Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : The Pre-LTNY Innovation Roundup: Legal Tech Company News to Know (Part 1)

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : The Pre-LTNY Innovation Roundup: Legal Tech Company News to Know (Part 1)

jason atchley

The Pre-LTNY Innovation Roundup: Legal Tech Company News to Know (Part 1)

Eight companies attending Legaltech New York preview their latest new releases, upgrades, coming attractions and more

Zach Warren, Legaltech News

January 29, 2016    | 0 Comments
Photo by Margarita Corporan
The exhibit hall at Legaltech New York promises to be filled to the brim with legal technology companies providing the latest new innovations and amazing upgrades to each of their new systems. Afraid that you may miss something in the commotion? Legaltech News will be covering the latest legal technology company news during and after the show… but in case you want to get a jump on what technologies and innovations some of the biggest names in legal tech will be offering, here is a preview. The first part of this preview, with eight companies listed in alphabetical order, will run Friday, with the second eight companies being featured the day before the conference on Monday.
BQE Software
BQE Software, which provides time, billing, accounting and project management software for a number of industries, has announced upgrades to its BillQuick Legal 2016 product with an eye towards accelerating the efficiency, effectiveness and convenience of legal time tracking and billing. The new features in BillQuick Legal 2016 focus on automation (such as the ability to automatically import transactions, auto-update matter information from the client screen, and create a back-up SQL database), efficiency (with a matter-level retainer, time and expense by class, and a detailed view of unpaid expenses), and technical excellence.
According to the company BillQuick Legal will work with the latest version of operating systems such as Windows 10 and provide significant performance improvements.
“Simply put, BillQuick Legal 2016 allows you to do more in less time,” said Shafat Qazi, CEO and founder of BQE Software, in a release accompanying the news. “With this release, we focused on minimizing the time spent to complete day-to-day tasks. BillQuick Legal 2016 helps legal professionals get things done accurately, intelligently, automatically and ahead of schedule.”
Catalyst
Catalyst has announced that it will be delivering forensic investigation and collection services on a global basis. The new service, which has been rolled out over the past several months, will now provide remote or on-location services backed by testifying experts with a wide range of certifications and forensic credentials. These experts will be called upon to investigate and analyze computer data for purposes of identification, preservation, extraction, interpretation and documentation of electronic evidence, all with an eye towards future admissibility. A variety of hardware and software systems are eligible to be analyzed, including desktop and laptop computers, smartphones and older-model cell phones, and cloud services including Google Drive and Office 365.
At the show, Catalyst will also demonstrate Insight Predict, Legaltech’s 2015 new product of the year honoree, and discuss the launch of its new global forensic investigation and collection services, and how to lower the total cost of review. The company is also releasing the second edition of “TAR for Smart People” with new chapters focused on learning about TAR and CAL, along with new case studies that reinforce the power of TAR 2.0 systems, and updates on TAR case law with the latest decisions.
FTI Technology
FTI Technology has announced the launch of Radiance, a new visual analytics software platform that enables organizations to dynamically investigate and understand their enterprise data. Available as a cloud-based service or as a rapid deployment mobile option, Radiance is intended to provide visuals and data analytics similar to the company’s flagship Ringtail products, but with an eye towards pre-discovery and early case assessment analytics. As a result, Radiance is intended to be an “an easy-to-use, scalable platform” that works quickly, visualizing millions of documents from these disparate sources in a single, elegantly designed user interface. More on Radiance will be on Legaltech News in the coming days.
Separately, FTI’s business segment has launched version 8.6 of its Ringtail e-discovery software. Ringtail 8.6 offers a number of feature and performance enhancements, including new timeline analytics and faster rendering, to improve Ringtail’s usability and help legal teams efficiently find important data for legal, regulatory and investigative matters. The company said the focus of the upgrade is “speed, greater ease of use, and continuing our innovation around visual.”
Ipro
Ipro’s workflow platform, ADD Automated Digital Discovery, seeks to provide a simple and automated way for organizations to manage e-discovery. And with its latest ADD release, Ipro looks to take the automation to another level, introducing Media Manager as a web-based solution to “completely automate and optimize identifying and tracking electronic files across the eDiscovery workflow.” Media Manager, the company added, can also add key delivery and metadata information to source media (hard drives, thumb drives, DVDs, etc.) and electronic files for document management and tracking. The addition also allows users to auto-generate barcodes, copy media content to the network to create and track discovery jobs, and map media paths to existing clients and custodians.
The ADD platform also touts a number of other upgrades in its latest release, including increased integration between Ipro processing and Relativity review on the ADD platform (dubbed “Ipro-Q”), continuous streaming, first-pass filtering, and on-demand license consumption. At Legaltech New York, the company will also be showcasing processing speed and functionality upgrades to early case assessment tool Allegro, analytic web-based review Eclipse and the high-speed processing tool eCapture.
Inventus
International legal process outsourcing services provider Inventus is looking to shine a light on data analytics with the launching of its new platform Spotlight. Inventus Spotlight is a business data analytics platform that provides clients with insights into their litigation portfolio, which the company said will enable comprehensive outsourcing visibility, predictability and cost management. The tool will aggregate data from various sources, including Relativity, LAW and other third party applications, as well as integrate directly into the Luminosity system.
This tool, the company said, gives clients real-time insight into their data and litigation portfolio, as well as allow them to quantify the ROI on e-discovery spend and better manage and predict the capital that goes into their e-discovery budget. The company will showcase the new platform at Legaltech New York, including its functionality on mobile devices.

Read more: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202748328688/The-PreLTNY-Innovation-Roundup-Legal-Tech-Company-News-to-Know-Part-1#ixzz3yqzxWH1K

Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley
Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Spy Stories for Lawyers: Former FBI Counterintelligence Officer on Combating Cyber Espionage

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Spy Stories for Lawyers: Former FBI Counterintelligence Officer on Combating Cyber Espionage

jason atchley

Spy Stories for Lawyers: Former FBI Counterintelligence Officer on Combating Cyber Espionage

At Legaltech New York, former FBI counterintelligence officer Eric O’Neill shares insights on how lawyers can help avoid breaches.

