The new breed
The organisation and manipulation of electronic documents presents a mounting challenge to law firms and litigation support departments of all types and sizes. Recent major advances in software architecture and technology, along with the increasingly litigious corporate environment and the rising importance of e-disclosure, are factors that are pushing the legal profession towards new technology which maximises workflow efficiency and results.
October 17, 2007 at 08:05 PM
3 minute read
The organisation and manipulation of electronic documents presents a mounting challenge to law firms and litigation support departments of all types and sizes. Recent major advances in software architecture and technology, along with the increasingly litigious corporate environment and the rising importance of e-disclosure, are factors that are pushing the legal profession towards new technology which maximises workflow efficiency and results.
Of course, technology of this nature is not new to the market. But my recent experiences – particularly conversations with in-house corporate legal departments – lead me to believe that many lawyers probably associate electronic litigation support solutions with severe problems.
It is well recognised that many popular and traditional litigation support software packages that aim at the organisation, searching and/or management of electronic documents suffer from several limitations. For instance, the software usually relies on a proprietary or limited (or even outmoded) database system and requires considerable time for training, resulting in many features only being used by the most technically savvy support staff. Clearly this is not acceptable after a firm has dedicated significant time and money to enable the investment.
Also, many software solutions in this domain are designed around a legacy application structure that no longer fits today's demanding litigation environment. Typically, systems are likely to be limited to only a few document image types, such as single-page .tiff images, and users are restricted to static folders to store documents, and static coded fields to describe documents.
But one of the main criticisms of old-style software is that it has a confusing or even cost-prohibitive licensing structure in which web components, viewers, advanced features and/or other components must be purchased separately. This goes firmly against the flow of today's best-practice IT investments (and not only in the legal profession), which tend to focus on the 'software as a service' model, allowing firms to avoid upfront costs, hidden extras and even hardware investments.
Aside from the cost model, legal departments should also be aware that today's advanced e-discovery and hosting services have also eliminated most of the technical limitations.
Sophisticated document and business process management tools now enable litigation support platforms to provide a full 'end-to-end' solution, so law firms do not have to outsource subsets of the critical litigation process. Legal departments should be demanding that the database back-end provides open, maximum flexibility and scalability for customer document libraries and associated data. Intuitive interfaces should make solutions user-friendly for all legal staff, and should handle more than 40 different document image types. Importantly, systems should be 'searchable' using a Google-style function and the document library will be completely customisable.
In my experience, many in-house legal departments are not harnessing the new breed of evidence and litigation management software that is available to them. The process of quickly collecting, reviewing and producing any amount and type of discovery information can be made so much easier thanks to the major shift in technology development, adding obvious efficiencies in the current, complex litigation environment. n
Simon Stammers is UK sales director at Anacomp Limited.
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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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