What is Document Review in Litigation Process?

For more details, visit Datascribe LPO

What is Legal Research Support Services?

For more details about legal research services, visit Datascribe LPO

Google’s Panda Revelation: What It Could Mean For Attorney Websites

We’re still waiting on Google’s real-time Penguin update.

But in the meanwhile, attorneys may be interested to know Google’s Panda is now part of the search engine’s core search algorithm.

Search Engine Land’s Barry Schwartz writes that, while it’s unclear just when this Google algorithm change occurred, another post had a confirmed quote from Google reps:

Panda is an algorithm that’s applied to sites overall and has become one of our core ranking signals. It measures the quality of a site, which you can read more about in our guidelines. Panda allows Google to take quality into account and adjust ranking accordingly.

With this change, Schwartz writes that now, it’s unlikely we’ll be seeing the Panda update announcements we’re accustomed to. Google rarely offers up information about core search algorithm updates, and even with the integration of Panda, the lack of core algorithm updates isn’t likely to change.

(The last announced update we saw for Panda was the 4.2 update in the summer of 2015.)

Google Algorithm Update

Panda + Google’s Core Algorithm: What Attorneys Should Consider

Panda was released in 2011 and has been a valuable tool for Google in terms of fighting webspam.

In general, law firms should strive to have their websites closely follow Google guidelines, but perhaps now more than ever: With Panda integrated into the core search algorithm, there likely won’t be regular update announcements. With Google’s expected real-time Penguin release, ignorance will be no defense against Google’s rules. Law firms with websites in violation of Google’s guidelines may quickly see those sites demoted while those who have stayed on Google’s good side may be rewarded with better rankings and traffic.

Now is a good time to do a website audit to ensure that your law firm’s website isn’t in violation of Google’s policies. When it comes to search engines returning your website in search results, it’s important for attorneys to consider that they’re not entitled to have their websites returned in the search results. Google decides what goes and what stays, and, as I’ve heard it put, “inclusion is a privilege, not a right.” Attorneys may place themselves in a better position on the web if they stick to Google’s rules in the first place rather than asking the search engine giant for forgiveness later.

Panda is the Google algorithm responsible for finding sites with thin or low-quality content. Google has a vested interest in making sure that it gives search engine users relevant, quality results for their queries, so attorneys will want to be sure they’re giving Google what it wants, and giving search engine users what they want. Conveniently, in both cases, it happens to be the same thing: high-quality content.

We’ll keep our readers up to date as we learn more about this algorithm change and with it will mean for law firms in both the short and long term.

Credits: lawlytics.com

New Law Increases H-1B and L-1 Petition Fees

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113), signed into law by President Obama on December 18, 2015, increases fees for certain H-1B and L-1 petitioners. These petitioners must submit an additional fee of $4,000 for certain H-1B petitions and $4,500 for certain L-1A and L-1B petitions postmarked on or after December 18, 2015.

The additional fees apply to petitioners who employ 50 or more employees in the United States, with more than 50 percent of those employees in H-1B or L (including L-1A and L-1B) nonimmigrant status. These petitioners must submit the additional fees with an H-1B or L-1 petition filed:

• Initially to grant status to a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; or
• To obtain authorization for a nonimmigrant in such status to change employers.

This fee is in addition to the base processing fee, Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee, American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 fee (when required), as well as the premium processing fee, if applicable. Public Law 114-113 fees will remain effective through September 30, 2025.

H1B Visa Processing at Datascribe LPO

USCIS is in the process of revising Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and Form I-129S, Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition to reflect the provisions of Public Law 114-113. Petitioners should continue to complete Item Numbers 1.d. and1.d.1 of Section 1 of the H-1B and H-1B1 Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement (Page 19 of Form I-129) and Item Numbers 4.a. and 4.b. of the L Classification Supplement (Page 22 of Form I-129).

USCIS may begin rejecting petitions received on or after Feb. 11, 2016 that do not complete Item Numbers 1.d. and 1.d.1 of Section 1 of the H-1B and H-1B1 Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement and Item Numbers 4.a. and 4.b. of the L Classification Supplement, or include the additional Public Law 114-113 fee, if applicable. During the 30 day period immediately following this web alert, USCIS may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) to determine whether the additional fee applies to the petition. To avoid an RFE, petitioners should complete the questions on the Form I-129 noted in the paragraph above and submit the applicable fee when required. Because an RFE will be issued for the fee, rather than a rejection for the omission of the fee, USCIS will maintain the original filing date as the receipt date. Petitioners should wait to respond to the RFE before sending in the additional fee or an explanation of why the new fee does not apply.

