Archive for the ‘legal research’Category

eDiscovery for the Rest of Us?

E-discovery was once the sole concern of large law firms involved in large-scale litigation. But as EDD increasingly becomes an issue in smaller cases for smaller law firms, small and solo lawyers are learning some hard lessons about electronic evidence in litigation. Michael Barnsback, an employment and civil litigation senior associate with DiMuro Ginsberg says e-discovery is increasingly an issue for his 12-attorney firm in Alexandria, Virginia. While it is a challenge, he thinks it can sometimes benefit a small firm like his. He says there was a time when big law firms could count on bigger budgets and staff to out-muscle opposing counsel at smaller law firms. In particular, the document dump, the practice of sending as many files for review close to the start of a trial, has long been a favorite tactic for overwhelming an opponent. “It’s certainly leveled the playing field for us,” he says. “You don’t need a big team to do review.  If someone dumps a truckload of boxes on you, now you can scan them, put them in a searchable format, and one person on one computer can find what you need to go into the case prepared.”

But for many small firms, the technical demands of identifying, preserving, archiving, reviewing, and producing digital evidence for trial is increasingly becoming a problem, and one they cannot avoid. “We’re seeing tremendous growth for small firm e-discovery services,” says John Simek, a computer forensics specialist with Sensei Enterprises. “Judges are expecting attorneys to take it seriously and the attorneys realize that ethically they have an obligation to consider digital sources for evidence.” Unfortunately, lawyers who haven’t been involved in major litigation involving digital documents probably haven’t had a chance to learn things that some big firms have learned the hard way. Even more, small and solo firms often have hurdles to overcome that large-scale litigators never have to think about. For example, many lawyers who have never been involved in e-discovery before may mistakenly believe that printing an e-mail might be an obvious way to produce a document. However, there is a body of law that may require litigants to preserve metadata or other digital features in a document that are lost when printing. And while large firms can typically hire professional forensic examiners, small firms trying to operate on a tight budget might be inclined to do forensic examinations themselves, which could open up a host of problems.

<Read the Entire Article Here>

Posted via email from practice (redux)

Litigation Software to the Rescue!

43% of litigators who participated in a recent ABA survey say that they use litigation support software. As for the 57% of you wondering what exactly litigation software is, this is your lucky day. The term litigation support software refers to an entire subgenre of database software for storing, searching, and reviewing discovery and evidentiary material. Way better than manually going through a physical file, that’s for sure! Here’s a helpful chart produced by the ABA of the different litigation software out there. For more information on the respective companies and how their software can facilitate your your litigation practice, take a look at the websites below and decide for yourself (this applies to both the 43% of you already familiar with the systems as well as the 57% of you who may be interested in making the switch):

1. Anacomp CaseLogistix
2. Lexis Nexis Concordance
3. ILS Edge
4. iCONECT
5. ImageDepot
6. IPRO eReview
7. Lexbe
8. MasterFile
9. Nextpoint
10. CT Summation iBlaze

Opinion: Zelotes v. Rousseau (Total Attorneys Case)

At issue in this case was whether Chicago-based lead-generation service Total Attorneys was violating ethical rules by doing business Lawyers in the State of Connecticut. The answer apparently was no. At least, not based on the complaint brought by this Attorney-Plaintiff. The opinion is seen as a victory for free enterprise as opposed to the grip of local bar associations, which routinely monopolize Attorney-Referral Services, which are a source of profit.

I’m not saying the decision actually is a victory for anyone (other than Total Attorneys) but even the most cynical observer will admit that the idea of preventing lawyers from saving money and reaching prospective clients so that bar associations could maintain their monopoly … I mean, ensure the clients’ best interests – was heavy handed and backward-looking.

Prove me wrong. I dare you.

Posted via email from practice (redux)

Network Part 2: Not Going to Take It Anymore

In Part 1 of this series I discussed the current legal research market (lame) and how Wexis was without challengers until a little company called Google smacked them upside the head last year. But the question remains: what are you going to do about it?

Change.  At Last?

Even if Google Scholar does begin the long climb into the consciousness of lawyers, goes the thinking, Wexis could certainly deal with a direct attack as it dealt with Loislaw and Fastcase before. After all the real power of the network is that it resists by tightening its grip and digging in its heels until removing it would kill the host. But direct action is not Google’s style. On the contrary, Google is king of feature creep. It excels at constant development of bells and whistles joined to a simple, irresistible feature like … search. So it’s a good bet that Google Scholar will not directly threaten Westlaw or Lexis any more than Adwords threatened Findlaw or Lawyers.com. Of course Google has relentlessly siphoned off legal marketing dollars from Wexis for the past decade regardless of its indirect approach. And like Adwords, Google Scholar is part of an even bigger network than either Westlaw or Lexis. So maybe change is possible.

