Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The unfortunate reality is that companies regularly involved in litigation can expect to pay service providers (a.k.a., “vendors”) a substantial sum of money for e-discovery services. Estimates indicate that companies will spend nearly $10 billion annually on e-discovery in the coming years. Are companies getting their money's worth for these services? What can companies do to extract maximum value from their e-discovery service providers?
These questions should not go unanswered. To this end I have identified four steps that companies can follow to help extract maximum value from e-discovery service providers. I believe it is more likely than not that following these steps will result in a net reduction in e-discovery spending. The steps, as detailed below, are: 1) Gather and normalize e-discovery spending data; 2) Analyze the results and define the system to identify what is valued most; 3) Establish new expectations; and 4) Take action to increase value and likely reduce overall spending.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
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.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.