Ian Lopez, Legaltech News

January 25, 2016    | 0 Comments
Words like ‘spies’, ‘thieves’ and ‘international espionage’ invoke images of fast-paced thrillers for most of us, but for how many does the word ‘lawyer’ come to mind? In a sense, Eric O’Neill has acted as a lawyer, spy and star.
Formerly an FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence operative, O’Neill solved the cybercrimes that took down Robert Hanssen, the former FBI agent who exploited security weaknesses in U.S. computer systems to sell confidential information to Russia during the Cold War, inspiring the movieBreach.
In Feb. 3’s keynote at Legaltech New York, titled “Cybersecurity and Data Espionage: Spy Stories for Lawyers,” O’Neill will regale listeners with his stories of espionage to demonstrate to lawyers how they can implement counter-espionage techniques, careful diligence and restraint when using social media to reduce vulnerability to cyber threats.
Legaltech News spoke with O’Neill to get the scoop on his upcoming LTNY presentation and how his tales of international espionage can help lawyers keep abreast in the cyber landscape. O’Neill, founding partner of the Georgetown group and now a national security strategist at Bit9 + Carbon Black, described his speaking style as that of “a storyteller,” noting that rather than “scaring a crowd” into believing that they’ll “all be hacked and be doomed,” he aspires to provide useful information that lawyers can implement in the fight against cyber crime.
“What I like to do is give some very good examples of past penetrations and hacks that were successful and why they were successful, with a cheat sheet of rational, reasonable things that any person or company can do in order to protect themselves,” O’Neill explained. “I leverage my background in counterintelligence to promote a theory that we need to each think of ourselves as spy hunters if we want to stop cyber attacks.”
O’Neill said that his keynote will commence with his takedown of Hanssen, which he described as one of his “biggest hits.”
“The Hanssen investigation sits extraordinarily well in a cybersecurity framework, because Hanssen was our first hacker spy,” he said. “He exploited our FBI computer systems, he used our automated case systems to … make sure he wasn’t under investigation, and also to steal information. He was also one of the first spies to drop his stolen information to the Soviet Union … in a data form. He was so early, he had to explain to the Soviets how to decrypt what he dropped, because they didn’t even have any idea what to do with the floppy disks he gave them.”
In this tale, O’Neill finds his lead-in to discuss “cyber spies” and “what we need to worry about.” Among the most “frightening” and “dangerous” types of spies, he noted those within the organization, as they are already inside of the network and “generally trusted.” Besides Hanssen, his examples of spies within “the firewall” include Edward Snowden and corporate actors.
Another group of cyber spies that O’Neill will discuss is government actors. In past presentations, O’Neill tended to discuss a wide range of nation-state threat actors, though now he said he likes to focus on China, due to the interest in it, timeliness and “the percentage of the threat.” Particularly, he will discuss the Anthem and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) hacks, in the latter of which his own information was stolen.
He added that he wants to explain why the OPM hack “will be seen as the worst attack in our history, at least to date, and maybe even into the future, because I don’t think we’ve seen the end of it. Especially because OPM has no clue how long the malware was collecting information and sending it over.”
Also on the table for discussion are hacktivists, the Ashley Madison hack, and how social media poses potential harm to individuals and organizations. In addition to illustrating the problem of cyberattacks, O’Neill will also devote time to discussing what can be done. Of particular importance, he said that there’s a need to compartmentalize information, which he considers “the most important first step.”
“If you don’t know what you want to protect, then how can you ever protect it?” he asked. “Especially when you have a very large organization with many endpoints … all of the many IT devices that access information.”
Social media will be addressed as well, a terrain that he described as “the best place to start” for hackers and spies.
“If you want to learn about an organization through their people … find the weakest point of attack in any system, which is the least security-conscience person in that system,” he said. “And because we’ve got this epidemic of social media, where everyone feels the need to regurgitate everything that’s happening with their lives into the public, it makes it very easy to find someone to exploit or manipulate, or trick, or attack, or hack.”

Read more: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202747832090/Spy-Stories-for-Lawyers-Former-FBI-Counterintelligence-Officer-on-Combating-Cyber-Espionage#ixzz3yPJmsZyU

Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley
Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Would eDiscovery Have Identified the Correct Murderer in “Making a Murderer”?

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Would eDiscovery Have Identified the Correct Murderer in “Making a Murderer”?

jason atchley

Would eDiscovery Have Identified the Correct Murderer in “Making a Murderer”?: eDiscovery Best Practices

