Resources

We live in the era of Big Data. The exponential pace of technological development continues to generate immense amounts of digital information that can be analyzed, sorted, and utilized in previously impossible ways. In this world of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other advanced technologies, questions of privacy, government regulations, and compliance have taken on a new prominence across industries of all kinds.With this in mind, H5 recently convened a panel of experts to discuss the latest compliance challenges that organizations are facing today, as well as ways that AI can be used to address those challenges. Some key topics covered in the discussion included:Understanding use cases involving technical approaches to data classification.Exploring emerging data classification methods and approach.Setting expectations within your organization for the deployment of AI technology.Keeping an AI solution compliant.Preventing introducing bias into your AI models.The panel included Timia Moore, strategic risk assessment manager for Wells Fargo; Kimberly Pack, associate general counsel of compliance for Anheuser-Busch; Alex Lakatos, partner at Mayer Brown; and Eric Pender, engagement manager at H5; The conversation was moderated by Doug Austin, editor of the eDiscovery Today blog.Compliance Challenges Organizations Are Facing TodayThe rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, vastly increased data volumes and sources, and stringent new privacy laws present unique new challenges to today’s businesses. Whereas in the recent past it may have seemed liked regulatory bodies were often in a defensive position, forced to play catch-up as powerful new technologies took the field, these agencies are increasingly using their own tech to go on the offensive.This is particularly true in the banking industry and broader financial sector. “With the advent of fintech and technology like AI, regulators are moving from this reactive mode into a more proactive mode,” said Timia Moore, strategic risk assessment manager for Wells Fargo. But the trend is not limited to banking and finance. “It’s not industry specific,” she said. “I think regulators are really looking to be more proactive and figure out how to identify and assess issues, because ultimately they’re concerned about the consumer, which all of our companies are and should be as well.”Indeed, growing demand by consumers for increased privacy and better protection of their personal data is a key driver of new regulations around the world, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and various similar laws in the United States. It’s also one of the biggest compliance challenges facing organizations today, as cyber attacks are now faster, more aggressive, and more sophisticated than ever before.Other challenges highlighted by the panel included:Siloed departments that limit communications and visibility within organizationsA dearth of subject matter expertiseThe possibility of simultaneous AI requests from multiple regulatory agenciesA more remote and dispersed workforce due to the pandemicUse Cases for AI and ComplianceIn order to meet these challenges head on, companies are increasingly turning to AI to help them comply with new regulations. Some companies are partnering with technology specialists to meet their AI needs, while some are building their own systems.Anheuser-Busch is one such company that is using an AI system to meet compliance standards. As Kimberly Pack, associate general counsel of compliance for Anheuser-Busch, described it: “One of the things that we’re super proud of is our proprietary AI data analyst system BrewRight. We use that data for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance. We use it for investigations management. We use it for alcohol beverage law compliance.”She also pointed out that the BrewRight AI system is useful for discovering internal malfeasance as well. “Just general employee credit card abuse…We can even identify those kinds of things,” Pack said. “We’re actively looking for outlier behavior, strange patterns or new activity. As companies, we have this data, and so the question is how are we using it, and artificial intelligence is a great way for us to start being able to identify and mitigate some risks that we have.”Artificial intelligence can also play a key role in reducing the burden from alerts related to potential compliance issues or other kinds of wrongdoing. The trick, according to Alex Lakatos, partner at Mayer Brown, is tuning the system to the right level of sensitivity—and then letting it learn from there. “If you set it to be too sensitive, you’re going to be drowned in alerts and you can’t make sense of them,” Lakatos said. “You set it too far in the other direction, you only get the instances of the really, really bad conduct. But AI, because it is a learning tool, can become smarter about which alerts get triggered.”Lakatos also pointed out that when it comes to the kind of explanations for illegal behaviors that regulators usually want to see, AI is not capable of providing those answers. “AI doesn’t work on a theory,” he said. “AI just works on correlation.” That’s where having some smart people working in tandem with your AI comes in handy. “Regulators get more comfortable with a little bit of theory behind it.”H5 has identified at least a dozen areas related to compliance where AI can be of assistance, including: key document retention and categorization, personal identifiable information (PII) location and remediation, first-line level reviews of alerts, and policy applicability and risk identification.Data Classification, Methods, and ApproachesThere are various methods and approaches to data classification, including machine learning, linguistic modeling, sentiment analysis, name normalization, and personal data detection. Choosing the right one depends on what companies want their AI to do.“That’s why it’s really important to have a holistic program management style approach to this,” said Eric Pender, engagement manager at H5. “Because there are so many different ways that you can approach a lot of these problems.”Supervised machine learning models, for instance, ingest data that’s already been categorized, which makes them great at making predictions and predictive models. Unsupervised machine learning models, on the other hand, which take in unlabeled, uncategorized information, are really good at data pattern and structure recognition.“Ultimately, I think this comes down to the question of what action you want to take on your data,” Pender said. “And what version of modeling is going to be best suited to getting you there.”Setting Expectations for AI DeploymentOnce you’ve determined the type of data classification that best suits your needs, it’s crucial to set expectations for the AI deployment within your company. This process includes third-party evaluation, procurement, testing, and data processing agreements. Buying an off-the shelf solution is a possibility, though some organizations—especially large ones—may have the resources to build their own. It’s also possible to create a solution that features elements of both. In either case, obtaining C-suite buy-in is a critical step that should not be overlooked. And to maintain trust, it’s important to properly notify workers throughout the organization and remain transparent throughout the process.Allowing enough time for proper proof of concept evaluation is also key. When it comes to creating a timeline for deploying AI within an organization, “it’s really important for folks to be patient,” according to Pender. “People who are new to AI sometimes have this perception that they’re going to buy AI and they’re going to plug it in and it just works. But you really have to take time to train the models, especially if you’re talking about structured algorithms and you need to input classified data.”Education, documentation, and training are also key aspects of setting expectations for AI deployment. Bear in mind, at its heart implementing an AI system is a form of change management.“Think about your organization and the culture, and how well your employees or impacted team members receive change,” said Timia Moore of Wells Fargo. “Sometimes—if you are developing that change internally, if they’re at the table, if they have a voice, if they feel they’re a meaningful part of it—it’s a lot easier than if you just have some cowboy vendor come in and say, ‘We have the answer to your problems. Here it is, just do what we say.’”Keeping AI Solutions Compliant and Avoiding BiasWhen deploying an AI system, the last area of consideration discussed by the panel was how to keep the AI solution itself compliant and free of bias. Best practices include ongoing monitoring of the system, A/B testing, and mitigating attacks on the AI model.It’s also important to always keep in mind that AI systems are inherently dependent on their own training data. In other words, these systems are only as good as their inputs, and it’s crucial to make sure biases aren’t baked into the AI from the beginning. And once the system is up and running—and learning—it’s important to check in on it regularly.“There’s an old computer saying, ‘Garbage in, garbage out,’ said Lakatos. “The thing with AI is people have so much faith in it that it is become more of ‘garbage in, gospel out.’ If the AI says it, it must be true…and that’s something to be cautious of.”In today’s digital world, AI systems are becoming more and more integral to compliance and a host of other business functions. Educating yourself and making sure your company has a plan for the future are essential steps to take right away.The entire H5 webcast, “New Rules, New Tools: AI and Compliance,” can be viewed here.ai-and-analytics; data-privacyccpa, gdpr, blog, ai, big-data, -data-classification, fcpa, artificial-intelligence, compliance, ai-and-analytics, data-privacyccpa; gdpr; blog; ai; big-data; data-classification; fcpa; artificial-intelligence; compliancemitch montoya

Building on our conversation from part one, we explore some practical advice and steps for achieving equity, including the role of allies, and how this work will benefit us in the future.True equity in the workplace starts from the topWhile grassroot employee efforts can be impactful, they will never be enough if diversity is not exemplified and valued at the highest levels of an organization. This means that it is not enough for leaders to verbalize a commitment to diversity and inclusion campaigns. Leaders must also back up that commitment with action: In times of economic volatility, companies can and should continue to devote a portion of their budget to equity and inclusion initiatives, and make sure these initiatives are supported by senior leadership. — Brooke OppenheimerWhen you have leadership at the top that truly values diversity and equity in all its forms— gender diversity, racial diversity, sexual orientation diversity, etc.— that priority will flow down from the leadership to the rest of company. It is incumbent on organizations to ensure their leaders are prioritizing diversity, because the rest of the organization will follow what the leadership is exemplifying. — Ashley BaynhamWhen you have strong leadership serving in the capacity of championing equity in the workplace on a day-to-day basis, it not only sets a tone and expectation across the organization that diversity is top of mind, but it becomes seamless to follow in their footsteps. —Jeannie E. FarrenThis means that, in order to become truly equitable, organizations have a duty to break up inequitable leadership structures. Historically in corporate America, we have seen an abundance of white, hetero, male leaders in positions of power. It’s hard to think of achieving true equity within the legal industry if that power structure at the top is not diverse. To make that change, it becomes incumbent on those leaders to stand up and say, “I want to lead an organization that doesn’t just resemble me. I want to lead an organization that more strongly resembles this country as whole.” —Michelle Six Lack of gender diversity in certain roles perpetuates existing biases, leading to inadequate representation in leadership positions. —Brooke OppenheimerThis duty also applies to individual leaders. Leaders have a responsibility to not only leave the door open for women and other underrepresented groups, but also to proactively help diversify inequitable power structures:If you are fortunate enough to be trusted to be in a leadership role within your organization, you have an ongoing responsibility to continuously assess how you are applying fairness across the team on a day-to-day basis. Look around your team and make sure that the “shiny” opportunities are being spread evenly across the team and that the women on your team are being provided with the chance to be in the spotlight as often as possible. — Jeannie E. FarrenThat idea leads directly to an essential point about the power of allies…Allies are integral to the fight for gender equityTrue gender equity cannot be achieved by women alone. Equity can only be achieved when women and allies come together to support individual women and push for progress, together. If you are surrounded by people in your (personal and professional) life who share a common goal as important as equity for all, you have already accomplished one of the most difficult hurdles. — Jeannie E. FarrenBecause of longstanding historical and systemic gender inequities, our allies are often in a better position within an organization to effect real change. It is therefore imperative that allies remain vigilant, proactive, and unafraid to call out gender biases and inequities when they occur. As an ally, stay cognizant of some of the ways that unconscious or conscious gender bias can play out in the workplace. For example, if you see someone cutting off a colleague in a meeting, speak up. It becomes very hard to constantly have to champion yourself or work to overcome those gender biases on our own. And for women, there’s always a concern that championing yourself comes off as self-promotion. That’s where a third party may be in a better position to stand up and raise their voice as ally. So, my advice for allies would be: Speak up, in the moment that your voice is needed.” — Ashley BaynhamTo help facilitate this, organizations committed to diversity and inclusion can put systems in place that make it easier for individuals and allies to report instances of gender bias when it occurs.When we witness inequities, we may not stand up because we think that “others” have already raised the issue. But oftentimes, the bystander effect is at play—which leads to no one saying anything at all. This demonstrates the value of having established channels of communication so that people know who they can go to for help. It also shows us that we all have to be comfortable being a little uncomfortable if we want to fight for an equitable workplace for all. —M. Alexandra BillebIn this way, advocates and allies can create an environment that fosters organizational-wide accountability and responsibility in the fight for gender equity.Each of us can contribute in ways large and small to ensure that it isn’t just the person with the loudest voice or most senior title who is heard. And we should point out ways in which individuals and organizations are not living up to those principles. It is not enough to say what is important to us. We have to hold each other accountable when we fall short. — M. Alexandra Billeb Gender equity requires the creation of an inclusive culture that does not tolerate inequity and that supports, champions, and encourages women's contributions. —Brooke Oppenheimer It is critical to champion equity and inclusion more broadly in order to expand upon gender allies through standing up support groups and creating measurable data points for accountability. — Jeannie E. FarrenThis community of advocates and allies, committed to a culture of accountability, has a much better chance at rectifying some of the most challenging and persistent gender equity issues—for example wage inequity:One of things we can look for from our allies with decision making power is better wage transparency— so that we can more effectively advocate for better wage consistency. One of the biggest barriers to gender equity in the legal profession is unequal compensation. The gender-based wage gap still remains and the legal industry has more work to do in this regard. I believe that greater salary transparency across the legal industry will potentially lead to more wage equity, which is a goal we should all prioritize. — Michelle Six Conclusion While there are still significant obstacles ahead, our conversation with these industry leaders demonstrated that by consistently championing equity goals, women and allies can continue the progress that generations of women have made before us towards a more gender equal world. diversity-equity-and-inclusionblog, dei, diversity-equity-and-inclusionblog; deisarah moran

