Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation is at a watershed. There is near universal agreement that the volume of information and expense of document review is crippling a fragile system.
Opinions diverge, however, as to how to best address this challenge. The call to apply technology to the crisis is louder than ever given Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck's opinion validating the use of predictive coding in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012). See, “Protocols and Pitfalls for Leveraging Technology: Assisted Review in the Da Silva Moore Era,” in the May issue of LJN's Legal Tech Newsletter, http://bit.ly/K01L6g.
Simply stated, predictive coding combines technology and well-defined processes to enable a machine to evaluate documents that attorneys code as responsive, privileged or key. Following its assessment of these records, the software identifies similar documents from among those that remain unreviewed. By analyzing references in the text of each record for common themes and concepts, it identifies further concepts of the same type.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.