By: Doug Austin
The recently released Netflix documentary Making a Murderer has made a huge splash with hundreds of thousands of viewers (including me) having watched the 10 part documentary that was released last month. Debate has raged over whether Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were wrongly convicted of murdering photographer Teresa Halbach.  Interestingly enough, some possibly deleted electronic evidence might have helped answer that question.
In an article on ACEDS (Making a Murderer: The Missing Computer Forensics Evidence), the author (Jason Krause) discusses the fact that there voicemail messages on Halbach’s phone that allegedly disappeared.  Krause discusses the information presented in the documentary regarding the voicemail messages, as follows:
“Halbach’s family reported her missing in early November 2005 after finding that they called her cellphone and received a recorded message saying the voicemail box was full. According to her family, it was not like Halbach to not check her messages and decided to alert the police that she may be missing.
However, Teresa’s ex-boyfriend Ryan Hillegas testified that he listened to her voicemails after breaking into her inbox in an attempt to learn more about where she had last been. “I had a feeling that I might know her voicemail password,” he said in the episode, in order to explain how he retrieved the voice mails. However, he claimed that he did not delete any messages.  [It was actually her brother, Mike Halbach, who stated that he had listened to her messages, though Hillegas indicated that he had accessed her phone records after also guessing Teresa’s password.]
However, the only expert called to testify in this matter was Tony Zimmerman, a network engineer with Cingular Wireless, Halbach’s phone provider. He testified that calls and messages that the phone had received, should not have filled up the full capacity of the mailbox. Avery’s lawyers speculated that someone had erased potentially incriminating messages before Halbach was reported missing.
Unfortunately, Zimmerman was not a trained computer forensic examiner and his testimony did not reflect that any investigation more rigorous than looking at Halbach’s call log.”
Krause’s article quotes David Greetham, Vice President of eDiscovery Operations with Ricoh Americas Corporation, who recalled that “as long ago as 2001 we were recovering deleted text messages from a defendant accused of drug dealing”, but also noted that “law enforcement often has budget restrictions on training and resources”, which could limit the ability to investigate such leads (back in 2005 especially).  Of course, if you’re like many viewers who believe that the Manitowoc sheriff’s department had a vested interest in seeing Avery arrested for the crime (particularly since he had filed a $36 million lawsuit against the department for his wrongful conviction in a 1985 rape case), you may think that they were less than highly motivated to pursue this lead.
Regardless of whether or not you believe that Avery and Dassey were wrongfully convicted (and, apparently, several instances of incriminating evidence regarding their potential involvement were not covered in the documentary), the question remains: Were there voicemail messages that were deleted and could they have affected the outcome of the case?  If there had been a trained computer forensic examiner on the case back then, perhaps there would have been some additional information uncovered that either pointed to a different suspect or added to the evidence that implicated Avery.  Over ten years have passed since the murder took place, so we will probably never know.
So, what do you think?  Do you find the lack of investigation of the voice mail messages disconcerting?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNineeDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Where is Investment Climate Heading for Legal Tech Sector?

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Where is Investment Climate Heading for Legal Tech Sector?

jason atchley

Where Is Investment Climate Heading for Legal Tech Sector?

The current climate looks to be ‘sporadic,’ as angel investors, more than venture capitalists, appear interested in legal tech companies.

Ed Silverstein, Legaltech News

January 15, 2016    | 0 Comments
Legal tech companies do a pretty good job of getting angel funding, but sometimes it is harder for them to get interest from venture capitalists. Even so, the more important task for most in the sector is “access” to the market, based on interviews with several of those familiar with the current environment.
When asked about the investment climate, Roland Vogl, executive director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, said the best way to describe the current climate for legal technology companies is “sporadic.”
“There is no trend towards investment in legal tech,” he told Legaltech News. “It has always been a somewhat exotic category from a VC [venture capital] perspective, and it continues to stay that way. However, angel investors with a deep understanding of the legal space are investing in legal tech, and can get really good returns.”
“I think the outlook for legal start-ups to attract angel funding are pretty good,” he added. “There is a growing number of investors that I have met who had successful legal tech exits themselves, or were law firm managers or senior execs at the large legal information companies. I am trying to connect the start-ups with these investors, because they bring really smart money to the equation. These investors can help the start-ups tremendously not only with their investment, but also with their industry insights and connections.”
VCs, though, may not jump into legal tech startups. “For a variety of reasons there is hesitance among VCs to invest in legal tech companies,” Vogl adds. “Frequently, VCs with no background in the legal space need to be educated about the significant size of the opportunities in the legal market.”
Moreover, Vivek Wadhwa, a fellow at Stanford’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance, said VCs “really don’t understand the legal tech market, but do understand the big opportunity for automation.”
“Technology is making it possible to automate almost any human job that requires thinking and analysis,” he added. “For better or worse, computers are now developing the ability to do this better than humans. So there are immense opportunities.”
He advised entrepreneurs starting legal tech companies “to position this as a disintermediation opportunity and explain the size of the market.” He also added, “VCs look for growth and sizeable markets. They look for companies that enter existing sectors and disrupt.”
From Wadhwa’s vantage point, the outlook for investment in legal tech companies is “excellent—as in many other fields.”
In addition, Vogl recalls that panelists at a Jan. 12 CodeX “Building the Legal Start-up” program explained that “lawtrepreneurs pitching VCs have to have a good explanation on the total addressable market (TAM) for VCs. The VC business model only works if it’s a very sizable market and they can make a multiple of their investment.”
“One of the legal tech investor panelists, Miriam Rivera [of Ulu Ventures], also pointed out the following: If legal tech start-up founders are lawyers that don’t have a technical background which they can leverage to build the product, they should also have a technical co-founder to increase their chances of attracting VC funding,” Vogl said.
Similarly, Jules Miller from Hire an Esquire has highlighted the necessity for legal tech companies to try to get to sales and revenue without VC funding, Vogl recalled. Perhaps, he said, they will have “a bit of friends and family/angel funding.” Under this scenario, they go to VCs to “scale and build out the business.”
“That makes a lot of sense for legal tech start-ups,” according to Vogl.
When asked about investment in legal tech startups, Joshua Kubicki, president of the Legal Transformation Institute, pointed out that generally it takes longer for legal tech startups to find their niche. “The market is still heavily fragmented,” he said.  There tends to be a good amount of angel capital and seed funding available for legal tech startups, he explained.

Read more: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202747197983/Where-Is-Investment-Climate-Heading-for-Legal-Tech-Sector#ixzz3y0I1b5Yl

Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley
Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Man v Legaltech New York : 20 Survival Strategies

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Man v Legaltech New York : 20 Survival Strategies

jason atchley

Man vs. Legaltech New York: 20 Survival Strategies

Now is the time to create your strategy for maximizing your time in New York.