This year’s International Women’s Day theme is “embracing equity.” The theme challenges us to consider why “equal opportunities are not enough” and reminds us that allies are “incredibly important for the social, economic, cultural, and political advancement of women.”This challenge, presented to both women and allies alike, to keep striving for gender equity and resist settling into complacency seems particularly fitting in 2023. The past year has brought with it a growing acceptance that the only constant we can depend on is change. Three years after a global pandemic altered our world, there seems to be a growing acceptance that this constant state of unpredictability and volatility across the global economic, social, political, and ecological environments, may be “the new norm” we all talked about in 2020. This broader acceptance of instability brings with it a silver lining: A parallel realization that we cannot afford to wait for “things to return to normal” in order to continue fighting for gender equity. If we do, we risk backsliding and losing the ground that generations of women before us fought so hard to gain. For example, studies have shown that women and girls are more negatively impacted by global economic crises than men, and that the recent rise in inflation rates more negatively impacts women than men. Now more than ever, it is imperative to remain focused on the fight for gender equity. In celebration of International Women’s Day, Lighthouse invited six leaders in the legal industry to provide their perspectives and advice on this topic:Ashley Baynham, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Kaiser PermanenteM. Alexandra Billeb, Senior Practice Manager, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLPJeannie E. Farren, Director of Case Management and Technology | eDiscovery and Information Governance, MetaKayann Fitzgerald, Director of eDiscovery & Practice Technologies, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Brooke Oppenheimer, Counsel, eDiscovery, Cyber & Data Protection, Axinn Veltrop & HarkriderMichelle Six, Partner, Litigation, Kirkland & EllisThey have each consistently championed women while fighting for broader equity and inclusion within their own careers and practices. Lighthouse is honored to highlight the valuable insight these leaders provided regarding the current state of gender equity and how we can all continue to strive for progress.In part one of our series, we explore what gender equity means in 2023 and its impact on work and life. And tomorrow, part two will highlight practical advice for achieving greater equity and its benefits in the future. True gender equity is more than a woman’s presence in a conference roomBefore we can discuss how to move forward, we must first define the goal: What would it mean to achieve true gender equity? The overwhelming consensus was that in 2023, a woman’s mere presence in a meeting is not a realization of ‘gender equity.’ Rather, true gender equality comes when women not only have a seat at table, but an equal voice in the conversation: Gender equity is an intentional awareness that creates the fairness in that “seat at the table” where ideas, views and decisions are exchanged and made. While progress has been made, we still have a long way to go as a society to ensure women’s voices are heard and regarded, not ignored and unnoticed. In the words of the late Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Women belong in all places where decisions are being made… It shouldn't be that women are the exception."—Kayann FitzgeraldTrue gender equity would mean that women would never have to walk into a conference room wondering what percentage of the participants will be women. It would mean women would never have to wonder if their compensation was equal to that of a male counterpart. The fact that we must still be counted or tallied as “women lawyers” or “women in the industry” is a sign that we have not yet achieved parity. We still have an asterisk next to our name. True gender equity would mean we could eliminate that asterisk. —Michelle SixEquity for women is having a seat at the table, a voice that is heard, listened to, and respected and equal access to opportunities for leadership. —M. Alexandra BillebAchieving equity for women includes ensuring women have a seat at the table, participate in decision-making, and have their perspectives and contributions valued and respected. —Brooke OppenheimerWith that vision for gender equity in mind, our featured leaders provided a few key suggestions for individuals and organizations seeking to create a more gender equal environment. Recognize the true value of our differencesA surprising first step toward creating a truly equal environment may be to recognize our differences. At its core, diversity means variety. It means there are real immutable differences between gender identification, between races, between religions, between sexual orientations, between nationalities, etc. Rather than trying to erase those differences, individuals and companies must recognize those differences:A truly equitable world would not only give equal opportunities to women in the workplace—it would also be fully appreciative of our differences. If you look across certain industries where equal opportunities are given, there's still minimal accounting for societal and biological differences between women and men. Those differences may take a variety of forms. For example, differences in the economic status between men and women due to systemic pay inequities, differences in the mental and physical workload women often carry compared to male partners in family units, differences in the communications styles due to generational gender bias and social pressure on women, etc. A truly equitable workplace must recognize and account for those differences. —Ashley BaynhamOnly once we recognize our differences, can we then recognize and account for the true value (both intangible and monetary) those differences bring to the table:Gender equity and other diversity and equity efforts should not be relegated to a ‘nice to have’ or be put on a shelf during times of economic volatility. Having different and diverse voices represented in the room provides a real and significant value to our clients and to the business as a whole. Without it, we retreat into the predictability of hearing the same voices over and over in an echo chamber. We miss out on new and innovative ideas and lose the potential to learn from a diverse group of people who bring different perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds to the table. —Michelle SixOnce the value of diversity is accounted for, companies and law firms are less likely to marginalize equity efforts during times of economic volatility. Recognize that gender equity is not just a “women’s rights issue”In the same vein, individuals and companies are more likely to focus on rectifying gender inequities when they can clearly see how these solutions will be beneficial to a broader group. There are systemic equity issues that I don’t know how we will address as individual organizations until there is a shared societal understanding that these are issues that affect everyone—this is an obstacle at the very core. —M. Alexandra BillebWe must stay focused on providing opportunities and platforms to empower women to build each other up, while continuing to tear down stereotypes and create cultures focused on the equity mission. The quote, “Gender equality is not a woman’s issue, it is a human issue. It affects us all,” speaks loudly to this point. —Kayann Fitzgerald Historically, we have seen this dynamic play out on a larger stage. When we look back at the history of women’s rights, we can see that the equity issues that women have been fighting for generations (equal educational and career opportunities, better and more affordable childcare options, financial and wage equity, etc.) are not specific to women—they are broader human rights issues.I am fortunate to have a mother who played a significant role to me and many others regarding equity for women. She continually encouraged and pushed against the status-quo during a time where it was more common for women to be married shortly out of high school, have children, and don the homemaker hat. She networked before networking was a thing, created an enviable career in her chosen profession (nursing) while raising three children…all while scratching, clawing, and climbing the equity ladder, bringing along many a female colleague with her. —Kayann Fitzgerald Any progress that previous generations of women have made toward gender equity has exponentially made the world a better, more equitable place for everyone. Equity for women was instilled in me (by my mother) and has deeply influenced my professional endeavors…and now I have a front row seat watching my two daughters create their respective paths and define their “seat at the table.” This awareness, empowerment, and creating access to opportunities is paramount in forming a truly equitable society. —Kayann Fitzgerald Once viewed in this lens, it is easy to recognize how the work we do today to close gender equity gaps will positively impact future generations, regardless of gender. In fact, many of our featured industry leaders recommend focusing on the next generation as one the best ways to make impactful and real change. No matter our gender or background, we all desire to live in a world where our children are not negatively impacted by stereotypes or biases.A truly equitable world for women would be one where gender roles are not engrained into young girls, where young women are encouraged to pursue any career that interests them, not just ones which are stereotypically earmarked for women. —Brooke Oppenheimer I see society evolving from generation to generation in terms of how people think about gender and gender norms. I think the biggest impact we can have on the creation of a more equitable society for women continues to push for that evolution—and that starts with our children. It means stamping out perceptions of gender bias in young kids, and remaining cognizant of the unconscious biases that can develop in children. It means working to ensure that my young son and daughter know they can both play with dolls and they can both play with trucks. We need to continue to evolve past the idea from older generations that "this is for boys and this is for girls." —Ashley BaynhamThis recognition of the universally beneficial impact of closing gender equity gaps is also exemplified in in other areas traditionally associated with the fight for gender equality. For example, one area of significant improvement noted by many of our featured industry leaders was a change to more flexible work environments. Law firms especially have typically required associates to work long hours in an office in order to secure a partnership. Because women have traditionally held the role of primary caregivers in family structures, this requirement led to a high percentage of women dropping out of big law in favor of less structured work environments. For this reason, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the fight for more flexible schedules and remote work options was often primarily framed as a gender equity issue. But when the world shut down in 2020, millions of employees experienced the benefits of more flexible work environments, and pushed back against returning to offices and rigid schedules once pandemic restrictions began to fade. In terms of improvement, I think that flexible work arrangements have been a real silver lining of the COVID pandemic. We have proven, over and over, that we can be effective at our jobs at home as well as in the office and early in the morning as well as late at night. Successful organizations will be those that understand we can’t go back to 2019 with 9 to 5 schedules worked on site. —M. Alexandra BillebBecause a broader spectrum of people began to contemplate, recognize, and advocate for the benefits of flexible schedules and remote work options, organizations were pressured to make real, structural changes. In the same vein, many law firms and corporations have also made progress in broadening “maternity leave” to include “paternity leave” or “family leave,” due in part to the increasing diversity of modern family structures. Because there are now more voices advocating for the need for paid time off to spend with new children (beyond just the traditional paradigm of mothers who gave birth to biological children), many companies have begun to broaden their parental leave benefits. In turn, as more people experience the benefit paid time off provides to new parents and children, we can expect increasing advocacy for companies to open that same door for other types of caregivers.I have seen great improvement in work flexibility and a huge commitment to maternity and family leave for both men and women. However, I know that the private sector still fails to position family leave equally. Whether you’re adopting an infant or a teenager, giving birth via surrogacy, or caring for an elderly or sick family member—all of those scenarios should be afforded the same types of family leave options that an employer provides to any employee. We should be striving for a world where there is a uniform family leave policy. —Michelle SixTo impact change more quickly, women and allies can highlight the broader benefits of closing gender equity gaps. For instance, women often face higher rates of workplace burnout caused by remote working because we are still statistically more likely to be considered the primary caregiver in family structures: Working remotely for women in particular has essentially blurred all of the lines and guardrails that use to separate home-life responsibilities from work-life responsibilities. I’m seeing burnout now more than ever before, and it has forced me to become more thoughtful and creative around meeting the women on my team exactly where they are in life. This is a moment in time where we have to allow people to own their schedule, to have the flexibility to be present in their lives in ways deemed most important to them, to blaze their own unique trail and to write their own story. —Jeannie E. FarrenWhile this issue may impact more women than men, it is easy to see how guidelines and tactics that help define clearer boundaries between home and work would be universally beneficial to all remote workers, regardless of gender identity. The same can be said for broader issues that statistically have a greater and more adverse impact on women, like the pressure to cover gaps in school schedules:A significant obstacle to gender equality actually lies in the mismatch between school systems and the reality of modern work environments. In order to have career advancement, you have to be showing up at work— undistracted and focused. Unfortunately, our school systems are still working off a 1940s/1950s model of having one parent at home. That simply is not the reality for most families today. Because women often still tend to carry the physical and mental load of being the primary caregiver in a family, that school structure puts added pressure on women to work around school schedules. This pressure often includes taking more time from work than male partners to accommodate weeks of school holidays and vacations, school start, and dismissal times that do not align with traditional work schedules, etc. And those obstacles and pressure impact people with lesser means much, much harder. —Ashley Baynham Here again, while the issue may impact more women than men, it is easy to see how a better, more modern school system would benefit not only women, but children, families, and those with limited or lesser incomes. Ultimately, then, the fight for gender equity is a fight for equity for all, regardless of gender identity: I believe one the biggest obstacles in advancing equity in the workplace is assumptions. In 2023, we need to remove conventional gender roles, especially post-pandemic, to realign, invest, and lean in on workplace equity. —Kayanne FitzgeraldOnce we can quantify and recognize the value gender equity provides to women and others, the next step is to find practical ways to minimize gender equity gaps. In part two of our series, our featured industry leaders discuss tips and advice for helping us achieve these goals.diversity-equity-and-inclusionblog, dei, diversity-equity-and-inclusionblog; deisarah moran

