is now catering to the in-house market.
That's why it's no wonder the two biggest buzz words overheard at the show were “systematize” and “in-sourcing.” Sure, the two terms reflect the usual cryptic qualities of tech jargon, but they also go to show that the legal technology market is aware that e-discovery is becoming an in-house process.
When vendors talk about how their products can help systematize e-discovery, they're really saying they can help a company simplify e-discovery into one adjustable set of steps. When they say in-sourcing, they're talking about eliminating the reliance on law firms and designating in-house personnel, whether legal or IT, to head up e-discovery initiatives.
All this boils down to the biggest trend of 2007–bringing the e-discovery process in house. As the year goes on, expect new innovations catering to legal departments and more coverage of how to streamline vendor selection, work with business and IT personnel and minimize e-discovery costs in light of the new rules.
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 AllRecent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 2Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
- 33rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
- 4Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
- 5Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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