Amy Juers, Edge Legal Marketing, Legaltech News

January 19, 2016    | 0 Comments
Photo by Margarita Corporan
Between the educational sessions, plethora of exhibitors, and informal receptions and gatherings, Legaltech New York can be exhilarating yet overwhelming for a first-time attendee. But with just a little preparation, you can make the most out of this unforgettable experience.
With two weeks until the conference begins, now is the time to create your strategy for maximizing your time in New York. The following 20 tips will help you take advantage of everything there is to offer while maintaining your sanity.
  1. Set goals. The most important step you can take before you arrive is to determine what you want to learn. Keep in mind that you probably won’t be able to accomplish all of your goals, so prioritize one or two.
  1. Do your homework. Make sure you know which vendors your firm or organization uses, and ask other lawyers, IT, and staff for their thoughts on their performance. Assess their strengths and weaknesses, and identify any questions that you and your team would like answered. While at the conference, you will have access to vendor representatives who can talk you through problems and address gaps in their service.
  1. Strategize your vendor approach. Don’t wait until you’re in the wilds of the expo hall to decide which booths to visit. With more than 170 exhibitors, it’s essential to choose your targets in advance. This way, you can make sure they align with your needs, and you’ll have enough time to learn about their products and solutions. Don’t forget to collect sales literature and business cards (and swag!) so you can follow up.
  1. Schedule product demos. Legaltech offers a wonderful opportunity to experience new software and tools firsthand. Given the time required for the demos, try to set these sessions up in advance, if possible.
  1. Choose your educational sessions in advance. Study the track schedule carefully and calendar all three days before you arrive. Don’t limit yourself to just one track, as there is often subject-matter crossover between tracks.
  1. Have a back-up plan. You’ll often find that multiple interesting sessions are scheduled at the same time, so keep your backups in mind in case the one you select doesn’t live up to your expectations. Sit in an aisle seat so you can make a quick escape if necessary. Your time is too short to spend in a session that doesn’t meet your needs.
  1. Go to the keynote panels. With so much going on, it may be tempting to skip the general sessions, but this year’s lineup promises to be exciting. More importantly, these sessions are what most attendees will be talking about, given the incredible list of speakers.
  1. Chat with the presenters. Don’t be afraid to ask questions of the presenters. Many will hang around after their session for in-depth discussions.
  1. Divide and conquer. If you’re attending Legaltech as part of a team, strategize as a team so you can cover the most ground. Debrief at the end of each day, reconfiguring your plans as necessary.
  1. Talk to as many other attendees as possible. Some of your best resources at Legaltech will be your peers. Make time to meet them at lunch, in the expo hall, before and after sessions, or even in the elevator. Find out about their best practices and chosen tools and techniques. You never know who might be facing similar challenges or have creative solutions to your problems.
  1. Put yourself on the A-list. Many receptions are private, though some are mentioned in the Legaltech brochure and are open to all registered attendees. Don’t be afraid to ask potential or existing vendors whether they are hosting an event.
  1. Take notes. Whether on the back of a business card, in a voice memo, or on your tablet, record what you’ve learned. You’ll be bombarded with information, and it will be difficult to sort it out by the time you leave.
  1. Follow the conference on social media. Stay on top of developments and alert others to your learning by posting updates on Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn. Use the conference hashtag, #LTNY16, to join in the conversation and build connections with other attendees.
  1. Orient yourself. Either the night before or morning of, make sure you understand the lay of the land. Know where all the sessions that you plan to attend are, as well as their backups, so you can walk around efficiently.
  1. Bring extra business cards. You will meet more people than you expect, and you’ll want to keep in touch with many of them. Exchange cards and connect on social media, so you can make plans to meet again next year.
  1. Dress comfortably. The days are long, and you’ll spend a lot of time on your feet. Wear comfortable shoes and dress in layers in case the temperature varies from room to room.
  1. Leave extra time for the unexpected. In years past, attendees have had to wait for hotel elevators for 15 to 20 minutes at peak times of the day. Plan accordingly.
  1. Get some fresh air. If you need to take a break, the Hilton is near a number of other attractions: for example, you can stroll half a block to the Museum of Modern Art or half a mile to Central Park.
  2. Get enough sleep. Each day is action-packed, and you won’t want to snooze through a session. Parties can go late into the night, but know your limits.
  1. Reflect. While Legaltech is still fresh in your mind, create a list of to-dos so you can continue the conversations you began during the conference. Set new goals based on what you discovered, and share what you learned with the rest of your team.
Coming to Legaltech with a focused plan of attack will help you tame the chaos and ensure that you not only survive but thrive.
Amy Juers is the CEO and founder of Edge Legal Marketing.

Read more: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202747362637/Man-vs-Legaltech-New-York-20-Survival-Strategies#ixzz3xttfZBYs

Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley
Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Despite Early Success, TAR’s Growth is Limited by Its Lack of Definition

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Despite Early Success, TAR’s Growth is Limited by Its Lack of Definition

jason atchley

Despite Early Success, TAR’s Growth is Limited by Its Lack of Definition

John William Speros provides one of the winners of “Call for Papers” associated with the ASU-Arkfeld E-Discovery and Digital Evidence Conference.