By Steven L. Clark, E-Discovery and Litigation Support Director, Dentons and John Del Piero, Vice President, LighthouseWhether your firm is just beginning to consider a move to a managed service eDiscovery model or you’re a managed service veteran, it is imperative to understand what makes this type of eDiscovery program model successful. After all, if you don’t know how to measure success, it will be difficult to know what to look for when selecting a provider, and equally as hard to monitor the quality of the services provided once you have selected one.However, measuring success can be complex. There are many different metrics that could be used to measure success and each may be of a varying level of importance to different firm stakeholders, as the priorities of these stakeholders will be determined by their particular role and focus. However, a successful managed service partnership can be based on a foundation of six core pillars. These pillars can be used as guideposts when evaluating whether a managed service partner will truly add value to a law firm’s eDiscovery process.Pillar 1: Access to Best-of-Breed Technology and Teams of Experts to Help Leverage ItA managed service partnership should always make a law firm (and its clients) feel like the best eDiscovery technology is right at their fingertips. But more than that, a successful managed service relationship should enable a law firm to stay technologically agile, while lowering technology costs.For example, if an eDiscovery tool or platform becomes obsolete or outdated, the firm’s managed service partner should be able to quickly move the firm to better technology, with little cost to the firm. In other words, in a successful managed service partnership, gone are the days where a litigation support team was stuck using an obsolete platform simply because the law firm purchased an enterprise license for that technology. Rather, the managed service partner should bear the cost burden of leveraging continuously evolving technology because the partner can easily spread that technological risk across its client base. In assuming this burden, the managed services partner ultimately provides law firms much greater flexibility in terms of leveraging the most appropriate technology to meet their clients’ needs.In addition to simply providing access to the best technology, a successful managed service partnership should also provide teams of experts who are wholly dedicated to helping law firms leverage that technology for optimal impact. These experts should be continuously vetting new applications and technology upgrades, enabling litigation support teams to stay up to date on evolving applications and tools. These teams will also be able to create and test customized workflows that enable law firms to handle how data flows through technically robust collaborative platforms like Microsoft Teams or Slack, as well as keep firms apprised of any updates to cloud-based platforms that may affect existing eDiscovery workflows.This type of devoted technological expertise and guidance can provide firms a significant competitive boost, as internal litigation support teams rarely have the resources available to devote staff solely to testing new technology and building customized workflows.Pillar 2: A Scalable and More Diversified eDiscovery Team In comparison to a traditional law firm litigation support team which, naturally, is somewhat static in size, a successful managed service relationship allows law firm teams to quickly and seamlessly scale up or down, depending on case needs. For example, when a large matter comes in, a managed service provider should have the ability to quickly pull a project manager in to help manage the case while the internal law firm team still retains day-to-day control of the matter. This alleviates the firm from having to choose between hiring additional staff (only to be faced with too big of a team once the larger matter ends) or outsourcing the case to an external, inflexible eDiscovery provider (where the firm may be unable to retain full control of the matter and will undoubtedly have to adapt to different processes and workflows).A managed service partner’s bench should also be deep, allowing a law firm to pull from a diverse pool of expertise. Whether the law firm needs a review workflow expert or a processing expert, an analytics expert or a migration and normalization expert, a quality managed service provider should be able to swiftly provide someone who knows the teams involved and has the qualifications and technological background to ensure that all stakeholders trust their expertise and guidance.Pillar 3: eDiscovery Expertise 24/7/365A managed service provider should not only provide law firms with top-notch eDiscovery expertise but also provide access to that expertise whenever it is needed. Unfortunately, most litigation support teams are all too familiar with the fact that eDiscovery is almost never a 9 to 5 job. The nature of litigation today means that a Monday production deadline involving a terabyte of data may be doled out by a judge on a Friday morning, or that data for a pressing production may arrive at 9:00 p.m. The list of eDiscovery off-hour emergencies is somewhat endless.Unfortunately, most internal litigation support teams at law firms are located in one geographic area (and therefore, one time zone), meaning that even when internal teams have the required expertise, they may not have those resources available when they’re needed.A quality managed service partner, however, will be able to provide resources whenever they are needed because it can structure its hiring and team assignments with team members located across multiple time zones. Access to full-time eDiscovery expertise and coverage enables law firms to swiftly handle any eDiscovery task with ease, with no permanent increase in staffing overhead.Pillar 4: Less Talent Acquisition RiskA successful managed service relationship should also significantly lower law firm risk related to talent acquisition and training. While hiring in today’s job climate may seem like a simple task, the cost of sufficiently vetting candidates and then providing the appropriate training can be incredibly time consuming and expensive.If law firm vetting misses a candidate red flag or even if a candidate just needs more training than expected, staffing costs and time expenses can skyrocket even further. For example, the task of having to substantially re-train a new hire from the ground up can take up the valuable time of other internal experts. In this way, even the most routine hire can often slow productivity and lower the morale of the entire internal team (at least in the short term) until the hire can be fully integrated into the department’s daily workflow.In a successful managed service relationship, however, the law firm can transfer those types of hiring and training risks directly to the provider. The managed service provider is already continuously evaluating, vetting, and training talent across different geographies in order to hire the best eDiscovery experts. Law firms can simply reap the benefit of this process by partnering with the service provider and leveraging that talent once the vetting and training process has been completed.Pillar 5: Lower Staffing Overhead To put it simply, all of the above means that moving to a managed service model should allow a law firm to significantly lower its overhead costs related to staffing and management. In addition to taking on the hiring risks, a managed service provider should also take on much of the overhead related to maintaining staff. From payroll, to benefits, to overtime costs, a quality managed service provider handles those costs and time expenses for their own on-staff experts, leaving the law firm free to reap the benefits of on-demand expertise without the staffing overhead costs.Pillar 6: Better Billing MechanicsMost law firms are not set up to bill eDiscovery services efficiently. eDiscovery billing has evolved over the last few years, and a quality managed service provider should be following suit and offering simplified, predictable cost models in order for law firms to pass that predictability on to their clients. This kind of simplified pricing enables all parties to understand exactly how much they are going to spend for the eDiscovery services provided. However, this billing structure differs significantly from the way traditional legal work is billed out, and most law firms’ billing infrastructures have not evolved to offer the same level of predictability or cost certainty. This is where a quality managed service provider can provide another benefit, by heavily investing its own resources into building out automated reporting, ticketing, and billing systems that can generate proformas and integrate into the firm’s existing billing systems.If a managed service provider can take care of these billing tasks, law firm teams can spend more time in furtherance of client work, rather than devoting resources into eDiscovery billing metrics and workarounds.SummaryAccess to and expertise in appropriate technology, flexible staffing models, lower overhead, and simplified pricing are the six pillars of a successful managed service partnership in a law firm setting. When all six of these pillars are in place, the managed service partnership will result in more satisfied internal and external law firm customers and an increasing caseload year after year. For more information or to discuss this topic, reach out to us at info@lighthouseglobal.com.legal-operations; ediscovery-reviewmanaged-services, blog, law-firm, legal-operations, ediscovery-reviewmanaged-services; blog; law-firmlighthouse

Have you created, or were handed, a budget but you don’t know where to start? Or, have you managed a budget for a while but want some other perspectives on what to look for throughout the year? Well this is the post for you. As I mentioned in my prior post about creating budgets, I have managed budgets for a long time in legal, operations, and other departments, as well as gotten input on this topic from many peers. Below you will find five of my top tips.Align team goals with budget - The success of your budget increases if everyone is working toward the common goal of staying within that budget. As such, when creating your team goals as well as when creating an individual team member’s goals, they should all support what you have put in your budget. There are a number of ways to do this. First, you could put a specific goal – e.g., come within 5% of budget – in their personal goals. You could also tie a part of an employee’s bonus to the department meeting its budget. Second, you could make the goals a bit more indirect by having each employee have a goal around coming up with cost-savings measures. Finally, you could be even less direct by just ensuring that nobody has goals related to projects that do not have any budget and that all funded projects do have owners. I use all three of these concepts in combination to set up the department for budget success.Operationalize your budget review - Reviewing your spend (actuals) against your budget on a monthly basis is critical to being able to stay on budget. You should involve your team in these budget reviews. The agenda should include an update on the prior month’s spend, a discussion of anything unusual from the prior month, and a discussion about any expectations for the coming month. Be open during these discussions and encourage people to speak up. You want to foster a positive environment where people feel comfortable bringing up anything that will impact the budget. Every team member should understand how their work impacts the budget. Any team member heading up a particular project should understand the budget of that project and where they are vis-à-vis budget. Transparency of this information will allow people to make well-informed decisions.Constantly look for ways to get better – automation and different suppliers - Even if you are at or under budget, it is important to continuously look for ways to get more efficient with resources. This can be done in conjunction with monthly budget reviews as your team will likely have some great suggestions. There are three main questions I ask:What can be automated? What can be outsourced?Are there opportunities to get better pricing from any outsourced providers (including technology)?Of these three, I lean towards automation because of the dramatic cost savings over time, but also the additional benefits. Automation will typically have an initial cost to fund the development effort. However, that initial investment can eliminate certain resources for a long period, sometimes even bringing ongoing costs to $0. Automation also can provide information, such as auditing and data, that were not available with manual methods. For example, implementing an e-billing solution not only saves on the people cost for reviewing bills, but also gives better visibility into where the money is being spent, leading to new areas for savings.Always have a plan B and C - Things change as the year goes on – revenue may not come in as expected, there could be a global pandemic that impacts your business, or you could decide to fund a higher priority business item – and you may be asked to change or reduce your budget. This can be frustrating but you should be ready for unexpected changes. The first thing you can do to be ready is to know what you will cut first, second, and third, etc. When you have a prioritized list, you can respond to any budget cuts or freezes pretty quickly. Second, you should have alternative, cheaper ways to still move forward on your top legal department strategy or strategies. For example, instead of hiring a full-time employee to manage and implement your e-billing system, perhaps you can hire a temporary employee, consultant, or an intern to move you forward on the research and design phases. Also consider whether you can move forward with any projects in phases or by doing a scaled back proof of concept first. For example, you could procure fewer licenses of your e-billing system and implement it for only 10% of matters (e.g., litigations over $1M). Both of these moves will allow you to still advance your project, but for a lower cost. The proof of concept also has the added benefit of allowing you to demonstrate the value of the project to the business, thereby making any associated budget requests for a full-scale implementation easier to get approved.Communicate changes early - A budget is an estimate based on your knowledge at one point in time. It won’t be perfect and you will have to make changes. Make sure you understand the process to communicate those changes. As soon as you have knowledge of anything that will be significantly under or over budget, which you will likely get from your monthly budget review, make sure to communicate that. If it is something that will put you over budget, make sure to have the details about why the spend is necessary, what alternative options you have looked into, and what benefits will come to the business from this spend. The threshold for when to communicate these changes differs at each organization so be sure to work with your partners in the finance organization to understand what is expected at your organization.legal-operationsediscovery-process, legal-ops, blog, legal-operations,ediscovery-process; legal-ops; bloglighthouse