If you previously submitted a petition with the additional fee and believe the fee was not required, please contact the National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TDD for the deaf and hard of hearing: 800-767-1833.

Courtesy: uscis.gov

Buying a New E-Discovery Platform?

Law firm e-discovery experts on the eight questions firms should ask themselves before investing in an e-discovery platform.

So you’re looking to get in line with the 21st century and undertake an initiative to upgrade your e-discovery software. That’s good; if your law firm isn’t using the best e-discovery software, then it is losing out on crucial efficiencies that mean higher costs and time wasted—a non-starter when it comes to litigation.

But what exactly does the best software mean? It doesn’t necessarily mean the most costly—many firms would be better served saving costs if they don’t have a need for the high-end e-discovery model. It doesn’t necessarily mean the fanciest gadgets—if your firm’s attorneys won’t use the high-end analytics, for example, why pay extra for them? It may not even be the most robust—can your firm’s hardware (i.e. desktops and laptops) even handle the software in question?

We reached out to two prominent e-discovery attorneys: Gareth Evans of Gibson Dunn and John Rosenthal of Winston & Strawn, to get their takes on the eight questions firms should ask themselves before investing in an e-discovery platform.

Ediscovery Support Services

1. What do your attorneys actually use?

When researching a new system for use at Gibson Dunn, Evans said, “What we were most focused one was collecting information from our own attorneys.” This included not only which platforms his attorneys were actually using, but also how well they liked them. The method for collecting this information doesn’t need to be high-tech—Gibson Dunn used a SurveyMonkey poll—but it does have to be comprehensive in figuring out likes and dislikes.

And, Evans added, finding the reasons for those likes and dislikes is important too. He noted that in some situations that he encountered, an attorney vehemently disliked a certain platform... only to find that there was nothing wrong with the software itself, just with the vendor that delivered it.

2. How will people use the technology?

Once research is done into the platforms available and attorney likes and dislikes, it’s important to nail down how the attorneys are actually planning on using the platform. If attorneys would like greater insight into the data analytics and plan to spend time researching a case through the system, the firm should know that. Ditto if the attorneys prefer ease-of-use and would only use baseline functionality.

Rosenthal noted that while the capabilities touted by one e-discovery vendor may sound excellent, 60 percent of e-discovery costs are incurred through attorney time. As a result, efficiency should be the key driver. “Non-attorneys tend to focus on the pure e-discovery aspects, without focusing on the single most important part—how to use the technology to expedite the review, maintain quality and reduce costs,” Rosenthal said. “The non-attorneys, therefore, need to spend more time understanding the objectives of the case team and then help develop processes around the technology re achieve those objectives. Sounds simple—it is not.”

3. What are the platforms’ data analytics capabilities, and do we need them?

One of the increasingly common features of many e-discovery platforms is the use of data analytics—many vendors are touting the use of analytics as a great differentiator. And, in a perfect world, law firm technologists would love if every attorney in the firm learned how to utilize data analytics to leverage greater efficiencies in the discovery process. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and before paying for the latest and greatest data analytics, firms should align its own priorities with that of the platform.

As Evans said of the Gibson Dunn selection process, “Certain of us are power users and would have been into the high-powered analytics, but that would have been overkill.” Instead, he said, the firm went with a more basic platform, with the opportunity to use a more robust platform as needed for those more familiar with the technology or as a larger case demands.

Rosenthal added, “For overwhelming majority of reviews, the most sophisticated analytics such as predictive coding will not be used. It is important to consider other types of analytics that can be used in the average review such as key word listing and search term analytics; email analytics (URL, Domain, timing gaps): threading; near duping; and clustering. Each of these can be used on any review to reduce volume and increase efficiency.”

4. Can the firm’s preexisting technology handle the new platform?

You may have purchased the latest and greatest new e-discovery software, but if the firm’s Windows 2000-running laptops don’t have the processing power to handle it, that software investment just turned into an entire revamping of the firm’s IT department. As a result, Evans said that bringing the firm’s IT department into the process to help answer this question is crucial. They have the expertise to answer more definitively whether the platform’s specific specs are a good fit technologically with the firm’s hardware and other software. And not only will they be helping implement the technology in question, but they will also be the ones that many attorneys turn to if something with the platform goes wrong. Firm decision-makers, then, should include the time and effort of the IT department into their cost calculations.

