Now available on demand is the New York Law Journal and Pangea3 sponsored webinar entitled, “The New Normal: Big Data and the Future of Litigation.”
In their informative presentations and panel discussion, the four esteemed speakers, Jerami Kemnitz, Of Counsel, Shook Hardy Bacon LLP, Ronald J. Hedges, Principal, Ronald J. Hedges LLC, Tom Barnett, Managing Director and eDiscovery Practice Leader, Stroz Friedberg, and Edward Sohn, AVP, Litigation Solutions, Pangea3 discuss how new technology is shaping the litigation landscape and whether recent court decisions will require a shift in the use of these methodologies.
In this webinar, you will learn best practices for managing big data sets in keeping with new compliance regulations and case precedent. You will also hear about how litigators can defend their use of technology from discovery through appeals.
Watch This Webinar On Demand
This link will be active through August 2013.
May 20, 2013
“Four essential concepts emerge when examining matters that have successfully and unsuccessfully integrated predictive coding,” writes Edward Sohn, Esq., Assistant Vice President of Litigation Solutions at Pangea3. In this thought-provoking and insightful white paper, Mr. Sohn, who regularly consults with clients on complex e-discovery issues, discusses the effective implementation of predictive coding technology.
In this whitepaper, you will read more about how:
- The most practical purpose of predictive coding is to automate the prioritization of document subsets for review
- The labor of implementing an effective predictive coding workflow begins
- An effective predictive coding workflow must build in prudent quality control that accounts for legal exposure in discovery
Download White Paper Now
May 17, 2013
In his April 18, 2013 order in the matter In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2391), U.S. District Court Judge Robert Miller Jr. of the Northern District of Indiana, further defined and clarified what is “reasonable” regarding the application and use of predictive coding tools.
After initially collecting a universe of about 19.5 million documents, defendant Biomet (over plaintiffs’ directives to not begin document production until after the matters were centralized), used keywords to cull the initial population to 3.9 million documents and de-duplication to further shrink it to 2.5 million. Biomet then reviewed these documents for relevancy using the predictive coding tools within Recommind’s Axelerate platform (e.g., “more like this”) and 8 contract attorneys.
Biomet invited plaintiffs to suggest additional search terms and offered to produce the remaining non-privileged documents from the selected data set, but plaintiffs refused. They contended Biomet’s initial use of the “less accurate” keyword search tainted their production. Plaintiffs wanted Biomet to go back and employ predictive coding on the overall universe of 19.5 million documents.
Citing proportionality, Judge Miller rejected plaintiffs’ argument stating, “I can’t find that the likely benefits of the discovery proposed by [Plaintiffs] equals or outweighs its additional burden on, and additional expense to Biomet.” Indeed, Biomet, using Axelerate’s statistical sampling tools, concluded (with a 99% confidence rate) that less than 1.33% of the unselected documents would be responsive. Furthermore, they indicated that plaintiffs’ requests would cost millions of dollars in additional expenses above and beyond the $2+ million in e-discovery costs already incurred.
Beyond the facts identified in the order, this case provides us some key takeaways that can be used on future e-discovery matters.
- Proportionality Must Be Taken Into Account Judge Miller acknowledged that using predictive coding instead of keywords at the outset may have resulted in additional documents to plaintiffs, but the costs to do so would outweigh any benefits derived.
- The Standard for Discovery Is Reasonableness Plaintiffs were seeking a “perfect” discovery search, but Judge Miller (perhaps recognizing such a search as unrealistic) instead asked whether Biomet reasonably met its discovery obligations. Based on the statistical analyses done and the assumption that Biomet would continue to meet with plaintiffs on additional searches, he concluded the answer was yes.
- It’s about Process, not Software Judge Miller turned the focus away from the efficacy of the software (both parties agreed on the use of predictive coding) to the adequacy of the process used by Biomet.
- The Proper Application of Predictive Coding Can Produce a Reasonable, yet Cost-Effective, Production Plaintiffs asked for predictive coding to be used at the outset as it would have produced more documents. We have heard anecdotally how plaintiff firms often request the use of predictive coding tools early in the discovery process as a means for receiving a greater volume of documents than they might otherwise have received. Here, Judge Miller’s finding that it was reasonable for defendants to use predictive coding after initially culling with keywords, underscores the need to always plan up front how and when to best use predictive coding tools to meet discovery obligations in the most cost-effective manner.