Legal professionals often take for granted that the eDiscovery software they leverage in-house must come with capability tradeoffs (i.e., if the production capability is easy to use, then the analytics tools are lacking; if the processing functionality is fast and robust, then the document review platform is clunky and hard to leverage, etc.).The idea that these tradeoffs are unavoidable may be a relic passed down from the history of eDiscovery. The discovery phase of litigation didn’t involve “eDiscovery” until the 1990s/early 2000s, when the dramatic increase in electronic communication led to larger volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) within organizations. This gave rise to eDiscovery software that was designed to help attorneys and legal professionals process, review, analyze, and produce ESI during discovery. Back then, these software platforms were solely hosted and handled by technology providers that weren’t yet focused entirely on the business of eDiscovery. Because both the software and the field of eDiscovery were new, the technology often came with a slew of tradeoffs. At the time, attorneys and legal professionals were just happy to have a way to review and produce ESI in an organized fashion, and so took the tradeoffs as a necessary evil.But eDiscovery technology, as well as legal professionals’ technological savvy, has advanced light years beyond where it was even five years ago. Many firms and organizations now have the knowledge and staff needed to move to a “self-service, spectra” eDiscovery model for some or all of their matters – and eDiscovery technology has advanced enough to allow them to do so. Unfortunately, despite these technological advancements, the tradeoffs that were so inherent in the original eDiscovery software still exist in some self-service, spectra eDiscovery platforms. Today, these tradeoffs often occur when technology providers attempt to develop all the technology required in an eDiscovery platform themselves. The eDiscovery process requires multiple technologies and services to perform drastically different and overlapping functions – making it nearly impossible for one company to design the best technology for each and every eDiscovery function, from processing to review to analytics to production.To make matters worse, the ramifications of these tradeoffs are much wider than they were a decade ago. Datasets are much larger and more diverse than ever before – meaning that technological gaps that cause inefficiency or poor work product will skyrocket eDiscovery costs, amplify risk, and create massive headaches for litigation teams. But because these types of tradeoffs have always existed in one form or another since the inception of eDiscovery, legal professionals still tend to accept them without question.But rest assured best-in-class technology does exist now for each eDiscovery function. The trick is being able to identify the functionality that is most important to your firm or organization, and then select a self-service, spectra eDiscovery platform that ties all the best technology for those functions together under one seamless user interface.Below are three key steps to prepare for the research and purchasing process that will help drastically minimize the tradeoffs that many attorneys have grown accustomed to dealing with in self-service, spectra eDiscovery technology. Before you begin to research eDiscovery software, you’ve got to fully understand your firm or organization’s needs. This means finding out what eDiscovery technology capabilities, functionality, and features are most important to all relevant stakeholders. To do so:Talk to your legal professionals and lawyers about what they like and dislike about the current technology they use. Don’t be surprised if users have different (or even opposing) positions depending on how they use the software. One group may want a review platform that is scaled down without a lot of bells and whistles, while another group heavily relies on advanced analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. This is common, especially among groups that handle vastly different matter types, and can actually be a valuable consideration during the evaluation process. For instance, in the scenario above, you know you will need to look for eDiscovery software that can flex and scale from the smallest matter to the largest, as well as one that can create different templates for disparate use cases. In this way, you can ensure you purchase one self-service, spectra eDiscovery software that will meet the diverse needs of all your users.Communicate with IT and data security teams to ensure that any platform conforms with their requirements.These two groups often end up being pulled into discussions too late once purchasing decisions have already been made. This is unfortunate, as they are integral to the implementation process, as well as to ensuring that all software is secure and meets all applicable data security requirements. Data security in eDiscovery is non-negotiable, so you want to be sure that the eDiscovery technology software you select meets your firm or organization’s data security requirements before you get too far along in the purchasing process.Create a prioritized list of the most important capabilities, functionality, and attributes to all the stakeholders once you’ve gathered feedback.Having a defined list of must-haves and desired capabilities will make it easier to vet potential technology software and ultimately help you identify a technology platform that fits the needs of all relevant stakeholders.ConclusionWith today’s advanced technology, attorneys and legal professionals should not have to deal with technology gaps in their self-service, spectra eDiscovery software, just as law firms and organizations should not have to blindly accept the higher eDiscovery cost and risk those gaps cause downstream. Powerful best-in-class technology for each step of the eDiscovery process is out there. Leveraging the steps above will help you find a self-service, spectra eDiscovery software solution that ties all the functionality you need under one seamless, easy-to-use interface.For more detailed advice about navigating the purchasing process for self-service, spectra eDiscovery software, download our self-service, spectra eDiscovery Buyer’s Guide here. ediscovery-review; ai-and-analyticsself-service, spectra, review, analytics, processing, blog, production, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analyticsself-service, spectra; review; analytics; processing; blog; productionsarah moran

You know that cleaning out the garage is a good idea. You would have more storage space and would even be able to put the car into the garage, which is better for security, for keeping it clean, and for ensuring an easy start on a frozen winter morning. Even if you don’t have a garage, you likely have an equivalent example such as a loft or that cupboard in the kitchen, yet somehow these tasks are often put off and rarely top of the “to do” list. Information governance often falls in this category; a great idea that struggles to make it to the top ahead of competing corporate priorities.For both the garage and information governance, the issue is the creation of a compelling business case. For the garage, the arrival of a new car or a spate of car thefts in the area is enough to push this task to the front. For information governance, the business case might be that a company is enlightened enough to realize that its data is an under-utilized asset or it might be a question of time and effort being wasted in the struggle to find the information when needed. However, these positive drivers might not be enough. Sometimes you need to look at the risk if nothing is done.In our view, building a strong business case for information governance will be a laconic combination of both the carrot and the stick. This blog will focus on the stick because that is often the hardest factor to spell out in clear terms. We will take you on a journey through the GDPR fines that have been levied since it came into force in May 2018, show how European regulators see information governance as an essential element of a companies’ data protection obligations, and give you the necessary background to prepare your business case.Why address information governance now? It is worth just pausing to ensure we are all talking about the same thing, so let’s define information governance. You can see Gartner’s definition here. For our purposes, we can talk in simpler terms and define information governance as “the people, processes, and technology involved in seeking to ensure the effective and efficient creation, storage, use, retention, and deletion of information.”Now, let’s turn to the GDPR. The total of fines under the GDPR, since it came into force in May 2018, approaches €300m. The big fines usually relate to processing personal data without good reason or consent (e.g. Google - €50m), or for inadequate security leading to data breaches (e.g. British Airways - £20m). As a result, many organizations prioritize this type of work.However, after a thorough trawl, we see a growing body of decisions where fines have been imposed by regulators for information governance failures. In our view, the top 5 reported “information governance” fines are:€15m Deutsche Wohnen (Berlin DPA) – set aside on procedural grounds​€2.25m Carrefour (France)​€290,000 HUF (Hungary)​€250,000 Spartoo (France)​€160,000 Taxa4x35 (Denmark)​GDPR fines, in detailThe largest fine is the Deutsche Wohnen matter. In 2017, the Berlin Data Protection Authority (DPA) investigated Deutsche Wohnen and found its data protection policies to be inadequate. Specifically, personal data was being stored without a necessary reason and some of it was being retained longer than necessary. In 2019, the DPA conducted a follow-up investigation and found these issues were not sufficiently remedied and thus issued a fine of €15m. The Berlin DPA explained that Deutsche Wohnen could have readily complied by implementing an archiving system which separates data with different retention periods thereby allowing differentiated deletion periods, as such solutions are commercially available. In February 2021, Criminal Chamber 26 of the District Court of Berlin closed the proceedings on the basis the decision was invalid and not sufficiently substantiated. The Berlin DPA had not specified the acts by the management of the company that supposedly led to a violation of the GDPR. The Berlin DPA has announced it would ask the public prosecutor to file an appeal.​ It would be a mistake to interpret the nullification of the fine as evidence that information governance / data retention is not an important issue for DPAs. Such an interpretation would be ignoring that fact that there is no criticism as to the substance of the findings made by the Berlin DPA in relation to Deutsche Wohnen’s approach to data retention.Holding data without necessary purpose or not actively deleting data has been a theme of fines by other DPAs as well. In Denmark, the Data Protection Authority recommended fines for similar inadequacies as follows:1.2m DKK (€160,000) on Taxa4x35. A DPA inspection discovered that although customer names were deleted after 2 years, their telephone numbers remained for 5 (as a key field in the CRM database)1.1m DKK (€150,000) on Arp-Hansen Hotel Group. Personal data was being stored longer than was necessary and in breach of Arp-Hansen’s own retention policies​1.5m DKK (€200,000) on ID Design. A routine DPA inspection revealed old customer data not being adequately deleted.​ Although, like Deutsche Wohnen, this fine was subsequently reduced on technical grounds, the commentary on the corporate information governance policies still holds.In France, three fines have been imposed relating to the holding customer data well past what the regulators deemed necessary:In the Carrefour​ matter, there was a fine of €2.25m​ for various infringements including that Carrefour had retained the data of more than 28 million inactive customers, through its customer loyalty programme, for an excessive period.In SERGIC​, there was a fine of €400,000​ for various infringements including that SERGIC had stored the documents of unsuccessful rental candidates beyond the necessary time to achieve the purpose for which the data was collected and processed​.In Spartoo​, there was a fine of €250,000​ for reasons including that Spartoo retained data for longer than was necessary for more than 3 million customers​. In Spartoo, the regulators also called out that the company had not set up a retention period for customer and prospect data​, did not regularly erase personal data​, and retained names and passwords in a non-anonymised form for over 5 years​.Although the authorities in France and Denmark have been the most active, they are not alone. In Hungary, HUF​ was issued with a fine of approximately €290,000​ based on the absence of a retention policy for a database containing personal data. And in Germany, Delivery Hero failed to delete accounts of former customers who had not been active on the company’s delivery service platform for years ​and was fined €195,000.Other authorities may not yet have imposed fines, but their attention is turning in the direction of information governance. A number of DPAs have issued guidance, the scope of which includes data retention (e.g. the Irish DPA, in Sept 2020, on how long COVID contact details should be retained; the French DPA, in October 2020, on how long union-member files should be retained)​.How to get started on your business caseThere is a genuine threat to companies stalling in relation to information governance, particularly around personal data. The decisions to date represent a small percentage of the activity in this area, as many of the violations are dealt with by regulators directly. We don’t know what, if any, settlements have been agreed upon, but the decisions that we have located are helpful and instructive for building the business case for prioritizing this work.The first thing to do is create an internal overview for why this area matters – use the above to show that there is risk and that regulators are paying attention. Hopefully, our overview will help you to identify the size of the stick. As to the carrot, that will be very company-specific, but our clients who have successfully made the case focus on the efficiency gains that can be made if information is properly governed as well as the opportunity to mine more effectively their own information for its real business value. Next, take a look at your policies and areas that may require adjustment based on the above in order to gain some insight into the scale of the activity. Now your business case should be taking shape. You might also consider looking wider than the GDPR, such as the increasing number of state data protection frameworks within the US.We recognize this process is an oversimplification and each step requires a significant time investment by your organization, but spending time focusing on the necessity of retaining personal data, as well as the length of retention (and subsequent deletion), are critical elements in minimizing your risk.information-governancedata-privacy, blog, record-management, information-governance,data-privacy; blog; record-managementlighthouse