John William Speros, Legaltech News

January 20, 2016    | 1 Comments
Illustration via iStock
Editor’s Note: The following article is written by one of the winners of “Call for Papers” associated with the Fifth Annual Arizona State University-Arkfeld eDiscovery and Digital Evidence Conference. The conference hosts a competitive annual “Call for Papers” which address the progress, challenges, and future of e-discovery, digital evidence and analytics. The article below was accepted as one of four 2016 winning papers. John William Speros, author of this winning paper, will be a presenter at the conference on March 9-11, 2016 in Tempe, Arizona, at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Those interested may sign up for the conference, where until Feb.19 you can take advantage of early-bird rates.
Predictive coding and TAR technology (PC/TAR) help ameliorate a problem that denigrates civil litigation: extortion by discovery when discovery costs “ force settlements for reasons and on terms that related more to the costs of discovery than to the merits of the case.”
More specifically, when searching some particular information, in some particular circumstances, as employed by some particular people who are pursuing some particular objectives, using someparticular technologies, PC/TAR works well in some particular ways.
The problem is that while PC/TAR has been patented and promoted, it remains void of any particular definition of what it does, how to make it work and its particular limitations.
Interestingly, even without such definitions, some courts express more confidence in PC/TAR than PC/TAR’s own proponents. In the highly influential Da Silva Moore opinion and order, for example, the court quotes a law review article [emphasis added]:
“Technology-assisted review can (and does) yield more accurate results than exhaustive manual review, with much lower effort.”
Nevertheless, the court bypassed the underlying study’s many significant constraints—not only those mentioned in the article but identified by various experts—and ignored the article’s title which was reiterated as the key conclusion [emphasis added]:
“The results support the conclusion that technology-assisted review can achieve at least as high recall as manual review…”
Therefore, idiosyncratically, the court’s opinion of what PC/TAR technology “does” was more optimistic than the article upon which the court relied.
Normally in its “gatekeeper role”—pursuant to many states’ Frye standard and the federal FRE 702,Daubert, and Kuhmo Tire—courts determine whether evidence is reliable. In Da Silva Moore, however, the court ruled that:
Federal Rule of Evidence “702 and Daubert simply are not applicable to how documents are searched for and found in discovery…”
That conclusion was criticized by various commentators and MJ Waxse, et. al, whose law review article presented his and other judges’ views that:
“[Federal] Rule [of Evidence] 702 and the Daubert standard should be applied to experts with technical expertise or knowledge pertinent to a party’s ESI search and review methodologies and who provide the court with evidence on discovery disputes involving these methods.”
In time this critical legal question will be resolved.
Assuming that PC/TAR’s reliability will be subject the courts’ Daubert review, the first question is:What is PC/TAR? After all, a common definition of PC/TAR consists of using one or more undefined strategies to pursue one or more vaguely defined objectives.
Beyond that:
  • What are PC/TAR’s purported capabilities?
  • What are PC/TAR’s known limitations?
But even if those definitions are established, PC/TAR’s reliability faces inherent challenges akin to fingerprint impression and bullet fragment analysis which:

Read more: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202747383379/Despite-Early-Success-TARs-Growth-is-Limited-by-Its-Lack-of-Definition#ixzz3xqjVnULP

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : IoT Raises New Legal Challenges for Business

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : IoT Raises New Legal Challenges for Business

jason atchley

IoT Raises New Legal Challenges For Business

Privacy, security, and data ownership issues surrounding Internet of Things devices are creating a host of new legal questions and problems. Here’s what’s happening now, and what you need to know.

Twitter's Top Data Science, Analytics, And BI Feeds

Twitter’s Top Data Science, Analytics, And BI Feeds

(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

Drones, wearables, the Internet of Everything: As more and more data about individuals and businesses is collected and combined, new waves of litigation and lawmaking will follow.
Internet of Things (IoT) devices represent potential points of security failures, and the data they generate or collect is raising new privacy concerns. In addition, since the IoT involves an entire value chain of hardware, software, and services, data ownership issues may arise among different parties, including the device manufacturers, software providers, service providers, end users, and others.
“As of today, information collected via devices generally can be used for almost any purpose, which is pretty scary as a consumer. It’s also scary for businesses, because there are a wide variety of instances where issues can arise,” said James Goodnow, a partner at law firm Lamber Goodnow, in an interview.
For example, some businesses are encouraging employees to use Fitbits or other health wearables. Those companies are often focused on the positive aspects of device use, such as wellness (which can potentially reduce the healthcare premiums they pay and reduce the number of sick days employees use). However, the same organizations may not have considered the potential risks of embracing such devices.
(Image: jeffrrb via Pixabay)

(Image: jeffrrb via Pixabay)
“Right now, it’s probably not a good idea for employers to collect that information, because the laws are unclear and you may be setting yourself up for problems,” said Goodnow. “If you’re collecting health information and it’s decided the person needs to be terminated, you’ve exposed your company to liability. The information you’ve collected may show a disability by tracking heart rate or activity or that someone isn’t as healthy as they should be.”
If it is determined that the employee is a member of a protected class, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then unlawful discrimination allegations may arise. So, before being seduced by the potential benefits of IoT devices, make sure you also understand the potential risks.

More Data, Less Privacy

There is no shortage of gadgets generating and collecting data. In fact, Gartner estimates that 6.4 billion “things” will be used worldwide in 2016. In the rush to introduce the latest and greatest devices, manufacturers may not have adequately contemplated privacy and security issues.
For example, VTech is being sued in Illinois for fraud and deceptive business practices, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied warranty, and negligence. Its product was allegedly vulnerable to a SQL injection attack that allowed hackers to steal the personal information of 2.8 million parents and children.
New classes of devices, including wearables and drones, are collecting information that may not have been available previously, or may not have been cost-effective to procure, particularly in a persistent way, in the past.
“Consumers are going to be providing information to products in a new way that companies have not thought of. Those companies may not have thought about privacy the same way an Internet-facing line of business in the same organization would,” said Nicholas Merker, co-chair of the data security and privacy practice at law firm Ice Miller, in an interview. “If you’ve never captured information in your product and you want to start now, you’re going to have some of the problems folks had in the Internet era when they started doing the same thing.”
[ Are privacy concerns causing consumers to shy away from new devices? See Mobile, IoT Sales Hampered By Security Fears: Accenture. ]
Disclosure — explaining how the information generated or collected by the device will be used — is another consideration device manufacturers and their customers may be overlooking.
“Disclosures are about what [the product] is and how to use it, and not focused on how data is used and how it’s collected,” said Paul Bond, co-leader of the information technology, privacy, and data security group at law firm Reed Smith, in an interview. “That’s especially true for devices that have no keyboard or interface, so the thought is, it’s not collecting [personally identifiable information].”
Further, the data generated or gathered by IoT devices may be demanded in a lawsuit as part of “any electronically stored information,” which is why companies should consider whether they want to store such information in the first place — and if so, what the potential risks might be.
“If you’re forking information over about your employees, you’re going to have some pretty unhappy employees and potentially more liability arising from that,” said Goodnow.
And, of course, IoT devices are a new playground for hackers — cars, medical devices, and even guns are potentially vulnerable. In some cases, those devices may be used as a way of infecting other connected systems, which means companies may find themselves liable for issues they didn’t even anticipate.
For its 2015 IT Risk/Reward Barometer, nonprofit IT industry association ISACA surveyed 7,016 of its members in 140 countries in August and September 2015. The vast majority of IT professionals polled (77%) said that the IoT has benefited their company. However, 73% do not believe IT industry security standards sufficiently address the risks. Further, 49% of respondents said they do not believe their IT department is even aware of all the connected devices in their organization. Those are the kinds of vulnerabilities that can expose companies to potential liability.