Download the Order Now
May 3, 2013
Umair Muhajir, VP Global Litigation Solutions at Pangea3, was quoted in an article by Financial Post entitled, “Legal process outsourcing grows by leaps and bounds”. The article talks about the growth of Indian LPO industry and discusses concerns law firms may have about legal outsourcing. As a seasoned U.S. litigator with expertise in managing complex e-discovery projects with strict quality guidelines, Umair shared Pangea3’s initiatives towards quality and process improvements that are helping the company continue to innovate. Umair notes that, “The primary way in which we ensure quality is by being selective in whom we hire.” The article further explores the prospect of countries like Canada becoming a legal outsourcing hub. Read the article on the Financial Post Website.
April 23, 2013
In today’s fast-paced, high-tech world, information comes in all shapes and sizes. Companies are employing new management technologies that allow them to continuously update, analyze and capitalize on all the Big Data they collect.
Insiders have determined that the Big Data train won’t be slowing down any time soon. At the recent South by Southwest Interactive festival, where “techies” come to debut their latest and greatest innovations, CNN interviewed Stephen Wolfram, the scientist behind the data-driven Wolfram Alpha computational search engine in an article entitled 5 things we learned at SXSW. As the article notes, Wolfram told audiences, “In the modern world, everyone should learn data science,” or what the author refers to as “mining large databases for useful patterns of information.”
While companies are champing at the bit to harness the potential of Big Data, lawyers cannot afford to ignore the relative legal and compliance issues that surround the accumulation and use all this information. In his recent article for Inside Counsel, “What is Big Data and why should in-house counsel care?,” Mark Diamond delves into the potential risks that lawyers should be aware of, including privacy, compliance, liability and discovery concerns.
It’s clear that Big Data is altering the legal landscape in more way then one. So how do you work with it, and more importantly, how do you make it work for you?
According to Edward Sohn, a Director of Litigation Solutions at Pangea3, the answer–for litigators at least–may be found in the use of new discovery tools like predictive coding, which “presents serious benefits in high volumes of electronically stored information (ESI)–in other words, Big Data…Pangea3 has helped clients drive predictive coding on several engagements, utilizing different underlying algorithms and varied hosting platforms.”
Edward Sohn regularly consults with clients on complex e-discovery issues for Pangea3, and has written an article on how predictive coding works.
He will also be leading a complimentary CLE Webinar with the New York Law Journal on April 15th 2013, 1pm EDT, entitled, New Normal: Big Data and the Future of Litigation. Esteemed panelists include Amor Esteban, Partner, Shook Hardy Bacon LLP; Ronald J. Hedges, Principal, Ronald J. Hedges LLC and Tom Barnett, Managing Director and eDiscovery Practice Leader, Stroz Friedberg.
The panel will explore ways attorneys may defend their search parameters during discovery and how companies can comply with new collection and preservation standards in their day-to-day operations. They will also discuss the limitations in the current technology and whether recent court decisions will require a paradigm shift in the use of these methodologies.
REGISTER NOW FOR THIS WEBINAR
March 28, 2013
It’s not news to anyone that the financial services industry has faced a flood of litigation since the financial crisis. Accompanying this has been large-scale document review, and with it, the re-evaluation of certain privilege issues that arise during litigation and document discovery.
In his recent article in Corporate Counsel Connect, “A Practical Guide to the Bank Examiner Privilege,” Pangea3 Assistant Vice President, Litigation Solutions, Ashoke Prasad, takes on one of the privilege claims, looking at the implications of the Bank Examiner privilege in large-scale document review and contrasting it to the Attorney Client and Work Product privilege claims.
Ashoke expands greatly on two major points geared towards providing the starting point for approaching discovery planning when the Bank Examiner privilege may apply. First, “The Bank Examiner Privilege is claimed by the relevant Examiner/Regulator,” and second “Only the relevant Examiner/Regulator can waive the applicable privilege claim.”
Click here to read Ashoke’s full article for more information on the framework he proposes. In addition to managing complex Pangea3 document review services as part of litigation and regulatory investigations, many for financial services companies, Ashoke is admitted to practice in Illinois and has passed all four parts of the Uniform CPA (Certified Public Accountant) examination (licensing pending).
November 15, 2012
The lively, dynamic and engaging panels that Greg McPolin, Managing Director, Pangea3 and Corporate Counsel Litigation Sector and Karla Bookman, Vice President, Corporate & Compliance, spoke on at the ACC Annual Meeting 2012 were highlights of the conference, both for Pangea3 and, going by the feedback we received, for many in the audience.