Below is a copy of a featured article written by Kimberly Quan of Juniper Networks and John Del Piero of Lighthouse for Bloomberg Law.Whether it's Teams, Slack, Zendesk, GChat, ServiceNow, or similar solutions that have popped up in the market over the last few years, collaboration and workflow platforms have arrived. According to Bloomberg Law's 2020 Legal Technology Survey, collaboration tools are being used by 77% of in-house and 44% of law firm attorneys. These tools are even more widely used by workers outside of the legal field.With many companies planning to make remote working a permanent fixture, we can expect the existing collaboration tools to become even more entrenched and new competitors to arrive on the scene with similarly disruptive technologies.This will be a double-edged sword for compliance and in-house legal teams, who want to encourage technology that improves employee productivity, but are also wary of the potential information governance and eDiscovery risks arising because of these new data sources. This article explains the risks these tools can pose to organizations and provides a three-step approach to help mitigate those risks.Understand Litigation and Investigation RiskThe colloquial and informal nature of collaborative tools creates inherent risk to organizations, much like the move from formal memos to email did 20 years ago. Communications that once occurred orally in the office or over the phone are now written and tracked, logged, and potentially discoverable. However, a corporation's ability to retain, preserve, and collect these materials may be unknown or impossible, depending on the initial licensing structure the employee or the company has entered into or the fact that many new tools do not include features to support data retention, preservation, or collection.Government agencies and plaintiffs’ firms have an eye on these new applications and platforms and will ask specifically about how companies and even individual custodians use them during investigations and litigations. Rest assured that if a custodian indicates during an interview or deposition that she used the chat function in a tool like Teams or Slack, for example, to work on issues relevant to the litigation, opposing counsel will ask for those chat records in discovery. Organizations can mitigate the risk of falling down on their eDiscovery obligations because of the challenges posed bycollaboration tool data using this three-step approach:Designate personnel in information technology (IT) and legal departments to work together to vet platforms and providers.Develop clear policies that are regularly reviewed for necessary updates and communicated to the platform users.Ensure internal or external resources are in place to monitor the changes in the tools and manage associated retention, collection, and downstream eDiscovery issues.Each of these steps is outlined further below.Designate IT & Legal Personnel to Vet Platforms and Providers‍Workers, especially those in the tech industry, naturally want to be free to use whatever technology allows them to effectively collaborate on projects and quickly share information.However, many of these tools were not designed with legal or eDiscovery tasks in mind, and therefore can pose challenges around the retention, preservation and collection of the data they generate.Companies must carefully vet the business case for any new collaboration tool before it is deployed. This vetting process should entail much more than simply evaluating how well the tool or platform can facilitate communication and collaboration between workers. It also involves designating personnel from both legal and IT to work together to evaluate the eDiscovery and compliance risks a new tool may pose to an organization before it is deployed.The importance of having personnel from both legal and IT involved from the outset cannot be understated. These two teams have different sets of priorities and can evaluate eDiscovery risks from two different vantage points. Bringing them together to vet a new collaboration tool prior to deployment will help to ensure that all information governance and eDiscovery downstream effects are considered and that any risks taken are deliberate and understood by the organization in advance of deployment. This collaborative team can also ensure that preservation and discovery workflows are tested and in place before employees begin using the tool.Once established, this dedicated collaborative IT and legal team can continue to serve the organization by meeting regularly to stay abreast of any looming legal and compliance risks related to data generation. For example, this type of team can also evaluate the risks around planned organizational technology changes, such as cloud migrations, or develop workflows to deal with the ramifications of the near-constant stream of updates that roll out automatically for most cloud-based collaborative tools.Develop Clear Policies That Are Regularly Reviewed‍The number of collaborative platforms that exist in the market is ever evolving, and it is tempting for organizations to allow employees to use whatever tool makes their work the easiest. But, as shown above, allowing employees to use tools that have not been properly vetted can create substantial eDiscovery and compliance risks for the organization.Companies must develop clear policies around employee use of collaborative platforms in order to mitigate those risks. Organizations have different capabilities in restricting user access to these types of platforms. Historically, technology companies have embraced a culture where innovation is more important than limiting employees’ access to the latest technology. More regulated companies, like pharmaceuticals, financial services, and energy companies, have tended to create a more restrictive environment. One of the most successful approaches, no matter the environment or industry, is to establish policies that restrict implementation of new tools while still providing users an avenue to get a technology approved for corporate use after appropriate vetting.These policies should have clear language around the use of collaboration and messaging tools and should be frequently communicated to all employees. They should also be written using language that does not require updating every time anew tool or application is launched on the market. For instance, a policy that restricts the work-related use of a broad category of messaging tools, like ephemeral messaging applications, also known as self-destructing messaging applications, is more effective than a policy that restricts the use of a specific application, like Snapchat. The popularity of messaging tools can change every few months, quickly leading to outdated and ineffective policies if the right language is not used.Make sure employees not only understand the policy, but also understand why the policy is in place. Explain the security, compliance, and litigation-related risks certain types of applications pose to the organization and encourage employees to reach out with questions or before using a new type of technology.Further, as always with any policy, consider how to audit and police its compliance. Having a policy that isn't enforced issometimes worse than having no policy at all.Implement Resources to Manage Changes in Tools‍Most collaboration tools are cloud-based, meaning technology updates can roll out on a near-constant basis. Small updates and changes may roll out weekly, while large systemic updates may roll out less frequently but include hundreds of changes and updates. These changes may pose security, collection, and review challenges, and can leave legal teams unprepared to respond to preservation and production requests from government agencies or opposing counsel. In addition, this can make third-party tools on which companies currently rely for specific retention and collection methodologies obsolete overnight.For example, an update that changes the process for permissions and access to channels and chats on a collaborative platform like Teams may seem like a minor modification. However, if this type of update is rolled out without legal and IT team awareness, it may mean that employees who formerly didn't have access to a certain chat function may now be able to generate discoverable data without any mechanism for preservation or collection in place.The risks these updates pose mean that is imperative for organizations to have a framework in place to monitor and manage cloud-based updates and changes. How that framework looks will depend on the size of the organization and the expertise and resources it has on hand. Some organizations will have the resources to create a team solely dedicated to monitoring updates and evaluating the impact of those updates. Other organizations with limited internal access to the type of expertise required or those that cannot dedicate the resources required for this task may find that the best approach is to hire an external vendor that can perform this duty for the organization.When confronted with the need to collect, process, review, and produce data from collaboration tools due to an impending litigation or investigation, an organization may find it beneficial to partner with someone with the expertise to handle the challenges these types of tools present during those processes. Full-scale, cloud-based collaboration tools like Microsoft Teams and Slack are fantastic for workers because of their ability to combine almost every aspect of work into a single, integrated interface. Chat messaging, conference calling, calendar scheduling, and group document editing are all at your fingertips and interconnected within one application. However, this aspect is precisely why these tools can be difficult to collect, review, and produce from an eDiscovery perspective.With platforms like Teams, several underlying applications, such as chat, video calls, and calendars, are now tied together through a backend of databases and repositories. This makes a seemingly simple task like “produce by custodian” or “review a conversation thread” relatively difficult if you haven't prepared or are not equipped to do so. For example, in Teams communications such as chat or channel messages, when a user sends a file to another user, the document that is attached to the message is no longer the static, stand-alone file.Rather, it is a modern attachment, a link to the document that resides in the sender's OneDrive. This can beg questions as to which version was reviewed by whom and when it was reviewed. Careful consideration of versioning and all metadata and properties will be of the utmost importance during this process, and will require someone on board who understands the infrastructure and implications of those functions.The type of knowledge required to effectively handle collection and production of data generated by the specific tools an organization uses will be extremely important to the success of any litigation or investigation. Organizations can begin planning for success by proactively seeking out eDiscovery vendors and counsel that have experience and expertise handling the specific type of collaboration tools that the organization currently uses or is planning on deploying. Once selected, these external experts can be engaged early, prior to any litigation or investigation, to ensure that eDiscovery workflows are in place and tested long before any production deadlines.ConclusionCloud-based collaboration tools and platforms are here to stay. Their ability to allow employees to communicate and collaborate in real time while working in a remote environment is becoming increasingly important in today's world. However, these tools inherently present eDiscovery risks and challenges for which organizations must carefully prepare. This preparation includes properly vetting collaboration tools and platforms prior to deploying them, developing and enforcing clear internal policies around their use, monitoring all system updates and changes, and engaging eDiscovery experts early in the process.With proper planning, good collaboration between IT and legal teams and expert engagement, organizations can mitigate the eDiscovery risks posed by these tools while still allowing employees the ability to use the collaboration tools that enable them to achieve their best work.Reproduced with permission. Published March 2021. Copyright © 2021 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.800.372.1033. For further use, please contact permissions@bloombergindustry.com.chat-and-collaboration-data; ediscovery-review; microsoft-365emerging-data-sources, blog, corporate, chat-and-collaboration-data, ediscovery-review, microsoft-365,emerging-data-sources; blog; corporatebloomberg law

Legal tech was no match for 2020. Everyone’s least favorite year wreaked havoc on almost every aspect of the industry, from data privacy upheavals to a complete change in the way employees work and collaborate with data.With the shift to a remote work environment by most organizations in the early spring of 2020, we saw an acceleration of the already growing trend of cloud-based collaboration and video-conferencing tools in workplaces. This in turn, means we are seeing an increase in eDiscovery and compliance challenges related to data generated from those tools – challenges, for example, like collecting and preserving modern attachments and chats that generate from tools like Microsoft Teams, as well compliance challenges around regulating employee use of those types of tools.However, while collaboration tools can pose challenges for legal and compliance teams, the use of these types of tools certainly did help employees continue to work and communicate during the pandemic – perhaps even better, in some cases, than when everyone was working from traditional offices. Collaboration tools were extremely helpful, for example, in facilitating communication between legal and IT teams in a remote work environment, which proved increasingly important as the year went on. The irony here is that with all the data challenges these types of tools pose for legal and IT teams, they are increasingly necessary to keep those two departments working together at the same virtual table in a remote environment. With all these new sources and ways to transfer data, no recap of 2020 would be complete without mentioning the drastic changes to data privacy regulations that happened throughout the year. From the passing of new California data privacy laws to the invalidation of the EU-US privacy shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) this past summer, companies and law firms are grappling with an ever-increasing tangle of regional-specific data privacy laws that all come with their own set of severe monetary penalties if violated. How to Prepare for 2021The key-takeaway here, sadly, seems to be that 2020 problems won’t be going away in 2021. The industry is going to continue to rapidly evolve, and organizations will need to be prepared for that.Organizations will need to continue to stay on top of data privacy regulations, as well as understand how their own data (or their client’s data) is stored, transferred, used, and disposed of.Remote working isn’t going to disappear. In fact, most organizations appear to be heading to a “hybrid” model, where employees split time working from home, from the office, and from cafes or other locations. Organizations should prepare for the challenges that may pose within compliance and eDiscovery spaces.Remote working will bring about a change in employee recruiting within the legal tech industry, as employers realize they don’t have to focus talent searches within individual locations. Organizations should balance the flexibility of being able to expand their search for the best talent vs. their need to have employees in the same place at the same time.Prepare for an increase in litigation and a surge in eDiscovery workload as courts open back up and COVID-related litigation makes its way to discovery phases over the next few months.AI and advanced analytics will become increasingly important as data continues to explode. Watch for new advances that can make document review more manageable.With continuing proliferation of data, organizations should focus on their information governance programs to keep data (and costs) in check.To discuss this topic further, please feel free to reach out to me at SMoran@lighthouseglobal.com. ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-review; legal-operationscloud, analytics, emerging-data-sources, data-privacy, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-review, legal-operations,cloud; analytics; emerging-data-sources; data-privacy; ai-big-data; blogsarah moran

As legal teams expand their responsibilities and business impact throughout their organizations, there’s a delicate balance legal professionals must strike in their roles: be better partners and balance risk.To tease out this complex and dynamic relationship, Megan Ferraro, Associate General Counsel of eDiscovery and Information Governance at Meta, recently joined as a guest on Law & Candor.Highlights from that conversation are below.The legal function's bigger roleLegal departments are playing a more significant part in strategy and innovation because the role of in-house counsel has changed greatly in the past few decades. There's been a considerable shift in forward-thinking companies from viewing legal as a blocker to more of a strategic partner.Successful legal teams are partnering internally to ensure attorneys across their organization get early signals to address potential inquiries in litigation or investigations. Additionally, companies are now hiring in-house teams to fill roles where those legal partners can identify and assess legal risk early on.In-house counsel have become advocates for why legal deserves a seat at the table at all company levels, which contributes to the overall success of the business.A great example of how legal is partnering with other parts of their organizations to drive innovation is through the role of product counsel at technology companies. The most effective product counsel have a deep understanding of product goals early, which helps them to identify and address legal issues more quickly and accurately. By working closely with the product team through development, updates, and deployment, they also serve as a conduit between legal and product teams to help advance projects and address potential risks.Critical risks for legal teams todayOne of the most significant challenges for in-house legal teams is keeping up with the pace of their organization’s growth—whether it’s developing products and services, forging unique partnerships, or adopting new technology and software.Often, business teams do not appreciate how even the slightest difference in facts can contribute to different outcomes in the law. Managing the expectations of the business regarding the time it takes to do legal analysis is extremely important.It's normal to take the time to think about these challenging issues. An important adage for the business to remember is that the law is not “Minute Rice.”The balancing act between risk and innovationWeighing risk and innovation requires that you keep pace with changes throughout the organization, including pivots in strategic priorities, with a variety of stakeholders. Staying ahead of these developments and allowing counsel enough time to evaluate potential impacts is key to understanding if the benefits are worth the risk, and if not, how to adjust a business plan accordingly.Along with providing the guidance stakeholders need to assess risk and make decisions, legal teams also frequently manage how organizational data is stored and accessed with IT departments. If other teams throughout the business do not have the information they need, they can't move as fast to help the company innovate. How long to keep data, what format it is in, and who can access it are all questions that can have a huge impact on innovation.Cross-functional collaborationIn-house counsel are increasingly working with other leaders in their organizations to inform strategic decisions, but having a seat at the table requires listening and staying connected to “clients” within the business. Strategic priorities can change very often, especially in a fast-paced environment.Knowing not just what these priorities are but how the business interprets them and what success means to the company will contribute to the most successful legal partners for balancing risk factors and supporting innovation.To listen to the full conversation and hear more stories from the legal technology revolution, check out Law & Candor.ai-and-analytics; information-governanceblog, risk-management, ai-and-analytics, information-governanceblog; risk-managementlighthouse

In the early days of electronic discovery, technologies that legal teams utilized were researched and procured by specialists independent of information technology teams. Getting IT, legal, compliance, records managers, and other stakeholders to come together to discuss and strategize as a team was almost impossible. The move to the Cloud is changing that dynamic, as corporations move to address data challenges including eDiscovery, information governance, data privacy, and cybersecurity, in a more holistic fashion. When a corporation leverages Microsoft 365 (M365), they have procured a technology that not only meets their data storage requirements but provides eDiscovery, privacy, data governance, and cybersecurity features as well.With the upside that a single platform can provide, there are also challenges including the continued growth in data and new data types that M365 presents. Most eDiscovery professionals are still working to understand how to leverage the functionality in M365 and how to incorporate it into their existing program. Teams usage, for example, has risen with the addition of 31 million new users in one month when the COVID-19 pandemic first hit. Based on that statistic, it is clear that Teams is new to many professionals and eDiscovery teams need to understand how to deal with Teams data in discovery.eDiscovery features in M365 vary based on licensing, but can include data culling, data processing, and even some high-level review. The functionality in no way is an end-to-end solution for discovery. It can achieve some basic needs and other technologies are still required to address limitations in the platform.M365 is also an incredibly dynamic program. It is a challenge to track modifications and updates to the system. Organizations need to invest in personnel to test their M365 environment proactively to identify potential issues that could occur in the discovery process, understand limitations, and capture benchmarking data on the time and effort certain tasks can take in the system. This information should be discussed with legal teams, as it can impact their discovery negotiations and should be considered for proportionality assessments. It’s vitally important to train internal and external legal teams on the capabilities and the limitations of the technologies.Keeping pace with M365 often requires multiple resources. Consider having a dedicated team to test the new tools and ensure any new updates get incorporated back into your workflows. Reach out to your peers at other organizations to learn from their experiences with the tool. Working with service providers who have deep expertise in the tool and the roadmap is extremely beneficial. Microsoft is open to receiving feedback on your experiences outside of simply support tickets. In fact, there is a formal design change request option available to M365 users. Contact your Microsoft representative to learn more about that alternative.When it comes to leveraging M365 for eDiscovery, keep these key takeaways in mind:The explosion of data, new technology, and cybersecurity risks have all led to a continual evolution of the M365 tool.Staying up to date with these continuous evolutions can be a challenge, be sure to (1) have dedicated resources to test new capabilities and report back; and (2) ensure these new updates get incorporated into training and workflow documentation.Train both your internal and external teams on your M365 needs.Collaborate with your various partners (i.e. providers, third-party vendors, outside counsel, etc.).To discuss this topic further, please feel free to continue the discussion by emailing me at PHunt@lighthouseglobal.com.microsoft-365; information-governance; chat-and-collaboration-data; legal-operationsmicrosoft, legal-ops, blog, microsoft-365, information-governance, chat-and-collaboration-data, legal-operationsmicrosoft; legal-ops; blogpaige hunt

We are now past the midpoint of 2020, which means we are more than halfway through the first year of a brand new decade. This midway point is a great time to take a look at the hottest trends in the legal tech world and predict where those trends may lead us as we move further into the new decade.If we were evaluating future trends in legal tech during a normal year, there might be one or two uncertainties or prominent events from the first half of the year that we would need to take into account. Maybe a shift in global data safety laws or a change to the Federal Rules of Evidence. But, as I’m sure we’re all tired of reading, 2020 has not been a normal year (“the new normal”, “these uncertain times”, “these unprecedented events”, etc. etc. etc.). No matter how you phrase it, we can all agree that 2020 has been… unpredictable. Or to be a bit less understated: the first six months of 2020 have drastically changed how many corporations and law firms function on a day-to-day basis, and industry leaders are predicting that many of those changes will have a lasting effect. For example, a recent Gartner survey of company leaders from HR, legal and compliance, finance, and real estate industries showed that 82% of those responding plan to allow employees to continue working remotely in some capacity once employees are allowed back in the office, while close to half responded that they will allow employees to work remotely full time.So what does that mean for the legal tech industry? Well, while the world around us has changed dramatically due to the events of 2020, many of those changes actually dovetail quite nicely into where legal tech was already headed. In this article, we will look at the latest trends in legal tech and how 2020, in all its chaos, has affected those trends.SaaS self-service, spectra eDiscovery: The growing adoption of cloud services is leading us to a unique hybrid approach to managing eDiscovery programs: SaaS self-service, spectra eDiscovery solutions. This new subscription-based approach gives law firms and corporate legal teams the ability to take charge of their own fates by bringing their eDiscovery program in house, while leaving much of the security risks, costs, and IT burdens to a reputable, secure vendor that can house the data in a private cloud or within its own data centers. The benefit of controlling your own eDiscovery program in house are obvious. Legal teams would have the ability to control costs and access their data whenever and wherever they need to without the expense and hassle of having to go through a middle man. It would also give legal teams more control over their own costs, deadlines, and workflows, with the ability to fluidly scale up or down depending on case need. The self-service, spectra subscription approach is also unique in that it leaves the burden and risk of creating and managing an entire IT data storage infrastructure with the vendor. A security-minded vendor with SOC 2 and ISO 27001 security certifications can house data in a private cloud or their own data center, providing a completely secure environment without the overhead and risk of managing that data in house. A subscription service also may come with the reassurance that if a project or timeline becomes more burdensome than expected, the in-house team could easily pass off a workflow or entire project to the vendor seamlessly.In 2020, a SaaS self-service, spectra solution has the added benefit of being available in every location around the world, at any time. If a worldwide pandemic has taught us anything, it is that traveling to multiple locations throughout the world to set up data centers to handle the specific needs of a case or a client is no longer a feasible solution. Housing and accessing data in the Cloud does not require abiding by global travel restrictions or mandatory quarantines. A SaaS self-service, spectra model where data is stored in the Cloud allows for global expansion without concern for pandemics, natural disasters, or political uncertainty.Big Data Analytics: Big data analytics and technology assisted review (TAR) are certainly not new ideas to 2020. The technology and tools have existed for years and the legal industry has slowly been adopting them. (I say “slowly” in contrast to how fast these tools are developed and adopted in other areas outside of the legal field.) The need to find reliable ways to comb through massive amounts of data in the eDiscovery and compliance arenas will only grow, and we can expect that the technology will only continue to improve and become even more reliable.One could argue that the biggest hindrance to big data analytics in the legal world is not the advancement of the technology, but rather the ability and willingness of many lawyers and courts to adopt that technology as a defensible, necessary legal tool in the modern world of big data. The legal field is notoriously slow to adopt new technology. As a personal example, I clerked for a prominent, incredibly smart criminal defense attorney who still used carbon paper to make copies of important court filings. This occurred during the same year that the third season of Lost aired (or the same year that the first season of Madmen premiered - pick your reference. Either way, not that long ago). And every law firm is rife with stories of the old-school partner who holes up in the firm library (the existence of which could also be an example to my point, in and of itself) because she doesn’t believe in online legal research. While the practice of law is steeped in an awe-inspiring mix of tradition and history, it can also be frustratingly slow to expand on that tradition because it refuses to use a copier. Even Don Draper had a copier by the second season.However, if we can say one positive thing about 2020, it is that the last six months have pushed the legal world into the technological future more than any other time period to date. Almost every in-house counsel, law firm, and court across the globe has been forced to find a way to conduct its business in a completely remote environment. This means that judges, law firms, and in-house counsel are facing the reality that the legal world needs to rely on and adapt to technology in order to survive. One hopes that this new reality helps lead to a more robust adoption of technological advancement in the legal world in general, and hopefully, a shift away from the reactionary relationship the legal industry always seems to have with technology. Because data volumes will only continue to explode and there will come a time in the near future when it will not be defensible to tell a judge or a client that discovery may take years in order to allow time for a team of 200 contract attorneys to look at each individual document that hits on a search term. Analytics will eventually be a requirement for a defensible eDiscovery program, and 2020 may be the year that helps many in the legal field take a more proactive approach to its adoption.New sources of data (i.e. collaboration tools): Like big data analytics, online collaboration tools like Teams and Slack are not new to 2020, but this year has certainly helped push the use of these tools to the forefront of many companies’ day-to-day business. It seems like new collaboration tools arise every month and companies are increasingly pushing employees to utilize them. Organizations are realizing the value of these collaboration tools in a post-COVID environment, where online collaboration is not only preferable, but absolutely critical. Not to repeat some of 2020’s greatest memes, but I’m sure we’ve all seen the 2020 adage that this is the year that we all realized that not only could that meeting have been an email, that email could have been an instant message. Data actually proves that theory to be true. Microsoft for example, found that chat messages within Microsoft Teams meetings increased over 10x from March 1 to June 1.The widespread use of these types of tools, in turn, generates more and more unique data that needs to be accounted for during an eDiscovery or compliance event Going forward, organizations will need to ensure that they know which tools their employees or contractors are using, what data those tools generate, and how to defensibly collect, process, and review that data in the event of a lawsuit or investigation (or retain a vendor who can guide them through that process). Which brings us to our final 2020 trend…Continuous program update subscription services: Going hand-in-hand with the above, watch out for eDiscovery programs and solutions that can manage the continuous delivery of program updates on all of the applications and platforms that organizations use to effectively perform their work. Gone are the days when the same data collection or processing workflow could be used for years at a time and still be defensible. From iPhone iOS to Teams, systemic updates to work applications and platforms can now roll out on an almost weekly basis, and it is imperative that legal and compliance teams stay on top of those updates and adapt to them in order to ensure that company information remains secure and that any data generated can be defensibly collected and processed when needed. In 2020 and beyond, look for technologically advanced eDiscovery subscription services that give companies the ability to prepare for and stay ahead of the never-ending stream of software updates.To discuss this topic further, please feel free to reach out to me at SMoran@lighthouseglobal.com.ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-review; legal-operationscloud, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-review, legal-operations,cloud; ai-big-data; blogsarah moran