Data Ownership Rights May Arise

Individuals like to think they own their own data, but in the US, consumers and business users are freely trading it for the privilege of using a product or service. Contracts, including end-user license agreements (EULAs), define who owns the data — which is another reason not to mindlessly rip open a package or click on an “I agree” button.
And, because IoT devices operate as part of an ecosystem, and many of the devices are being designed to communicate with each other, data ownership can become a very real issue. In fact, even farmers are being advised to understand data ownership issues before negotiating contracts with drone manufacturers.
Is your organization encouraging employee use of IoT devices? Would you want to work for a company that asks employees to wear Fitbits or other health trackers? Is your company aware of the  legal issues involved in collecting personally identifiable information from employees or customers? Tell us all about it in the comments section below.

Lisa Morgan is a freelance writer who covers big data and BI for InformationWeek. She has contributed articles, reports, and other types of content to various publications and sites ranging from SD Times to the Economist Intelligent Unit. Frequent areas of coverage include … View Full Bio

Previous

1 of 2

Next

COMMENT  | 
EMAIL THIS  | 
PRINT  | 

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Court Gives Plaintiff $21.5 Million Reasons for Not Spoliating Emails

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Court Gives Plaintiff $21.5 Million Reasons for Not Spoliating Emails

jason atchley

Court Gives Plaintiff 21.5 Million Reasons for Not Spoliating Emails: eDiscovery Case Law

By: Doug Austin
When you spoliate data, you can lose even after you’ve won…  :o)
In Hausman v. Holland America Line-U.S.A., et al., No. CV13-0937 BJR (W.D. Wa., Jan 5, 2016), Washington District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein vacated a $21.5 million verdict awarded to a man injured by a closing cruise-ship door in 2011 and ordered a new trial, after the plaintiff’s former assistant alleged that he deleted emails that could hurt his case.
Case Background
The plaintiff sued the defendant in 2013, stating that he suffered dizziness and seizures after an automatic sliding glass door improperly closed and struck his head as the vessel approached Honolulu. After a two-week trial in October, a jury awarded him $21.5 million.
However, the matter did not end there. Approximately two weeks after the trial concluded, the defendants were approached by the plaintiff’s former personal assistant who informed them that the plaintiff had deliberately sabotaged the defendants’ pre-trial discovery efforts, alleging that he: (1) Deleted and/or failed to disclose the existence of emails that he knew were relevant to this lawsuit, (2) Tampered with witness testimony, (3) Fabricated and/or exaggerated the extent of his alleged injuries, and (4) Testified falsely at trial.
Through witness testimony and supporting documents from the personal assistant at an evidentiary hearing held in December, the following allegations were made:
  • The plaintiff panicked when he learned that he would have to produce emails responsive to certain terms and began searching for and deleting those emails over “several days”;
  • He instructed her to delete all email correspondence between the two of them from her computer and phone, which she proceeded to do;
  • He discussed hiring someone to “scrub” his computer and that claimed he had used a large magnet to damage his home office computer’s hard drive; and
  • He had a second personal email account that he used while she was employed as his personal assistant, but that he did not disclose this account to the defendants.
In support of her testimony, the defendants produced copies of 60 emails that she was able to recover from her computer and/or phone after she deleted them, approximately 1/3 of which contained search terms that should have triggered their production.  In one of the deleted emails, the plaintiff wrote to his assistant to say he was sore after spending most of the day on a 10-foot ladder using a fire ax to chop ice that had built up over the front porch of his house, contrary to his claim of vertigo after the incident.
The plaintiff conceded that he did not produce those emails and that nearly one-third of the emails contain the Court-ordered search terms, but claimed the failure to produce these emails was not the result of misconduct on his part, but simply as part of his routine practice of clearing out his inbox.
Judge’s Ruling
In making her ruling, Judge Rothstein stated that “the credibility of Ms. Mizeur and Mr. Hausman is at the heart of this motion: Ms. Mizeur charges that Mr. Hausman intentionally sabotaged Defendants’ discovery efforts and is lying to cover his misconduct; Mr. Hausman charges that Ms. Mizeur is a bitter ex-employee who is lying because she wants to wreak havoc on his life. Thus, this Court must assess the credibility of Ms. Mizeur and Mr. Hausman.”
Finding the former assistant’s explanation regarding a check that she wrote to herself from the plaintiff’s account as an approved expense as “credible”, Judge Rothstein stated “[i]n short, this Court finds Ms. Mizeur to be a truthful witness.”
As for the plaintiff, not so much.
“The same cannot be said for Mr. Hausman”, Judge Rothstein stated. “As a witness, he came across evasive and untrustworthy. He appeared to weigh each answer, not for its truthfulness, but to assess whether it would damage his case. Mr. Hausman also seemed to capitalize on his alleged brain injury when it was convenient for him. He was confused or claimed memory loss when confronted with a question or exhibit that appeared to undermine his claims, yet was animated and full of information when his testimony supported his case.”
Finding “that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the withheld information was inconsequential”, Judge Rothstein concluded “that a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case”, vacated the judgment entered in the case and ordered a new trial.
So, what do you think?  Was this sanction excessive?  Is it ever too late to sanction a party for intentional spoliation of data?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Thanks, as always, to Sharon Nelson’s excellent Ride the Lightning blog for the tip!
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNineeDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : FTC Cautions Businesses on Big Data Use

