Log in
<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
  • Wed, September 20, 2017 3:48 PM | Anonymous

    What is artificial intelligence? How will artificial intelligence change the practice of law? What does the future hold for lawyers based on the use of artificial intelligence?

    In our first podcast, board member Seth Eichenholtz of Mastercard welcomes James Sherer, the chair of the Information Governance practice team and member of the E-Discovery Advocacy and Management, and Privacy and Data Protection teams. 

    Together, we tackle questions about the use of artificial intelligence technology in the legal industry.

    For more news on artificial intelligence, visit the AI Resource Portal. Want to stay up-to-date with our artificial intelligence podcasts and other AI news? Subscribe to LTPI.

    Want to get involved in our AI project? Email us at programs@legaltechpi.org to learn how. 

  • Fri, April 21, 2017 7:55 PM | Anonymous
    Welcoming the Newest Members of our Advisory Panel

    Legal Technology Professionals Institute (LTPI) is pleased to announce the recent additions we’ve made to our Advisory Panel. While we continue to work towards our 2017 goals, these individuals, along with our current advisory panel members and our Board of Directors, will aid tremendously in those endeavors.

    • Tara Emory - Driven, Inc

    • Robert Keeling - Sidley Austin LLP

    • Noah Lauricella - GoldenbergLaw, PLLC

    • Sunil Ohri - Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP

    • Martin Tully - Akerman LLP

    • Mike Quartararo - Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

    • John Wilson - Discovery Squared, LLC

    "It is an honor and a privilege to be asked by this esteemed group of colleagues and peers to join in the effort to advance the growth of education, training and knowledge in the legal technology industry,” shared Michael Quartararo. “I'm looking forward to working with this like-minded group of professionals and to sharing what I've learned."

    “I am delighted and flattered to join the LTPI Advisory Panel. LTPI has recruited many talented lawyers and litigation support professionals who are leading the development of authoritative practice materials in eDiscovery,” said Tara Emory. “I am excited to work with these field experts and look forward to contributing to the development process.”

    We are pleased to welcome our newest Advisory Panel members chosen for their professional expertise and for their personal experiences. We’re confident that our advisory panel will bring a range of voices to help us continue our growth while we develop and maintain operational and ethical standards, best practices, guidelines, resources, and forums. Join us in welcoming them to LTPI and congratulating them on their new role on the Advisory Panel.

    To all our members, we thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to your participation in our future efforts.

    To learn more about participating in current projects or other LTPI efforts, please contact info@legaltechpi.org.

  • Thu, April 06, 2017 6:04 PM | Anonymous
    The Founding of LTPI

    About two years ago, a group of professionals, very familiar with the impact technology has on the legal profession, set a goal to create a new organization for like-minded individuals. The objective of the organization is to develop and share best practices and propose practical standards and guidelines to assist practitioners in a rapidly evolving industry.

    Another goal is to provide a forum in which less experienced legal professionals can interact with seasoned veterans, gather experience working on projects, and gain visibility through speaking opportunities and credits on publication.

    The group formed a nonprofit named the Legal Technology Professionals Institute (LTPI). The Advisory Panel of LTPI has structured the organization, developed operating procedures, and identified some immediate opportunities for the organization to make a positive contribution. With the financial support of several charter benefactors, the LTPI is ready to begin to deliver on its promises.

    LTPI Core Values E-Discovery and Legal Technology

    2016 Projects

    LTPI projects are a formal exercise. Project suggestions are vetted by members and must be approved by the Board of Directors to ensure that the outcome provides a deliverable needed by practitioners. A project charter is drafted to identify the scope, clarify goals, and define deliverables. LTPI assigns members to work on projects. Usually, a project team consists of a blend of subject matter experts and interested practitioners and they are guided to completion by a designated project leader. Once completed, the project outcome undergoes a period of public comment before being adopted and released. While this process sounds lengthy, the process typically lasts three to four months.

