Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The demand for e-discovery project managers is extreme, thus the bulk of career opportunities for e-discovery professionals are in project management. But not every e-discovery project manager has the same background or is even the same type of project manager.
Although there is a wealth of existing and up-and-coming talent available in the market, the hungry job seekers looking to move up and grow professionally often have radically different professional backgrounds. Typically, hiring managers at service providers and law firms are faced with two divergent archetypes to hire or train as project managers: lawyers/legalists (former practicing attorneys, contract attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants looking to become more technical) or technologists (litigation support analysts, data processors, programmers, legal IT personnel looking to become more strategic and client facing). Which profile makes a better e-discovery project manager, and why can't hiring managers find enough talent who are both technologists and legalists?
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.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
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.