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : FTC Cautions Businesses on Big Data Use

jason atchley

FTC Cautions Businesses on Big Data Use

Companies must proceed with caution as they use consumer surveillance tools made possible in today’s ‘big data’ era.

Ed Silverstein, Legaltech News

January 8, 2016    | 0 Comments
U.S. Federal Trade Commission Building.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission Building.
Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ
A new report from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reminds business to avoid “exclusionary” or “discriminatory” uses of big data analysis. Listing many sample questions, the new report, “Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion? Understanding the Issues,” looks at how big data is used after being collected and analyzed. The study was released this month and comments are being made in response.
“The FTC has delivered a sweeping review on how today’s data-driven marketplace poses serious risks to consumers,” Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, told Legaltech News. He added, “The commission’s message is clear—companies must proceed with caution as they use consumer surveillance tools made possible in today’s ‘big data’ era. Every consumer should be alarmed about the host of little publicly- known practices that can harm our credit, employment and privacy.”
With the new report, the FTC “is bringing a much needed 21st century update on how it will enforce important consumer protection laws,” according to Chester.
Still, he said the FTC should be encouraging Congress to update the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and other laws to prevent “high-tech discriminatory profiling…. Even with Congress unlikely to do anything that opposes the powerful business data lobby, the FTC should have acknowledged that it doesn’t have the regulatory clout to really protect consumers.”
Basically, the study looks at risks that “could result from biases or inaccuracies about certain groups, including more individuals mistakenly denied opportunities based on the actions of others, exposing sensitive information, creating or reinforcing existing disparities, assisting in the targeting of vulnerable consumers for fraud, creating higher prices for goods and services in lower-income communities and weakening the effectiveness of consumer choice,” according to an FTC statement.
The study also includes several questions companies should be asking themselves. Ones on legal compliance include:
  • If you compile big data for others who will use it for eligibility decisions (such as on credit, employment, insurance, housing, government benefits), are you complying with the accuracy and privacy provisions of the FCRA?
  • If you receive big data products from another entity that you will use for eligibility decisions, are you complying with the provisions applicable to users of consumer reports?
  • If you are a creditor using big data analytics in a credit transaction, are you complying with the requirement to provide statements of specific reasons for adverse action under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act?
  • If you use big data analytics in a way that might adversely affect people in their ability to obtain credit, housing, or employment, are you treating people differently based on a prohibited basis, such as race or national origin?
  • Do your policies, practices or decisions have an adverse effect or impact on a member of a protected class, and if they do, are they justified by a legitimate business need that cannot reasonably be achieved by means that are less disparate in their impact?
  • Are you maintaining reasonable security over consumer data?
  • Are you undertaking reasonable measures to know the purposes for which your customers are using your data?
  • If you know that your customer will use your big data products to commit fraud, do not sell your products to that customer. If you have reason to believe that your data will be used to commit fraud, ask more specific questions about how your data will be used.
  • If you know that your customer will use your big data products for discriminatory purposes, do not sell your products to that customer.
In the report, the FTC also predicted that big data “will continue to grow in importance, and it is undoubtedly improving the lives of underserved communities in areas such as education, health, local and state services, and employment.”
“The Commission will continue to monitor areas where big data practices could violate existing laws, including the FTC Act, the FCRA, and ECOA, and will bring enforcement actions where appropriate,” the FTC added. “In addition, the Commission will continue to examine and raise awareness about big data practices that could have a detrimental impact on low-income and underserved populations and promote the use of big data that has a positive impact on such populations. Given that big data analytics can have big consequences, it is imperative that we work together—government, academics, consumer advocates, and industry—to help ensure that we maximize big data’s capacity for good while identifying and minimizing the risks it presents.”
Furthermore, the FTC asked businesses if their data model account for biases. “Companies should therefore think carefully about how the data sets and the algorithms they use have been generated. Indeed, if they identify potential biases in the creation of these data sets or the algorithms, companies should develop strategies to overcome them,” the FTC said.
In one instance, Google changed its interview and hiring process to ask more “behavioral” questions and focus less on academic grades after discovering that replicating its existing definitions of a “good employee” was resulting in a “homogeneous” tech workforce, the FTC noted.

Read more: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202746640972/FTC-Cautions-Businesses-on-Big-Data-Use#ixzz3xKTqcxuD

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Tips for a Successful Legaltech New York

Jason Atchley : Legal Tech News : Tips for a Successful Legaltech New York

jason atchley

Ask the Marketer: Tips for a Successful Legaltech New York

Legal tech marketers give advice on how to make the most out of the LTNY experience.