This year’s Legalweek conference was back to an in-person event in New York City — a significant change from the virtual format in 2021. Folks who hadn’t seen each other in person in over two years (or met for the first time in person) were able to talk and exchange ideas while sharing a hug, a meal, or a drink. Over and over again, the words, “It’s so good to see you, in person!” echoed throughout hallways and conference rooms. But as good as it feels to reconnect, it was also abundantly clear that the pandemic has fundamentally and permanently altered our world. There is no return to the “normal” we knew prior to March of 2020. The pandemic has changed us. Over the last two years, we have reprioritized what’s important in our lives, which has changed not only where we work, but how we work. And technology, as it always does, has evolved to keep up with those changes. As we emerge into this new world, our eyes blinking in the sun, these changes may fill us with anxiety. Change, after all, can be scary. But as Don Draper, the fictional Madmen character, once said when talking to a client about cultural change in 1960s New York City: “Change is neither good nor bad, it simply ‘is.’ It can be greeted with terror or joy — a tantrum that says, ‘I want it the way it was,’ or a dance that says, ‘Look, something new!’" Below, I’ve outlined some key industry changes that were discussed throughout Legalweek, as well as how legal technology companies can help law firms and organizations greet these changes as an opportunity, rather than something to be feared. The virtual workforce revolution is here to stay The massive and abrupt pivot to remote working for organizations and law firms is not a blip that will reverse itself once the pandemic “ends.” Prior to 2020, it was a trend bubbling under the surface. The pandemic simply accelerated that trend more quickly than previously anticipated, and in doing so, permanently changed the landscape of white-collar careers. Most young adults who entered the workforce over the last two years have never known a world where work had to take place solely in an office setting. Meanwhile, more experienced workers—suddenly able to reap the flexibility that remote working provides—also do not seem keen to go back to a more rigid office-based work environment. And the younger generations waiting in the wings to enter the workforce over the next five to ten years have grown up learning and socializing in much more immersive virtual settings than any previous generation. As they become consumers and employees, technology will continue to evolve to accommodate their comfort interacting in those virtual environments. With a worldwide workforce shortage that does not seem like it well ebb anytime soon, this modern workforce will have the upper hand when it comes to demanding a more flexible, remote work environment, as well as access to the technology that facilitates it. Thus, organizations will not only have to adapt to these changes—they may need to lean heavily into them to survive. We can see the harbingers of this sea change even today. More and more companies are entering the metaverse , investing in NFTs, and utilizing virtual reality (VR) technology to perform work that would have typically been done in person or on flat screens (like training new employees). Microsoft, developers of one of the world’s most heavily used cloud collaboration and work platforms (M365 and Teams), also announced plans to introduce VR technology in 2022 that will work in conjunction with their existing technology, facilitating a more immersive virtual remote working experience for workers around the world. All these potential new data sources will significantly increase challenges from a data governance, data privacy, and eDiscovery perspective. But rest assured, the work that legal technology providers are doing now to put better systems in place to handle existing cloud-based tools will help lay the framework for how we handle data from the metaverse and other new sources in the future. For example, some eDiscovery providers and lawyers are already advocating for a move away from the traditional eDiscovery “custodial” ownership framework in order to accommodate how cloud-based data is stored and interacted with in organizations. Forward-thinking eDiscovery service providers are also advocating for a more holistic view of eDiscovery, one that begins at the data source and spans the entire data lifecycle—which will be a necessity as we move into a more virtual-based workplace. Technology providers are also starting to factor eDiscovery, data privacy, and compliance issues into future roadmaps and upgrades—making it easier to manage, search, and export data from new data sources for eDiscovery and compliance purposes. There is no magic bullet—a risk balancing act The shift to a more virtual world significantly increases risk for organizations and the law firms that represent them. Utilizing cloud-based tools and newer technology to facilitate a more virtual workplace will be increasingly important for organizations. However, due to the volume of data, and the speed at which it’s created, organizations will have to accept increased risks related to data privacy, data security, compliance, eDiscovery, etc. In effect, in today’s cloud-based world, there is no magic bullet that will completely eliminate risk caused by the proliferation and speed of data. Organizations are learning to balance risk and innovation when it comes to technology, rather than take an “all or nothing” approach. To do so, stakeholders from across the company must have a seat at the table when deciding how much risk they’re willing to take on in order to keep their employees productive and customers satisfied via technology. Knowledgeable legal technology service providers are already helping organizations adapt to this balancing act. Companies that have dedicated cloud technology experts can help their clients understand the technology they are using and how it works within their own environment. They can also help their clients staying abreast of ever-evolving risks presented by cloud-based technology and provide risk mitigation strategies that fit within the priorities of the organization. An increasing need to lean on managed service providers Today’s cloud-based tools and applications are increasingly complicated and present increased risks that must be managed. Additionally, due to global workforce shortages (i.e., “the great resignation) and unpredictable economic conditions (caused not only by the pandemic but by market uncertainty around Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, increasing gas prices, supply shortages, inflation, etc.), employees are often being asked to do more work with less budget and resources. Together, these two factors have led organizations and law firms to lean more on outsourcing specific segments and technology processes to outside service providers. The benefits of partnering with a trustworthy service provider to manage segments of the organization that require specialized expertise are manifold. The right service provider will have experts on staff who are wholly dedicated to understanding and managing specific technology, processes, and risk. Offloading management to those partners allows organizations to refocus on their own underlying mission. Service providers may also be better positioned to advocate for a company’s needs with pure technology providers because they have an existing partnership with those companies. This can help organizations fill technology gaps without spending weeks or months trying to negotiate with technology providers. Partnering with service providers also allows the organization to offload risks associated with the management of specific technology or processes to a company that is much better equipped to understand and take on that risk. Outsourcing work to a service provider can also significantly lower overhead costs and allow organizations to stay leaner and nimbler — empowering them to focus on tasks that add value to the underlying business while providing relief to overworked employees. In short, a good legal technology service partner can become an extension of an organization’s own team while lowering overhead and risk. Diversity can no longer be just a numbers game Over the last few years, we saw organizations and law firms focusing more on diversity efforts. Often, this focus was merely numerical, intended to increase the headcount of diverse staff. While this effort is well-intended (and long overdue), we are now seeing more demand for a deeper commitment to diversity and inclusion that goes beyond statistics, diversity training, and simple corporate statements. Today’s workforce, spurred on in part by a new generation of employees, are demanding that organizations be truly committed to diversity and equality on a deeper level—with action that is evident across the organization, from leadership profiles, to internal and external teams, to opportunities for advancement, to vendor selection, etc. And due to labor shortages, this new workforce has the power to effect change by refusing to work for companies that can’t demonstrate this type of commitment. Both the legal and technology industries have historically suffered from a lack of diversity. This is evident from the diversity gaps we still see in the industry today. However, this lack of diversity also presents an opportunity for legal technology companies to make a more significant impact. There is no downside to leaning into diversity. In fact, studies have shown that diverse companies are more successful. Legal technology companies have an opportunity to lead the way by putting dedicated systems in place to ensure that their leadership is diverse, that diversity is represented across all teams and company segments, that annual review processes and career advancement within the company are focused on equality, and that employees from underrepresented communities feel supported and seen within the company. Legal technology companies also have a unique opportunity to support groups that are dedicated to increasing legal and technology education and training opportunities for underrepresented communities (which is often at the root of the diversity problem across both industries). In this way, legal technology companies can help lead by example for the organizations and law firms they serve — showing that truly, a more diverse company is a more innovative company. Conclusion The world we are facing in 2022 is much different than the pre-pandemic world we left behind. The changes we are encountering today can present significant challenges to organizations and law firms — but they also present unique opportunities for growth. Legal technology companies can help both segments take advantage of these opportunities and emerge into a brighter future. ediscovery-reviewmanaged-services, cloud-migration, cloud-services, blog, ediscovery-review,managed-services; cloud-migration; cloud-services; blogsarah moran

Legal departments tend to run fairly lean. This means relying on external parties to accomplish any task is the norm. But when you are managing dozens of outside counsel on different matters, it can be nearly impossible to keep abreast of email traffic, calendars, and the status of any given task. Thankfully with a little bit of technology and some organization, this issue can be solved. This blog will share some tips on how other legal departments have solved this challenge.Select a technology platform to support organization and collaboration. The technology should allow internal and external parties to edit documents, view and manage calendars, organize task lists, and make comments and/or send messages to each other. There are many technologies that organizations use, such as Microsoft Teams or Google Workspace, that work well for this type of collaboration internally, but are not necessarily set up for external collaboration. With some additional work, you can also set these tools up for external collaboration. However, given all the privacy and data management considerations for internal use, one can imagine how high the hurdles are to set this up for external use. If you are facing those hurdles, there are several third-party technologies, such as Joinder and HighQ, that work well for external collaboration. These third-party cloud technologies are fairly low cost and quick to implement. The most important thing here is to choose a single platform. You want to make sure that you are able to minimize switching platforms with every new matter and/or outside counsel. Imagine the ease with which you can get an overview of all your legal work if you can log in to one platform and see your litigation eDiscovery deadlines, patent filing deadlines, and third-party subpoena response deadlines. You can then seamlessly edit the associated documents and assign a task to the next reviewer. You can see how selecting a single platform provides greater visibility and efficiency.Ensure each third party has a person responsible for maintaining the records inside the shared technology. Although you will likely have multiple people working on any given matter, you want to make sure there is at least one person from each third party who is responsible for updating the system. This should be someone knowledgeable about the matter, the deadlines, and the tasks. This should also be someone who is highly organized and comfortable with the technology.Agree upon a common organizational structure. The hardest thing about managing hundreds of matters is staying organized across all of them. If you choose a way to organize that remains consistent, it makes it much easier to find what you are looking for quickly. For example, you may choose to folder documents and tasks by matter type or by the department of origination. Either way, make sure it is a structure that makes sense across your legal portfolio. Here are some considerations to ponder when deciding how to name your files.Write the above into your outside counsel guidelines. A third-party collaboration tool and the organizational system are only as good as the adoption. By writing a requirement to keep it updated into your outside counsel guidelines, you are increasing the chances of success. Here is some sample text for your use:[Company name] uses [software name] as its third-party collaboration tool and asks that each of its outside counsel use [software name] for all work on the matter. On at least a weekly basis, outside counsel shall update [software name] with important dates in the matter, an updated list of tasks in the matter, and any final versions of key documents in the matter.The benefits of having all your legal documents in one platform increase over time. You create a system of records that can be referenced at any time. I hope that these tips will help you implement a solution for third-party collaboration so you can reduce the time you spend searching your email for the last version of the contract.legal-operationsediscovery-process, legal-ops, blog, legal-operations,ediscovery-process; legal-ops; bloglighthouse