Greg was a panelist on the Flat World and the Future of Document Review. The panel was sponsored by Pangea3 partner Stroz Friedberg and the panelists discussed the evolution of document review and how corporate counsel can harness the advancement of human review and technology for more efficient and accurate reviews. Here’s a video taken shortly after the panel:
During A Play-by-Play Guide to Creating a Contracts Playbook, the panel, with Karla moderating, fleshed out the most important issues in-house counsel should consider before creating and implementing playbooks. A few practical tips included:
- Cater your playbook to its audience to ensure your playbook is used consistently and correctly. You may need to create different playbooks for different parts or business units of your company
- Start with high-volume, low-complexity agreements to get the biggest immediate impact for investment, but don’t end there. High volume, high-complexity agreements need playbooks too.
Karla posted more tips on the Thomson Reuters Legal Current blog.
October 12, 2012
Rajat Soni, Assistant Vice President, Litigation Solutions, and Kulbir Kaur, Director, Litigation Solutions, took time from their busy schedules in the Pangea3 Mumbai office last month to write an article for the ACC Top 10. Both highly experienced in financial services litigation document review, Rajat and Kulbir use their experience and research in that sphere to inform tried-and-true advice—like how to avoid reviewing unnecessary documents—that resonates for large-scale litigation across industries. Their basic guidelines allow counsel to direct their focus to the most important, key issues of the case, while achieving high quality, defensible and cost-effective assistance from their managed review partner. Read the article on the ACC website.
October 9, 2012
It´s September, which means Pangea3 is getting ready for another Association of Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting. This year, the Pangea3 team is heading to Orlando. We are looking forward to:
- A Play-by-Play Guide to Creating a Contracts Playbook. Karla Bookman, the head of our Risk Management and Compliance and Corporate Transactional divisions, will be moderating this panel, which will prepare the in–house lawyer with everything she or he needs to know to create and effectively use a contracts playbook–from identifying what should go into the playbook, to training the team on how to use it. The panel is session 307 and will be on October 2 from 4:30 – 6:00 p.m.
- The Flat World and the Future of Document Review. Greg McPolin, Managing Director of Pangea3 and the Thomson Reuters Corporate Counsel Litigation Sector, is joining our partners at Stroz Friedberg to discuss the evolution of document review, and how corporate counsel can harness the advancement of human review and technology for more efficient and accurate reviews. The panel is session 1008 and will be on October 3, from 9:00–10:30 a.m.
- Are We Great or Just So–So? Finding the Benchmarks Necessary to Assess the Performance of Your Law Department. This Thomson Reuters sponsored session will provide specific examples of a wide range of current benchmarking data sources available to help you assess your department’s performance – and uncover opportunities to improve it. It’s session 1105, Tuesday October 2, from 11:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m.
- Booth #122. Not only will Pangea3 experts be standing by at the Thomson Reuters Booth #122 to answer your questions, but pop by the Pangea3 booth for special sweets, champagne and a chance to win a $1,000 Visa gift card. We’ll be holding drawings Monday and Tuesday nights, so be sure to stop by the booth during the day and enter for your chance to win.
Don´t forget to register for the ACC Annual Meeting 2012. Hope to see you there!
September 20, 2012
This week, Pangea3 was voted “Best Legal Process Outsourcer,” by readers of the New York Law Journal for the second year in a row. We are thrilled to be the LPO provider of choice for the readers of the New York Law Journal and for many of the world’s leading corporations and law firms—and we’re proud of the other winners from Thomson Reuters, Westlaw and WestlawNext.
In the Legal Process Outsourcing space, Pangea3 continues to lead the market and develop innovative services to help corporate legal departments extend capacity and improve efficiency while saving money. As our win in the Reader Rankings survey indicates, we have close relationships with our clients, and we work closely with them to develop services that fit their needs. We’ve developed tailored new services for our clients since Pangea3 was founded in 2004, and we continue that practice today.
For instance, we recently launched a Mortgage-Backed Securities Taskforce to meet the growing demand in financial services litigation. MBS-related documents require deep knowledge of the unique legal structures in these products and the accompanying terminology, and we developed the Mortgage Backed Securities taskforce so that our financial services clients could put this document review in the hands of experts.
In another recent example of client-Pangea3 collaboration, our new Pangea3 Regulatory Mapping offering was created out of necessity on our client’s part and innovation on ours, to help compliance officers manage ever-changing regulatory requirements and record enforcement. With regulatory enforcement heating up, many highly regulated companies need a team to meet the demand, and at Pangea3, that team is ready.
To see the full NYLJ survey click here, and find more information about the Thomson Reuters wins in the Rankings here.
September 12, 2012