At the end of the day, I believe that Google Scholar will do for legal research what Avvo did for lawyer selection: bring transparency where there was none before. If that happens then consumers of legal information including lawyers, scholars, students, and lay people, will be able to bypass the thicket of jargon and questionable practices that kept them in thrall to Wexis for a century. The result would be a body of legal research enhanced by user input (think Wikipedia) instead of a narrowly controlled, opaque system like the ones that lawyers use now. Change, at last.
Running Scared

This month the ABA Journal features a comprehensive look at the new crop of threats facing Westlaw and Lexis, including Google Scholar and Bloomberg Law. According to the article Westlaw intends to roll out it’s next-gen research platform, WestlawNext, in time for the ABA Technology Show in March; while LexisNexis will announce the new Lexis, dubbed creatively ‘New Lexis,’ later this year. But while the article makes it sound as if both companies are about to make a real technological leap, I’d advise you not to hold your breath. Westlaw and Lexis have never responded to threats with anything but cosmetic changes, falling back instead on enticement or intimidation to keep users loyal. And it has always worked, so why fix what ain’t broken? Besides, how likely is it that after generations of taking their market for granted either company will invest the time, money, or business discipline needed to break with the past? Then again, if Wexis loses its iron grip on legal the spigot of legal information then it is nothing but a search engine, and not a good one at that. Reason enough to be afraid.

I’m Mad As Hell And Not
Going to Take It Anymore
So are Westlaw and Lexis simply keeping up appearances as they did when the Internet threatened their proprietary networks in the 90’s? Or do they really think they can change everything from their business model to their corporate culture to cope with the likes of Google and Bloomberg? My guess is that, as usual, Westlaw and Lexis will talk a good game but continue to rely on contracts and intimidation over innovation. Hey, it worked for AIG, GM, and Lehman Brothers, right? And look where they are today.

Posted via email from practice (redux)

Network Part 1: Mad As Hell

Everybody knows things are bad. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. Banks are going bust. Nobody knows what to do. So I want you to get up, go to your windows, and yell – ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’  – Network

Last month the blawgosphere erupted with discussions about the future of law: what to change, what to preserve, where did we go wrong? One of the most fundamental debates was about closed networks like Westlaw and Lexis (let’s call them “Wexis”) versus nominally open ones such as Avvo or Google. Wexis monopolizes legal research and – thanks to properties like Findlaw and Lawyers.com - legal marketing as well. These are the ultimate closed networks. They draw their strength from contracts, a steep learning curve, talented salespeople, and ubiquity. Avvo, Google, and others offer a more transparent experience with no sales force, few barriers to entry, no commitment, and no direct price tag for the use of their services. Which type of network is most likely to help lawyers meet their obligations in the future? The answer depends on whether lawyers get mad as hell and decide not to take it anymore, or shrug off the question and go back to business as usual.

The New 800-lbs. Gorilla

By putting an army of salespeople in the field and convincing lawyers that they could not function without them, Westlaw and Lexis have survived countless recessions and outlasted every threat. But last year, forces that had been building for decades such as unbundling, outsourcing, information availability, non-lawyer alternatives, and weak attorney-client bonding, created an opportunity for a different network provider to fill the void. And that is exactly what happened. But here’s the real question: if lawyers had not been jobless in record numbers last year, if businesses had been able to spend, if Big Law had not started laying off instead of hiring, and if the economy had not cratered, would Wexis still be doing business as usual? Probably: and that most likely means that lawyers are resigned to living under a 2-vendor cartel with little real competition and almost no incentive to innovate.

So in November 2009 when Google Scholar announced that it would be offering State and Federal cases including Supreme Court opinions back to 1791, it took a while for the news to sink in. Soon however, you could hear Westlaw and Lexis brass drop their collective loads as they realized that Google would not be content to give away for free the information that they had been charging for. Instead, they realized, Google Scholar intended to update its databases in real time and add services to enhance its growing legal library. In short, it looked like Wexis might face serious competition and the suits were scared

… too be continued in Part 2

Posted via email from practice (redux)

05

02 2010

list.it – easy notes anywhere

I’m a real fan of apps, applets, add-ons, and other bite-sized web-enabled tools that make life easier. List.it is a perfect example. It’s super-simple and enables you to do one thing easily: take notes in any browser, organize them fast, take them anywhere via mobile device, or just check them out on any computer. Notes are securely stored remotely, and accessible through any browser. Sure, there are already a lot of free bookmarking services, note-taking services, and list services such as

But list.it goes the extra mile to be simpler, easier to use, and a cinch to manage. So what’s not to like?

Posted via email from practice (redux)

Ahh … that New Lexis Smell


Today LexisNexis unveiled a partnership with Microsoft at LegalTech NY – the result is meant to foreshadow the complete revamp of the Lexis research system due out later this year, and dubbed New Lexis. In short, the company’s answer to WestlawNext, which was unveiled at LT NY yesterday. As a result of the partnership, a LexisNexis tab can now be integrated into the ribbon that Microsoft began using in Office 2007 and continues to use in Office 2010 beta as a substitute for the profusion of button bars in Office 2003. Users can conduct legal research, Internet searches on Bing and Google, even Sheppardize, all from within their Word, Outlook, or SharePoint document.

According to Clemens Ceipek, vice president of New Lexis, our customers spend their time … in e-mails or in Word creating or reviewing documents. That is exactly what we are doing. As a lawyer you no longer need to go to a separate, dedicated site to get the information.” Ideally this means that a user reviewing a brief in Word can click on the Shepard’s tab and confirm the status of all cases in the document at once. If the user wants to read the cases, clicking on another tab splits the screen and pulls up the cases. This same integration of information could extend to items within a firm’s own network or document management system in addition to items from Lexis databases or the Internet.

via abajournal.com

Posted via email from practice (redux)



practicehacker is using WP-Gravatar