5. Should I choose just one platform, or should I look at multiple to handle different parts of the process?

This one shouldn’t even be a question, Rosenthal said. It all comes back to the three keys of IT system success: people, process and technology. And without one of those legs of the tripod, a duplicable process in this case, e-discovery crumbles.

He explained, “No brainer—one platform—one process. Volume is the enemy. Only through using people, process and technology at each stage of the EDRM can you ultimately reduce the volume that is subject to review and, thus, the overall cost of the review. By using one platform with a consistent tool set you have the ability to develop work flows to develop a consistent, repeatable and defensible process for attacking the volume. If you are on a different tool set for each review, it is difficult to bring a consistent workflow and process to bear on the problem.”

6. What cost does the firm prefer, and what costs are actually present?

“Cost is a deceptive term when it comes to e-discovery platforms because there are components to cost that may not be obvious in the vendor’s proposal,” Rosenthal said. He noted that there are often external costs to operate the software, such as internal IT and project management resources will be required that might not be included in the basic cost of the hardware/software. Geographic considerations may also be a concern for firms that handle cases in a number of different jurisdictions.

He also added that it is “important to consider variable costs. For example, some vendors might charge by seat to a certain level with burst or penalty fees over that level. The choice is then paying the penalties or stepping up the next level, with the risk that you need to purchase to peak demand, with many licenses sitting on the shelf.”

7. How long is the contract for?

One consideration of the contract isn’t just the cost, but also the length, Evans explained. While many firms look only at costs, they may be locking themselves into a long-term deal without realizing it. This can go one of two ways—it creates a partnership between the vendor and firm which leads to more specialized service, or it locks the firm into a contract while technological advances happen all around them.

“Technology advances very quickly, and contracts change as well. There can be a real downside in being locked into a longer term contract,” Evans cautioned. He said that while Gibson Dunn has not completed the purchasing process for a few years, he has heard anecdotally that some vendors are beginning to push for longer term contracts. While this ask may not be a deal-breaker, it certainly should be an area that the firm brings up in negotiations and keeps an eye on come contract signing day.

8. Where will the data reside?

Finally, Evans noted that perhaps the most pressing question in today’s e-discovery environment is also one of the newer ones. With data security looming large on the radar of not only law firms but their clients as well, firms need to make some tough decisions as to whether they want to hold all of the data entering the platform behind their own firewall, or whether they would feel more comfortable using a platform’s cloud storage.

Most major vendors currently offer cloud solution, Evans noted, with the option to rent software and space. He said that in order to properly assess the firm’s capabilities, decision makers should engage a knowledgeable expert—either internally or externally if need be—to ask some key questions: “What will make more economic sense and data security sense? Is your data security robust enough to protect your clients’ data, or are you better off hosting it in the cloud with the security of a vendor?”

Credits: legaltechnews.com

Global eDiscovery market passes $10 billion

The eDiscovery process of extracting data for regulatory or legal purposes is generally seen as a bit of a niche in the IT field.

However, a new study by research specialists IDC forecasts that the market for worldwide eDiscovery services reached $8.2 billion at the end of 2015. This combined with an eDiscovery software market of just over $2 billion means the global eDiscovery market has passed the $10 billion threshold.

"Increased litigation and regulation coupled with expanding use cases for eDiscovery software will continue to drive moderate growth in the worldwide eDiscovery market," says Sean Pike, Program Director in IDC's Security Products group and leader of IDC's eDiscovery and Information Governance research program. "The data solution market, however, is maturing rapidly as buyers search for automation to solve well-defined problems. To meet maturing needs, eDiscovery solution and service providers are already creating robust strategies to use existing search and analytics competencies to compete in the white hot content analytics and cognitive solution markets".

e-Discovery Services

The Americas region is still the largest market for eDiscovery, and is expected to remain so, but there's been a growth in international demand over the past year. Europe and Asia are both seeing an uptick in demand for eDiscovery services. By 2019, IDC expects Europe to make up almost 23 percent of the market and Asia just over seven percent.

There's also been some consolidation in the market with service providers and technology solution companies pairing off. In addition solution providers are buying capabilities as bolt-on functionality for existing products or services, in an effort to gain or hold onto market share. Software and service provider companies see analytics companies as posing the largest threat to existing market opportunity.

Courtesy: betanews.com