Juristat’s Post

In the rapidly evolving world of legal technology, creating a robust tech budget is more crucial than ever. I recently came across an insightful article on ABA Journal that delves into the complexities of allocating funds for legal tech. It's a must-read for any law firm looking to navigate the cost-value equation of tech investments. A big shoutout to Debbie Foster of Affinity Consulting Group for her valuable contribution to the piece. Her expertise on the matter, suggesting a 4% to 7% allocation of a firm's total budget to technology, depending on the firm's starting point, is particularly enlightening.  #LegalTech #Innovation #LawFirmManagement

Legal tech, when implemented properly and adopted by your firm's team, can put you on the fast track to competitiveness and efficiency however, successful implementation doesn't happen by accident. It takes dedication, accountability, foresight, and more. Senior Consultant for Jameson Legal Tech, Sophie Best, writes about why the race for legal tech implementation is heating up, what challenges firms are likely to face, and how to make the most of your new tech product. #legaltech #legaltechnologies #legalinnovation

And 80%+ of material reviewed isn’t relevant. This level of wasteful spending causes a significant amount (I’ve heard more than 60%) of legal data projects to avoid eDiscovery teams and tools. 80% of the material isn’t relevant and the process doesn’t work for over 60% of projects. That sounds like a broken system. Glad to see so much effort to rethink our approach.

This is a topic I think about ALL THE TIME, so I was happy to give my thoughts for this article on the latest UnitedLex report. It's interesting sometimes how much of a disconnect there is between what in house clients want from their law firms and where the law firms think they are adding value. Of course every client is different, but it's worth studying the report!

$40 BILLION! That’s how much U.S. litigants spend annually on electronic discovery. This jaw-dropping figure is mostly driven by document review, where lawyers painstakingly comb through millions of documents to find what’s relevant—a process that can bleed cash, especially in complex, high-stakes cases. European clients and lawyers are often stunned by the sheer scale and cost of U.S. discovery. The U.S. is consistently the most expensive litigation forum globally, with electronic discovery as a major cost driver. Typically, the process involves trading written requests, haggling over search terms, and then shelling out hefty sums for document review to sort “responsive” from “non-responsive” materials. With millions of documents on the line, costs can spiral fast, often overshadowing the real issues at hand. To rein in these costs, some courts are experimenting with alternative methods—though not without controversy. Take the Third Circuit’s ruling in In re Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., No. 19-3549, 2019 WL 8437021, at *1 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2019). In this large antitrust case, the court okayed a discovery order requiring defendants to produce all documents flagged by search terms upfront, with the option to claw back irrelevant ones later. This approach pushes parties to agree on search terms and then produce every document hit, skipping additional relevance review. The idea? Slash costs by avoiding exhaustive document-by-document scrutiny, even if it means wading through irrelevant data. Sure, it’s not perfect—producing parties might cringe at releasing irrelevant information, and receiving parties could be swamped with off-topic material. But it underscores a critical need: a fresh take on discovery. With advancements like Large Language Models and Technology-Assisted Review (TAR), we have the tech to make this smarter and more efficient. If we don’t tackle these costs, litigation risks becoming a game of procedural warfare rather than a platform for justice—where the only winners are the lawyers racking up billable hours. It’s time to rethink, innovate, and bring that $40 billion figure down.

🚨 Legal Update Alert! 🚨 Hey everyone! If you're into legal battles and tech, this one's for you. 📜⚖️ In a recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez made a significant decision in the case of Sectra Communications AB v. Absolute Software, Inc. (No. C22-353RSM). The court found that the defendants couldn't hide behind an existing ESI (Electronically Stored Information) order to avoid producing additional documents after the plaintiff amended its complaint and served new discovery requests. 📂🔍 Here's the scoop: This case revolves around patent infringement. Initially, both parties agreed on an ESI Order to govern their discovery process, including specific custodians, data sources, and search terms. Everything seemed smooth until the plaintiffs discovered new facts from the defendants' ESI productions and decided to amend their complaint, adding new causes of action. They also served additional discovery requests. 🕵️♂️🖥️ When the defendants didn't comply with these new requests, the plaintiffs moved to compel production. The defendants argued that they had already met their obligations under the original ESI Order and that further searches would be excessive and unnecessary. But Judge Martinez wasn't buying it. He emphasized that under Federal Rules, parties must conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents, even if it means going beyond the initial ESI Order. 📜🔍 Judge Martinez ruled that the defendants had relied too heavily on the outdated ESI Order and failed to demonstrate a reasonable search for the new claims. He granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel, ordering the defendants to search documents from nine additional custodians. 📑✅ This ruling is a big deal because it underscores the importance of staying flexible and thorough in discovery, especially when new claims come into play. So, if you're dealing with ESI in your legal battles, make sure you're ready to dig deep and stay compliant with discovery rules! 💼🔍 #LegalUpdate #ESI #Discovery #PatentInfringement #CourtRuling #TechLaw #LegalNews #LawyersLife #LegalTech

That is a staggering statistic. Let Nuix help you reduce those data sizes with our gold standard processing and automation!

At Beyond Paralegals we Index everything. Why? Because legal documents are the foundation of any law firm and being organized can make a huge impact on our productivity, efficiency, and success. What is the difference between filing system and indexing? Filing is the process of organizing the documents and records in a proper sequence. Indexing is the device for locating documents which have been filed. It may seem tedious to index everything in the beginning, but the time saving benefits of indexing are critical when you’re in the middle of a deposition or trial and need to recall a date of production or bates range.   The best legal filing and indexing systems make it easy for anyone at your firm to effectively and efficiently find the files they need, when they need them, so keeping your Index on a shared drive is a given. TIP: Your law firm filing and indexing system should be easy to use, searchable, and future-proof. This means your files should be logically organized and you should be able to quickly search and find legal documents within minutes. Attached is a downloadable Written Discovery Index we use to track written discovery - feel free to us. *** Corporations and law firms hire Beyond Paralegals to put systems, processes, and technology in place to help drive client services and improve workflows for better legal and business outcomes. #wearebeyondparalegals

Modernization is no longer a choice but a necessity for the legal industry. In this dynamic and competitive landscape, law firms must embrace and leverage platform technology to not just survive but thrive. Adopting legal technology is not a fleeting trend, but a crucial step towards making sure that your firm stays ahead of the curve. Don't wait, initiate the adoption of contemporary solutions today. #LegalTech #DigitalTransformation