Legaltech News

January 14, 2016    | 0 Comments
Gaj Rudolf
It’s crunch time in January leading up to Legaltech New York—do you have what it takes to stand out in the crowd? Below is a compilation of seven legal technology marketers’ ideas on how you can be heard above the noise to have a successful Legaltech.
Valerie Chan, Founder, Plat4orm PR:
1. Review your LTNY game plan to see where the holes are. Are your messages compelling? Did you figure out each logistic? Is there a backup plan in case something fails?
2. Schedule LTNY meetings now. Don’t wait until the last minute. By mid-January, LTNY attendees know whom they are going to meet with, and available time slots have been filled. Reach out now to have the most productive schedule.
3. Get your most important news out in January. Don’t let your news get lost at LTNY. LTNY attendees often backfill their dance cards with the most “compelling” vendors by checking out the news before the show.
4. Analyze the competition to stand out. What are the holes in their marketing messages? What do you need to tweak to differentiate yourself?
5. Have a post-LTNY plan. Make sure your hard work pays off. After LTNY, if you plan correctly, leads turn into conversions.
Amy Juers, Founder and CEO, Edge Legal Marketing:

With a plethora of exhibitors at Legaltech one might find it hard to overcome another’s hype and noise, but here are a few strategies and tactics to help raise above the noise.

Get started early: Before the show let your targets know where to find you and what you’ll offer to them at Legaltech. Make sure your company’s content and “elevator pitch” is clear and succinct. Put your editorial plan together for blog and social media posts as well as email campaigns. Write all your content in advance. Schedule meetings with your clients, prospects, vendor partners and the media now.

At the show: Set high priority to the people that bring the most to your company. Bring a lot of business cards! Make sure everyone knows the pitch and is comfortable demonstrating your software. Take notes when talking to people, be sincere and do something to make their visit to your booth memorable.

Afterwards: Categorize your leads and assign them to a salesperson. Implement a post-show campaign and make sure it includes a personal touchpoint. Some ideas for post-show communications include inviting them to a webinar or product demonstration, sending a white paper that addresses the tech issue at hand or explains your product or service more, or a simple hand-written note demonstrating the lost art of communication.

Christy Burke, President and Founder, Burke & Company:
“The secret to standing out amid the noise at Legaltech 2016 is not really about noise, it’s about focus. Communicate with the people who matter most to your business and use the show as a magnet to draw them in closer.
Before Legaltech, reach out to customers, prospects, suspects (who may become prospects) and the media. Tell them what will be new or interesting about your software and services at the show. Invite them to a demo, meal or coffee during Legaltech to touch base so you can educate them more. LegalTech buyers are sophisticated consumers, so the more they know about your technology and the people behind it, the better. Then, be sure to follow up with them thoroughly and promptly after the show. ‎Then, you can make plenty of noise when you close a bunch of deals resulting from your efforts at Legaltech 2016.”
Andrea Johnson, Marketing Consultant:
Whether you are a marketing manager planning your company’s tradeshow booth or an LTNY attendee, your goals are probably similar: meet new people and build business relationships that lead to sales. However, the true test to close business happens after the show.
Use analogies for the most memorable recall. Analogies are memory triggers, helping create a connection with prospects. The more connections you make, the more memorable you become. For example, I might emphasize the pronunciation of my name, “Hi. I’m Andrea – pronounced ‘On-drea’ like ‘On-track’ – not ‘AND-rea.’” When following up, I’d say, “Hi, this is Andrea from Ontrack.” Simple name and company pronunciation makes you more memorable.
Another way to implement this approach is creating a connection between your company and something out of the context of your day-to-day work life. For example, create a card game to demonstrate how your technology works.
Remember, analogies – “I’m X, like Y, you’ll remember that!” – can help draw mental connections for a successful LTNY follow-up!
Ed Colandra, Vice President and Senior Consultant, Legal Vendor Strategies:
1. Come a day early and enjoy a bit of NYC. Besides great food, there are several terrific plays on Broadway now. Go to the TKTS booth by the Marriott Marquis Hotel for “leftover” tickets for that day’s show at half price.
2. It’s difficult to find a spot for a quiet meeting at the Hilton. The restaurant at The London NYC on 54th Street is a good choice. Reservations are recommended.
3. Feed your social media audience with a few updates daily, and then a summary of your experience as a blog for your website and LinkedIn.
4. Bring business cards and keep them in your badge holder. On your interlocutor’s card, write down what you talked to them about to remind you why you even have the card when you get home.
5. Network constantly – at lunch, at sessions, at booths, at receptions. Break out of your comfort zone and meet new people.
Ari Kaplan, Legal Industry Analyst, Ari Kaplan Advisors & Member, Legaltech Advisory Board:
1. Efficiently schedule meetings. There is so much to learn and so many people to meet that the best thing you can do at the conference is to efficiently manage your calendar. I usehttp://YouCanBook.me, which allows me to send a unique link to colleagues and permits them to book any open slot on my calendar.
2. Attend the editors’ and bloggers’ breakfasts. Not only will your attendance at these two free events give you access to ALM’s dynamic editorial and leadership teams, but it will expose you to thought leaders in technology, innovative entrepreneurs, and savvy media experts from around the world.
3. Write about your experience. Whether for an article, a blog post, a LinkedIn group update or even a series of Tweets, write about what you see and whom you meet. They will appreciate the recognition and it will give you a great opportunity to follow up.
Christine Alemany, Founder, Trailblaze Growth Advisors:
These are some tips to maximize your ROI for LegalTech:
1. Set goals early. There are multiple paths to achieving ROI, from networking and pitching potential clients to speaking and building marketing lists. Each path has a different return horizon, so do not limit yourself to one.
2. Invest in your brand. Use your knowledge of the competition to stand out. From business cards and marketing collateral to booth and tchotchke design, always put your best foot forward.
3. Use the media list. Contact reporters to pitch actual news, not something insignificant or inherently self-serving.
4. Leverage social media. Create content to share during LegalTech. Build Twitter lists with reporters, speakers and sponsors attending LegalTech. Then interact.
5. In your quest for ROI, remember to have fun! Feel free to mingle and celebrate all of your hard work. However, make sure to get your hustle back in the morning!

Read more: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202747084958/Ask-the-Marketer-Tips-for-a-Successful-Legaltech-New-York#ixzz3xFapaIRd

Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley
Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley

%d bloggers like this: