Technologist - The FindLaw Legal Technology Blog

Recently in eDiscovery & Records Management Category

While Uber may still not even be operating in the state of South Dakota, that didn't stop the state from getting its piece of the Uber data breach settlement pie.

The settlement stems from a 2016 data breach where hackers stole private information for 600,000 Uber drivers, then ransomed that information back to the company. Unfortunately for the company, not disclosing the data breach until 2017 led to public outrage, and, not to mention, several states filing lawsuits resulting in the $148 million settlement.

When it comes to reviewing depositions, a little technology can really make a huge difference. If you received a digital file, chances are good that you should be able to run text searches on your computer to find relevant testimony or something you remembered being said from that day.

And if you're using the right software, then applying highlighting or underlining, or inserting notes, could be as simple as clicking along as you read. Other software allows you to go even further in the review process by categorizing testimony, having collaboration tools, and even grouping together certain depositions for easier document management.

Journalist Gets Partial Win Against FCC in Net Neutrality Case

In media law, The Journalist v. The FCC is almost David v. Goliath.

In Prechtel v. Federal Communications Commission, freelance writer Jason Prechtel sued the agency after it ignored his public records request for allegedly fraudulent comments submitted during its repeal of net neutrality. A judge has ruled he is entitled to documents to "prevent fraud in future processes."

It was a partial victory, however, because the judge said the FCC can withhold records about its deliberations. So the giant got hit between the eyes, but gets to keep its head.

Investors Finally Warm Up to Legal Tech

Two months plus $200 million equals one sea change.

That's the math for a notable shift in legal tech. In the past two months, investors have poured in almost $200 million to legal tech startups.

It hasn't always been that way. In fact, last year startups were at a 30-year low. So what happened?

It may be hard to believe, but the future is now. Thanks to the futuristic world we live in, our clients can be faced with damning evidence that was generated via automation or artificial intelligence. Soon, prosecutors may be asking the robot gardener what happened?

What's worse is that the systems that generate the evidence are prohibitively expensive to forensically examine. And let's be real, the custodian of records that gets called to testify to admit the evidence will likely be as unhelpful a witness as they come. Upping the ante, federal litigators are getting trained to use this type of evidence as a sword in both criminal and civil litigation.

So, how do you rebut seemingly unflinchingly credible robot generated evidence?

When seeking out electronic data, litigators need to be aware of the various places that relevant data, especially other electronic communications, may be stored. When it comes to ediscovery, there's more than just email.

In addition to email communications, when litigating against a business entity, there are likely to be instant messaging platforms, as well as internal and external social media communications, not to mention raw data on employment, finances, and other trackable metrics. Many businesses these days are using instant messaging communication tools, like the popular app Slack, and other tech that allows employees at various levels to communicate information, which can all be a well-stocked pond ripe for a fishing expedition. Some businesses may even have tech that helps them track all their data.

Uber Quickly Settles Self-Driving Car Death

The settlement in the Uber self-driving car case is confidential, but it still says a lot about how to settle a high-profile case.

In the big picture, it isn't so much about the money. Of course, money is almost always the currency of civil settlements.

But settling a high-profile case for a company like Uber is more about moving on. It's the main thing the parties have in common.

Law Firms Need Your Expertise to Make AI Tools Work

Robots may be casting a shadow over law jobs, but they are also opening doors at law firms.

Legal tech positions -- such as chief innovation officer, legal solutions architect and chief data scientist -- are in demand. BigLaw, in particular, needs people to make the tech work.

It's no secret that those tech workers have an advantage if they also know the law. The big surprise, for some, is that the robots actually need help.

There's no denying that we live in a digital world. For attorneys, the digital world has definitely provided some real conveniences. Digital projectors have replaced poster boards and easels, smartphones have revolutionized calendaring, digital filing is amazing, and the widespread adoption of email was absolutely game changing.

But, along with the conveniences technology brings, some attorney jobs have gone the way of the dodo bird thanks to new developments. AI programs are starting to not only do the job that an attorney or paralegal would, the AI is doing it better, faster, and more efficiently than any human lawyer ever could.

Fortunately, for most lawyers out there, your jobs are currently safe, but that might not be the case in a decade.

At this point, nearly every attorney out there has received a flash drive or CD/DVD-ROM filled with files in response to a request for production. These days, document productions are even exchanged via email.

While most of the time, getting discovery in electronic format is convenient for everyone, some ediscovery, like an image of a hard-drive for a consumer electronic device, like an iPhone, can be thousands of pages long and contain pages upon pages of incomprehensible gibberish. Reviewing all that raw data might seem like a waste of lawyer time, but can you, in good conscious, never even open the file before assigning a support staff to review, or sending it out? Do you really need to review the raw ediscovery, or can you just wait for the summary report?