    Applying this process, LTPI delivered several high-quality project outcomes to the industry last year, including:

    1. Guidelines for Self-Collection. While self-collection is generally an undesirable practice, we recognize that it is going to happen. The guidelines LTPI developed this year were presented at several conferences over the year, and were very well received.
    2. Practical Guidance for the Meet and Confer Process. While plenty of guidance on the meet and confer process exists, we found that there is little material addressing the practical and tactical aspects of the process. LTPI developed a framework which enables parties to litigation to anticipate and manage events throughout a meet and confer. Practitioners who have used this framework report savings of both time and money for their clients. This framework is now being used as a key teaching aid by practitioners around the country.
    3. The Discovery Data Governance Model (DDGM). The DDGM helps people identify the many data elements that may be involved in a case, and where an organization may store that data. Aligned with information governance and data security models, the DDGM provides a flexible guide and template that organizations may adapt to their needs. It enables organizations to properly track data, and it covers people, systems, processes, and procedures for all phases of the matter. Feedback on the DDGM from corporations, law firms, and services providers has been very favorable.
    4. The Audio Production Model. The audio production model was developed with input from companies specializing in producing audio materials. The production of audio evidence is an emerging area which previously had no standards or guidelines. The model provides extremely helpful guidance to practitioners in this specialized area.

    Upcoming Projects

    LTPI is also working on a Model Code of Conduct, which is undergoing final internal reviews and which will be available for public comment shortly.

    Another LTPI project team is working on a Collections project to define best practices associated with collections from an exhaustive list of particular data sources.

    Moving forward into the next year we have several exciting projects in development that are moving through the vetting process, including one or more projects addressing the use of artificial intelligence in a legal setting.

    Strategic Alliances

    The founders of LTPI recognize that a number of organizations serve the legal industry. Taking care not to duplicate those services, LTPI recognizes that our core mission synergizes well with the mission and values of other organizations. Over the last year, LTPI has taken steps to build partnerships with other industry groups, and will continue to do so in the coming year.

    1. The Masters Conference. For years now, the Masters Conference has provided events, both nationally and internationally, to inform and educate industry professionals. The Masters Conference provides LTPI with many opportunities to showcase our project deliverables and further educate our public. LTPI participated in the Master’s Washington, DC conference in 2016, and has targeted events in San Francisco and New York in 2017. Our partnership with the Masters Conference provides LTPI members a discount on participation at any Masters Conference event. It also provides sponsors of the Masters Conference the ability to contribute to LTPI projects.
    2. ACEDS. LTPI has worked closely with the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists to build a solid relationship. Like ACEDS, LTPI is dedicated to educating the industry. As a developer of new tools, guidelines, and standards, LTPI needs a way to share the fruits of our projects. ACEDS has been instrumental in helping LTPI to promote initiatives and projects. Recently, LTPI shared the podium with ACEDS in a very well-attended webinar to discuss the Meet and Confer framework.

    Other Events and Publications
    1. E-Discovery Day. This is an annual event featuring web-based seminars on trending topics of interest to the e-discovery community. LTPI and about a dozen other organizations created presentations which were scheduled throughout the day. LTPI created two presentations for the event, including one on the Discovery Data Governance Model. In addition to virtual presentations, E-discovery Day featured networking events in major cities. LTPI participated in the networking event held in New York City.
    2. Ingenious events. These are smaller, more intimate events, generally featuring a focused attention on some aspect of e-discovery. LTPI participated in a number of these events in 2016 that showcased LTPI projects.
    3. Publications. LTPI members are regularly quoted in articles published in the industry. In addition, LTPI and its projects have been the subject of several recent articles published by LTN and ACEDS. The word is getting out!

    Other News of Interest
    LTPI Board Members

    Last year the Board of Directors concluded that LTPI required more work than a five-member board could handle. Acting in accordance with the LTPI Bylaws, the Board decided to add two members to the Board. Candidates were nominated from among the LTPI membership, and a membership vote elected Kevin Clark and Seth Eichenholtz to join the LTPI Board.

    Very late in the year, Board member (and a founding member of LTPI), Babs Deacon decided it was time to retire from the industry. Unfortunately, that retirement included LTPI. Babs made substantial contributions to getting LTPI off the ground and is sorely missed. The Board of Directors is working on identifying a replacement.

    As a member driven organization, we want our activities to be transparent to our members. Our financials are available on the LTPI website, so you can see how your membership dues and benefactor contributions were applied to our activities over the last year.


    As a member-driven, non-profit organization, LTPI made the decision to not allow specific sponsors to buy their way into influencing our direction or project outcomes. We use the term “Benefactor” to indicate that their contributions to LTPI represents their commitment to thought leadership and moving the industry forward, rather than participation as a quid pro quo. We are grateful to those Benefactors who helped us get this idea started. This year we welcome FRONTEO and the Clutch Group as new Benefactors. We hope that other organizations will want to participate as Benefactors as the year moves on.

    Clutch Group       FRONTEO


    Future Plans
    1. LTPI project deliverables depend on participation by members willing to share their time and expertise. LTPI has several projects in development for which member volunteers are needed. LTPI will actively recruit new and existing members to staff those projects this year. LTPI encourages members who want to participate, both to learn and to socialize, as part of the project teams. We also hope that you will invite friends to participate. More people means LTPI can work on more projects.
    2. LTPI will continue to develop the partnerships mentioned above and to examine other partnership opportunities. LTPI will attempt to find win-win situations for our members to attain reduced costs for attending partner events, for joining other organizations, etc.
    3. LTPI is actively developing a Law School Outreach program. LTPI has noticed the aging of the e-discovery community as well as the dearth of both information and opportunity for newcomers to the community. The Law School Outreach program for students (particularly those close to graduation) is a critical project to engage the next generation of lawyers and e-discovery professionals. LTPI believes that as the e-discovery industry and intersection of law and technology evolves, it will be essential that up-and- coming practitioners have access to resources from a networking, internship, and ultimately job market perspective.

    Get Involved and Make a Difference
    • Become a member...renew annually!
    • Access our Knowledge Center.
    • Suggest a new project.
    • Get involved—join a committee or Special Project Group.
    • Attend events hosted by LTPI or our Partners.
    • Be an advocate.

    Join or renew your membership online! For further information, or if you have any questions, please contact membership@legaltechpi.org.

  • Wed, January 11, 2017 4:29 PM | Anonymous

    LTPI FeedbackWe're extremely proud to present to the community a new practical standard, the Discovery Data Governance Model (DDGM™) created by an amazing team of industry veterans who are all members of LTPI.

    The DDGM™ is currently available as a free resource to eDiscovery and legal technology community, and may be downloaded from the LTPI site.

    An essential part of each of the projects released by LTPI is feedback and comments from our members and the community at large. The feedback we received is then reviewed by the project team who will determine if any changes are made to the resource.

    We are wondering if you could take a few minutes to review the DDGM™ and provide feedback on the project. The DDGM™ can be downloaded and feedback can be submitted on the resource page:


    The feedback form will be available for 30 days after which we will review all submissions and release a final version of the DDGM™.

    If you are able to assist us, we would be grateful. This is part of a concerted effort to raise and maintain standards among eDiscovery, information governance and legal technology professionals for the benefit of future litigation.

    If you have any questions, please contact programs@legaltechpi.org.

  • Tue, January 03, 2017 2:02 PM | Anonymous

    It’s hard to believe we closed out another calendar year, but we are excited for this new year of opportunities and growth that awaits the LTPI Community.

    As we reflect on a year of growth and engagement through conferences, webcasts, partnerships, membership and more, we are thankful for your support and contributions. We look forward to continuing to build our resources over the next year, adding new benefactors and partners and increasing our membership. 

    We also want to extend a special welcome to our newest members, subscribers, benefactors and partners.

    We again encourage everyone to join our membership community and get involved in a current or new project. Please also follow us on Twitter (@legaltechpi), Facebook and LinkedIn

    We look forward to continuing to provide you with the most valuable tools and resources available and hope that you join the conversation in 2013!

    Thank you! We appreciate your support and look forward to our continued growth in 2017.

  • Mon, November 28, 2016 10:22 AM | Anonymous

    December 1st of this year marks the 2nd anniversary of E-Discovery Day. If you haven’t heard about it before you may be asking, “What is E-Discovery Day exactly and why are we celebrating it?”

    E-Discovery Day is an industry-wide celebration of e-discovery’s vital and growing role in the legal process.

    This year on December 1, 2016 E-Discovery Day will be full of online and live events along with new educational resources including CLE webcasts, whitepapers, case studies, infographics, e-books, in-person networking events and so much more.

    In addition to LTPI sponsoring, E-Discovery Day will be sponsored by vendors and associations from the E-Discovery and legal technology space including ACEDS, Actiance, EDRM, Epiq Systems, Exterro, HBR Consulting, and Morae Legal.

    Last year, on December 1, 2015, the first annual E-Discovery Day included 10 educational webcasts, 26 e-discovery expert panelists, and 1351 webcast participants.

    What can you expect this year?

    This year there are 11 educational webcasts scheduled including two featuring LTPI Board Chairman Eric Mandel and Director Seth Eichenholtz,  hosted by Exterro and LTPI.

    Seth’s webcast entitled “Why Every Firm/Legal Department Needs to Invest More in Legal Project Management” will give professionals a high level view into how other legal teams have incorporated legal project management at their organizations. It will also help professionals learn how to utilize legal project management principles and tools to manage all of the moving parts of ediscovery with the staffing available, ensuring that no task falls between the cracks.

    The webcast, which begins at 4:15 PM EDT, will also feature David Yerich, Esq., Director of eDiscovery at UnitedHealth Group (and a member of the LTPI Advisory Board) and Thomas Mullane, eDiscovery Specialist at United Technologies.

    At 5:30 PM EDT, Eric Mandel will join Mary Mack, Executive Director at ACEDS; George Socha, Founder of EDRM, and Bill Hamilton, Executive Director of University of Florida’s E-Discovery Project for “E-Discovery Training for 2017. The webcast will provide professionals with insights from legal/e-discovery teachers on the topics they should be learning more about and how to get involved with educational e-discovery associations and groups in 2017.

    When asked about his webcast, Eric shared, “We have an ever-growing industry. The demand for qualified, competent personnel will continue to expand.  This panel will examine the resources available for education, training, general information, and career development. We will address some of basic skill sets and knowledge required to competently work in this industry, the resources for foundational knowledge and updates, and the organizations, events and training sources.”

    In addition to these two webcasts hosted with Exterro, LTPI is excited to announce we will be hosting a webcast at 11:00 AM EDT that will focus on the latest project completed by the Projects Committee.

    LTPI’s Discovery Data Governance (DDG) project evolved from the desire to create policies and procedures for organizing information at the end of a matter (settlement, decision, judgment, etc.) and the realization that project teams need to properly track data from the start of a matter all the way through to its end and aftermath. The needs of both Information Governance and Cyber Security dictated we look at those topic requirements broadly. As the LTPI project team began gathering, outlining and grouping common best practices, we realized that there was a larger need for a more formal Information Governance model focused specifically on discovery, cyber security and business metrics and how they intertwine. We recognized the work already performed by the IGRM (in which some of our LTPI team members played a leading role), but we also realized the need to drill deeper into the dispute resolution process. This DDG project is the result of that analysis and feeds into the overall Information Governance and data security frameworks.

    Register to attend our Discovery Data Governance webcast, ask questions and provide your comments on our latest project.

    Want to join us for an in person networking event? 

    Check out the list of events happening across the country hosted by Women in eDiscovery, ACEDS, LTPI and others. 

    View full list of networking events.

    Why should you attend E-Discovery Day?

    E-Discovery Day is about you and your career and celebrating all that we have accomplished in E-Discovery and legal technology. It is about providing a road map for what’s to come. What better reason could you have to attend an online or in person event then it being about you and your professional development?

    Now join us in Celebrating E-Discovery Day!

  • Thu, November 03, 2016 5:42 PM | Anonymous

    This article was originally posted on LinkedIn

    Much has been written on the impropriety of FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress on Friday, October 28, 2016. As an attorney who specializes in the discovery and analysis of electronic evidence, I have repeatedly been asked my opinion on this unfolding scandal, particularly in regards to what does the FBI likely know at this point, and how long will it take for them to provide real answers.

    Let's start with the two key facts asserted in Director Comey’s letter to Congress: First, the FBI discovered emails in an unrelated case “that appear to be pertinent to the investigation (of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server).” Second, “the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.” (The letter can be read in full on the New York Times, or other major newspapers). 

    It has been reported through numerous unauthorized leaks that the unrelated case was the investigation into Anthony Weiner’s alleged relationship with a teenage girl, and that approximately 650,000 emails were located on a computer shared by the family. It has also been reported that the FBI obtained a search warrant to examine these emails on Sunday, October 30, 2016, which would allow the FBI to “assess whether or not this material may be significant.” 

    With only one week before the election, the 24-hour news cycle is filling the airwaves and print media with non-stop supposition, innuendo, and pure pants-on-fire fabrications.

    As a professional with expertise in electronic evidence, I think it is important that we consider what the FBI should be able know now, about 72 hours after obtaining the search warrant for these emails. The following assumes for analysis purposes that there are, in fact, approximately 650,000 emails in total on the device. (NOTE: while not theoretically inconceivable, in my experience this is an extraordinary high number of emails, even assuming that it is from two hyper-power users.)  I also assume that the FBI has access to the same technology that I have readily available to me and my colleagues who work in the world of civil electronic discovery. .


    Emails are not examined by looking through them in Outlook or Apple Mail. In the course of the Weiner investigation, the FBI would have created a forensic image of the computer containing the emails, copying every zero and one from the computer storage (i.e., a hard drive or flash memory). They would have then extracted and processed all the data on the drive using a computer software program designed expressly for the purpose of examining electronic evidence. Once that is done, a forensic analyst begins to examine the data for evidence. It is at this point I expect an FBI analyst identified emails that contain the domain identifier “@clintonemail.com” and notified superiors that there was electronically stored information (ESI) that may be “pertinent to the investigation” of the Clinton email server. Given that the FBI sought a separate search warrant on October 30 for these emails, it is safe to presume that these emails were not within the scope of the original warrant for Weiner’s emails, and had not been examined or otherwise substantively assessed for actual relevance to the investigation of the Clinton email server prior to Comey sending his letter to Congress on October 28.


    From my perspective, what we want to know immediately is whether there are any unique emails that have a reasonable probability of containing information related to the operations of the Department of State or the United States government and could contain classified information. If there is no such evidence on the device, then Director Comey’s letter is materially misleading and he has a duty to promptly clarify his remarks.

    Within hours of receiving the search warrant on October 30, the FBI should have been able to perform an initial analysis of the emails and determine, amongst other things, the following:

    • The total number of emails containing the domain “@clintonemail.com”.
    • A list of all full email addresses that use the domain “@clintonemail.com” (e.g., hrc@)
    • The count of emails from each full email address using the domain “@clintonemail.com”.
    • A breakdown showing the count of emails were sent from, sent to, copied or blind copied to an individual using the domain “@clintonemail.com” (e.g., 10 FROM hrc@, 50 TO hrc@, 100 CC to @hrc, 2 BCC @hrc).
    • The total number of emails which were forwarded to Mr. Weiner from an individual using the domain “@clintonemail.com” (e.g., Huma Abedin forwarded to her husband a copy of an email that HRC was copied on).
    • The total number of emails sent from, sent to, copied or blind copied to an individual using the domain “@clintonemail.com” that were also addressed to someone, other than Mr. Weiner, at a .gov domain extension.

    There have been media reports that the FBI found no emails that were sent by or to Secretary Clinton in this data set. This is quite plausible. We know that Ms. Abedin had an account on the @clintonemail.com domain using “huma@”. (See, e.g.,http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JW-v.-State-Abedin-email-006841.pdf). An analyst’s identification of metadata showing even one email from the @clintonemail.com domain while investigating the potential case against Mr. Weiner could serve as a basis for a warrant to determine if Ms. Abedin had failed to submit all subpoenaed emails to the FBI during its investigation of the Clinton email server. Thus, the facts set forth in James Comey’s letter could have been triggered by Huma using her @clintonemail.com account to send one single email to her now estranged husband. 

    In trying to identify potentially relevant emails, one option immediately available to the FBI is the use of date restrictions. Hillary Clinton served as the 67th Secretary of State from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013. Emails sent using the @clintonemail.com domain before January 21, 2009 and after February 1, 2013 are not relevant to the investigation of her use of a private email server while in office. The FBI could have immediately used available technology to filter out any emails that were sent or received before or after those dates, which would likely substantially reduce the volume of potentially relevant emails for further examination.  

    In addition to metadata analysis and applying date range restrictions, the FBI should have had the immediate ability to perform text based searches, including for the words or symbols used to flag emails as confidential or classified with a specific designation. It has been previously reported that the inclusion of the letter C in a subject line of an email indicated that it was intended to be treated as confidential (not “classified” as repeatedly misstated by several politicians). This information could be found with a simple search that would take no more than a few seconds. 

    Additionally, assuming that the FBI still retained the emails and related information obtained from the Clinton server, FBI analysts should have been able to execute a software function that would identify exact duplicate copies of emails that were in both data sets.  While this process doesn’t always work perfectly when examining ESI from two different systems, there are other ways to identify duplicates that take a little more time and I will address below. 

    There are several other searches that could have been performed by a trained FBI analyst immediately after receiving the court order, including identifying all domains that appear on the emails sent from or to the @clintonemail.com domain. As noted above, the FBI would have been able to promptly identify any emails with the @state.gov domain or any .gov domain extension that would be presumptively related to the operation of the government, and would need to be set aside for review of the content of the email message.

    Another standard operation with emails that would have been available immediately is known as social networking analysis (SNA).  SNA allows an analyst to interact with a graphical representation of all individual email addresses and how they interact, including who is communicating with whom and the volume of flow of emails. This would provide an FBI analyst with an easy visual tool to examine who was communicating with whom using the @clintonemail.com domain. While I don’t usually cite to Wikipedia, the page on SNA provides a reasonable explanation of this process.


    There is no publicly available evidence at this time that there are ANY emails from or to Secretary Clinton using the @clintonemail.com on the machine. If we were to assume, for sake of argument, that some do exist, the first thing I’d consider before determining my next steps would be how many potentially relevant emails exist related to the Clinton server investigation – i.e., emails that had one point touched the Clinton server and are in fact, related to the operations of the Department of State or any other executive department or governmental branch and may contain classified information. As noted above, the count of emails that touched the Clinton server was immediately available to the FBI. If there are less than a 1,000 potentially relevant emails, I would proceed quickly to conduct a preliminary manual (eyes on every document) first pass review to determine if there is any indication on the face of the document that the emails contain information that are relevant.

    If there are a larger number of emails that are potentially relevant, the FBI could run them through a software program that will automatically group related emails together (known as clustering), and identify emails that are exact duplicates or are part of the same email string based on the textual similarities in the emails rather than the metadata.   This process generally takes only a few hours, and rarely more than one day. Once the software completes its processing of the data, an FBI analyst could perform advanced analytics to quickly classify emails into defined subject matters, group exact copies and similar versions of emails together, and then identify and prioritize emails that should receive immediate review as likely to be relevant.  This work could easily have been performed during the first 48 hours, and certainly 72 hours following the issuance of the warrant on October 30, 2016.

    During this same frame, the FBI should have been able to determine if any emails harvested from Mr. Weiner computer are part a missing part of an email thread first identified on the Clinton server. For example, let’s say hypothetically that there was an email found on the Clinton server from a third party to both Secretary Clinton and to Ms. Abedin, but there was no reply found on the Clinton server. Now let’s say that a reply from Secretary Clinton to this third party is located on Mr. Weiner computer. We have software available that will automatically associate the emails, and a quick search will show all emails where a new part of the same email string has been found.

    Within 72 hours, the only information remaining to be gathered would come from a manual, document by document review of every email that has any potential to contain classified information.


    If contra-leaks are true, and there are hundreds, if not thousands of emails that have a probability of containing classified information, that review will take weeks, if not months, to complete. This process is outside the scope of a normal civil discovery process, as it requires multiple rounds of interagency review and analysis.


    At this point, Mr. Comey and the FBI can provide definitive answers to numerous questions raised by his cryptic letter to Congress of October 28, 2016, including how many new, unique emails from Secretary Clinton exist on Mr. Weiner’s computer, and how many will need to be substantively reviewed for potential classification – if any.  It seems to me that the calls for Mr. Comey to at a minimum clarify and extend his remarks is not subject to technical limitations, but rather Mr. Comey’s political decision-making.

    About the Author:
    Eric P. Mandel Indicium Law PLC

    Eric P. Mandel is the Managing Member of Indicium Law PLC, a boutique firm focused on navigating clients through the legal, technology, and process issues related to eDiscovery, cyber risk, data privacy, and information governance. Eric serves on multiple policy and standards setting bodies, including the Board of Directors of the Legal Technology Professionals Institute (LTPI) and the Steering Committee of The Sedona Conference Working Group 1 (WG1).  Eric is licensed to practice law in California and Minnesota, and is an IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US).

  • Sun, June 19, 2016 10:49 PM | Anonymous
    Meet Legal Technology Professionals Institute (LTPI) Member, Babs Deacon, CMO and VP of Education & Training at Venio Systems. Babs is on the LTPI Board of Directors and has been a member since its inception in 2015. She also has shared her industry expertise by being a lead on LTPI projects or participating on project teams.

    Babs is an eDiscovery and Litigation Support industry pioneer with more than 30 years of discovery and information governance experience. She specialized in providing consulting, project management, and data reduction services to law firms, corporations and government clients, including management of the 9/11 WTC project for the Law Department of the City of New York. As a consultant and practice support manager for several prominent law firms, Babs dedicates her efforts to educating, mentoring and evangelizing about discovery best practices and tactics.

    Legal Technology Professional Institute is a non-profit legal association for legal practitioners who are involved in eDiscovery, investigations and information governance. Supporters of the initiative include the world’s leading law firms, corporations, enterprise software companies and litigation support providers.

    Learn more about LTPI membership and join today. Already a member? Find out more about Babs and other LTPI members by logging in and viewing profiles. 

  • Wed, June 01, 2016 9:30 PM | Anonymous

    LTPI's Board of Director and Chair of Programs Committee, Quin Gregor, recently participated in the May 23rd Ing3nious Southeast eDiscovery & Information Governance Retreat located outside of Atlanta.  

    The retreat, expertly organized by Chris LaCour and his team was, as is typical of Chris' events, in a beautiful settingGeorgia's Chateau Elan. Present were roughly 120 people from some of nation's largest companies and more prominent law firms, all of whom had good subject matter knowledge. This allowed the educational content to be at a deeper level than most conferences. 

    Quin presented on two panels"Data Destruction" and "Overcoming Objections to Utilizing TAR". 

    The Data Destruction panel emphasized the need for a corporate environment focused around Information Governance combined with strong cross-departmental communication protocols. The panel was led by Abigail Bortnick (King & Spalding) and featured, in addition to Quin, Henry Moreno (Dell), Rich Robinson (JCPenny). 

    The discussion emphasized the need to understand what data and what information was stored, both where and why. The need for ROT maintenance was discussed  (disposing of Redundant, Obsolete & Trivial data), along with the need for a rigorous Change Management protocol that ensured proposed IT actions that might impact data caches included pre-action discussion with the lines of business as well as legal and compliance. Of course the panelists shared that collection and IT mistakes can and will happen but having a documented, validated and repeatable process is key.  Quin introduced LTPI's Self-Guided Collections framework to the audience, which is designed to guide the generation of such procedures and can be referenced here

    The panel finished its discussion recommending that when mistakes are made, a rigorous internal self-examination occurs so that the events are single-occurrence only and that lessons can be learned and folded back into the relevant portion of the information governance procedures. The results of this internal audit often serve as the core content for explanation to the court or government if data is accidentally removed. Without such processes in place, its much harder to defend one's data destruction actions, accidental or otherwise.

    The Overcoming Objections to Utilizing TAR panel centered more on the hard science aspects and not the fluffy pseudo-statistics that are too often waved around in the legal technology industry as being "fact". The panel was led by Christian Dodd (Hickey Smith) and featured Amy Catton (Kilpatrick Townsend), Bill Dimm (Clustify), Rishi Chhatwal (AT&T) and Quin Gregor (Fortium Partners / LTPI). 

    With more then four years since some of the earlier court cases approved the use of Predictive Coding (Global Aerospace was in April 2012), yet due to badly designed protocols, and marketing spin (TAR 1.0, TAR 2.0, TAR 3.0 and more) the legal industry is understandably confused. Bill did a great job explaining the various TAR approaches and how and when it was appropriate to use them. Quin discussed the inaccuracy and perils of keyword search and also the reliance on the belief that human review was adequate. Various studies have shown human review to be in the 40th percentile of accuracy, and this "news" surprised some of the audience. Further discussions highlighted that protocols such as those used in BIOMET were problematic and according to evidence presented and through calculation performed by William Webber, it is estimated that 40% of potentially responsive documents were culled using keyword search PRIOR to predictive coding being run. The panel emphasized the need for true understanding of how and when to take statistical measurements to ensure efficacy,  and not to continue to build on prior poor protocols and pseudo science. 

    In addition to the two panels Quin participated in, Ing3nious had sessions on project management, eDiscovery management in a small firm, the policing of social media and much more. 

    Overall, the one day retreat was a delight with many networking and learning opportunities. LTPI is looking forward to having more of our members participate in the retreats and presenting more of our projects to the Ing3nious attendees. 

    Great job Chris and team!

  • Wed, May 04, 2016 6:36 PM | Anonymous

    Dear Colleagues,

    As you know, we have just completed our first election cycle—another step towards achieving this year’s goals. At the beginning of this year, we developed a plan that articulates the moves we’ll make to continue our growth and with the development of our standards, and so the election we have just concluded affirms both the goals and their attainment.

    We are proud to announce the three new LTPI Board members, elected by our members:

    Kevin Clark Hire Counsel LTPIBabs Deacon Venio Systems LTPISeth Eichenholtz MasterCard LTPI

    Their positions on the LTPI Board are to take effect immediately and they participated in their first board meeting on Tuesday, April 26th. Please take a moment to log into the membership portal to view their profiles, connect if you haven’t already and congratulate them on their new Board positions.

    We wish to also thank departing board member Dera Nevin for her service and dedication as a founding board member. Dera helped to forge the core of LTPI and guided and shaped our organization in many ways and we hope to see her continue to help shape the organization as an active member.

    Thank you to all the voting members for using your voices and taking ownership of LTPI and its future.


    Eric Mandel

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 

Blog Archive

For earlier blog posts, please go to the Blog Archive Page.

Copyright ©2016 Legal Technology Professionals Institute
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software