Recently, I had the opportunity to (virtually) attend the first three days of Legalweek, the premier conference for those in the legal tech industry. Obviously, this year’s event looked much different than past years, both in structure and in content. But as I listened to legal and technology experts talk about the current state of the industry, I was happily surprised that the message conveyed was not one of doom and gloom, as you might expect to hear during a pandemic year. Instead, a more inspiring theme has emerged for our industry - one of hope through innovation.Just as we, as individuals, have learned hard lessons during this unprecedented year and are now looking towards a brighter spring, the legal industry has learned valuable lessons about how to leverage technology and harness innovation to overcome the challenges this year has brought. From working remotely in scenarios that previously would have never seemed possible, to recognizing the vital role diversity plays in the future of our industry – this year has forced legal professionals to adapt quickly, utilize new technology, and listen more to some of our most innovative leaders.Below, I have highlighted the key takeaways from the first three days of Legalweek, as well as how to leverage the lessons learned throughout this year to bring about a brighter future for your organization or law firm.“Human + Machine” not “Human vs. Machine” Almost as soon as artificial intelligence (AI) technology started playing a role within the legal industry, people began debating whether machines could (or should) eventually replace lawyers. This debate often devolves into a simple “which is better: humans or machines” argument. However, if the last year has taught us anything, it is that the answers to social debates often require nuance and introspection, rather than a “hot take.” The truth is that AI can no longer be viewed as some futuristic option that is only utilized in certain types of eDiscovery matters; nor should it be fearfully viewed as having the potential to replace lawyers in some dystopian future. Rather, AI has become essential to the work of attorneys and ultimately will be necessary to help lawyers serve their clients effectively and efficiently.1Data volumes are exponentially growing year after year, so much so that soon, even the smallest internal investigation will involve too much data to be effectively reviewed by human eyes alone. AI and analytics tools are now necessary to prioritize, cull, and categorize data in most litigations for attorneys to efficiently find and review the information they need. Moreover, advancements in AI technology now enable attorneys to quickly identify categories of information that previously required expensive linear review (for example, leveraging AI to identify privilege, protected health information (PHI), or trade secret data).Aside from finding the needle in the haystack (or simply reducing the haystack), these tools can also help attorneys make better, more strategic counseling and business decisions. For example, AI can now be utilized to understand an organization’s entire legal portfolio better, which in turn, allows attorneys to make better scoping and burden arguments as well as craft more informed litigation and compliance strategies.Thus, the age-old debate of which is better (human or machine learning) is actually an outdated one. Instead, the future of the legal industry is one where attorneys and legal professionals harness advanced technology to serve their clients proficiently and effectively.Remote Working and Cloud-Based Tools Are Here to StayOf course, one of the biggest lessons the legal industry learned over the past year is how to effectively work remotely. Almost every organization and law firm across the world was forced to quickly pivot to a more remote workforce – and most have done so successfully, albeit while facing a host of new data challenges related to the move. However, as we approach the second year of the pandemic, it has become clear that many of these changes will not be temporary. In fact, the pandemic appears to have just been an accelerator for trends that were already underway prior to 2020. For example, many organizations were already taking steps to move to a more cloud-based data architecture. The pandemic just forced that transition to happen over a much shorter time frame to facilitate the move to a remote workforce.This means that organizations and law firms must utilize the lessons learned over the last year to remain successful in the future, as well as to overcome the new challenges raised by a more remote, cloud-based work environment. For example, many organizations implemented cloud-based collaboration tools like Zoom, Slack, Microsoft Teams, and Google Workspace to help employees collaborate remotely. However, legal and IT professionals quickly learned that while these types of tools are great for collaboration, many of them are not built with data security, information governance, or legal discovery in mind. The data generated by these tools is much different than traditional e-mail – both in content and in structure. For example, audible conversations that used to happen around the water cooler or in an impromptu in-person meeting are now happening over Zoom or Microsoft Teams, and thus may be potentially discoverable during an investigation or legal dispute. Moreover, the data that is generated by these tools is structured significantly differently than data coming from traditional e-mail (think of chat data, video data, and the dynamic “attachments” created by Teams). Thus, organizations must learn to put rules in place to help govern and manage these data sources from a compliance, data security, and legal perspective, while law firms must continue to learn how to collect, review, and produce this new type of data.It will also be of growing importance in the future to have legal and IT stakeholder collaboration within organizations, so that new tools can be properly vetted and data workflows can be put in place early. Additionally, organizations will need a plan in place to stay ahead of technology changes, especially if moving to a cloud-based environment where updates and changes can roll out weekly. Attorneys should also consider technology training to stay up-to-date and educated on the various technology platforms and tools their company or client uses, so that they may continue to provide effective representation.Information Governance is Essential to a Healthy Data StrategyRelated to the above, another key theme that emerged over the last year is that good information governance is now essential to a healthy company, and that it is equally important for attorneys representing organizations to understand how data is managed within that organization.The explosion of data volumes and sources, as well as the unlimited data storage capacity of the Cloud means that it is essential to have a strong and dynamic information governance strategy in place. In-house counsel should ensure that they know how to manage and protect their company’s data, including understanding what data is being created, where that data resides, and how to preserve and collect that data when required. This is important not only from an eDiscovery and compliance perspective but also from a data security and privacy perspective. As more jurisdictions across the world enact competing data privacy legislation, it is imperative for organizations to understand what personal data they may be storing and processing, as well as how to collect it and effectively purge it in the event of a request by a data subject.Also, as noted above, the burden to understand an organization’s data storage and preservation strategy does not fall solely on in-house counsel. Outside counsel must also ensure they understand their client’s organizational data to make effective burden, scoping, and strategy decisions during litigation.A Diverse Organization is a Stronger OrganizationFinally, another key theme that has emerged is around recognizing the increasing significance that diversity plays within the legal industry. This year has reinforced the importance of representation and diversity across every industry, as well as provided increased opportunities for education about how diversity within a workforce leads to a stronger, more innovative company. Organizational leaders are increasingly vocalizing the key role diversity plays when seeking services from law firms and legal technology providers. Specifically, many companies have implemented internal diversity initiatives like women leadership programs and employee-led diversity groups and are actively seeking out law firms and service providers that provide similar opportunities to their own employees. The key takeaway here is that organizations and law firms should continue to look for ways to weave diverse representation into the fabric of their businesses.ConclusionWhile this year was plagued by unprecedented challenges and obstacles, the lessons we learned about technology and innovation over the year will help organizations and law firms survive and thrive in the future.To discuss any of these topics more, please feel free to reach out to me at SMoran@lighthouseglobal.com.1 In fact, attorneys already have an ethical duty (imposed by the Rules of Professional Conduct) to understand and utilize existing technology in order to competently represent their clients.ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-review; legal-operationscloud, information-governance, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-review, legal-operations,cloud; information-governance; ai-big-data; blogsarah moran

Legal operations and process improvements can be tough if you are not speaking the same language. Does the following sound like something you would say? “I'm new to legal operations having come from a business background. Legal has a completely different mindset and even getting people to recognize that we have processes, let alone that we need to improve them, can be difficult. How do I speak to lawyers about process improvement?”If so, you’re in good company. This comment represents a theme I have heard at various legal operations conferences that I have attended. My background as a lawyer turned executive puts me in the position of speaking both lawyer and business professional. Here are some things that, in my experience, have been helpful for legal operations or business professionals entering the world of legal, to know.First, know that the need for a process is not a presumption. Often in the business world, there is general agreement that things should follow a process. That is not the same in legal. There isn’t a presumption for, or against, a process. It isn’t something that is thought about very much and since legal work is different for each matter (i.e. each contract is unique, each litigation is unique), there is a predisposition to thinking things should be done uniquely each time. This predisposition can be overcome but it does warrant an explanation, which is different from the status quo in the business realm.Second, recognize that many lawyers think in terms of risk and not just traditional financial ROI, as many business professionals are taught. For example, a change in a process can be seen as risky because it represents the unknown, so there may be hesitation to change despite a clear financial benefit. The way to overcome this is to consider and quantify the risks of any current process and changes to that process. Much in the way that you would traditionally quantify a financial ROI of anything you’re doing (or not doing), add in the risk factors and mitigations. Third, many lawyers like to see the world in steps from beginning to end – not with a whole bunch of uncertainty in the middle. So, laying things out in a detailed methodical way (e.g., how you will get from where you are now to the final result) will resonate with lawyers. If you do not know all the steps, at least showcasing what you have thought through or when you will have more details will be helpful in overcoming any skepticism.Finally, make sure you’re using a shared language. The meaning of words is very specific in the legal world. How a term has been defined in a contract can be the subject of an entire lawsuit and can make or break a business, so lawyers take definitions very seriously. Making sure everyone is on the same page with respect to the business language you are using can go a long way in avoiding unnecessary confusion. legal-operationslegal-ops, blog, legal-operations-legal-ops; bloglighthouse

Legal operations change management is one of the biggest challenges that professionals face according to a poll at the most recent CLOC conference. This isn’t surprising given that organizational change management is an often analyzed topic with a plethora of opinions about ways to accomplish it. There is no magic bullet to force a change in your legal department, however, growing your influence across legal operations and your organization can certainly help. Here are five steps to grow that influence and get people to modify their behaviors.Step 1: Get Clear About the Problem & Root CauseWhether you are tired of hearing about the myriad of issues with your contract lifecycle management or e-billing tool or you have been tasked with centralizing outside counsel selection and management, the first step remains the same. You must get clear in your own mind about what it is that you’re trying to change – both the problem complained about and the root cause of said problem. When starting out you should brainstorm and be liberal with your ideas, jot down anything that comes to mind, both problem and potential causes, and then ask others for their thoughts. Getting various opinions will help you to clarify the issue in your own mind. Once you have a page or two of related ideas, review all the notes and come to a final conclusion about the problem you are trying to solve and its root cause. Write this down in a succinct 1-3 sentence statement.Step 2: Create Your HypothesisThis second step also involves brainstorming. Go through the same process as step one by jotting down any ideas to solve your succinct problem statement. Again, you may want to ask a legal operations colleague (or two) for their thoughts. You may also want to observe people completing the task(s) you’re trying to change so that you can come up with some ideas of ways to solve the problem you have identified. For example, if you are targeting changing the matter management tool, you will want to understand the nature of the matters involved, understand what people are using the tool for, and create a hypothesis around the new tool you want to implement. Once you have your list, cull it down to 1-3 potential solutions to test.Step 3: Test Your HypothesisNext, take your 1-3 potential solutions and test them out. The first way to test is to reach out to other legal operations professionals and/or service providers outside your organization to see if the solution has worked for others. Next, if you can, test it out yourself in your organization. This doesn’t necessarily mean you will implement a sample of a new tool, but that you will demoing the tool and get an understanding of what you would need to implement this solution at your organization.Step 4: Create and Deliver Your PitchNow that you are the expert on the problem and have a well thought out solution, you need to convince others. The best way to do that is to tell a story that includes the following:what you saw (the problem);how pervasive the problem is (# of people impacted);the cost of the problem (time/money);the proposed solution;the benefit of this solution;why this solution over the other 2-3 good solutions; and what is needed to implement this solution. Once you have this together, determine who you will have to convince. Start with your boss, any budget owners, and any leaders whose teams will be directly impacted. Before you share the presentation, make sure that you understand what each of these group’s reactions may be so that you can tailor your verbal commentary to address their comments. If you don’t know the attendees’ potential reactions, you should consider doing some due diligence beforehand. The most effective way I have found to do this is to start with your boss. Share the general ideas of your presentation with them and ask them how others will react. If they are not sure, you can start with a peer in legal or another department or have informal conversations with the attendees before the actual presentation. Investing time in these “pre-pitches” will ensure a successful end result. Make sure you incorporate any feedback from these pre-pitches into the ultimate presentation.Step 5: Brag About Your ResultsAfter a successful presentation, procurement, and implementation, don’t forget to share the wins of your project. Specifically, share with the same people you pitched at the outset but also share the results with anyone whose behavior you have already or are still trying to change. Sharing any wins will reinforce the new behaviors you are trying to implement. Tie those wins back to the original presentation and the results you were anticipating. This showing of success (and of credibility of your original pitch) will have a positive impact on your reputation and ability to influence future change. You will develop a reputation for getting positive results and people will be excited to try what you have up your sleeve. legal-operationslegal-ops, blog, legal-operations,legal-ops; bloglighthouse

Do you ever feel like you are spending your day firefighting and wish you could spend more time planning and executing all the great ideas you have? Do you wish the business came to you first to ask for input so they could be prepared rather than rushing in once the alarm bells are already ringing? You are not alone. These are common refrains heard from legal operations professionals. Here are some ways to change that and go from a tactical resource to a strategic partner.Make Time for Strategic PlanningEven if the majority of your role calls for real-time execution, you can still showcase your strategic side. First, make sure you are spending time thinking strategically. I would recommend blocking out time at least once a month to do this work. During each of your thinking sessions, focus on just one idea. If you have too many ideas, your sessions will not be as productive. If you have multiple ideas you need to work through simultaneously, do so in multiple sessions. Or, if you don’t have any ideas, identify a need or frustration in your department. You can focus on a broad need (i.e. how to organize the department most efficiently) or a more narrow need (i.e. how to understand the company’s legal spend). When choosing what to focus on, choose something that you would be comfortable sharing with someone else. This will ensure that you can demonstrate the great strategic thinking you have done. Once you have selected the need you are going to think about, divide your time into three parts. Spend the first part brainstorming around all of the details of the specific need. Identify the problem and the potential causes. You can also identify related problems. Jot down the impact of the issue with as much detail as possible.In the second third, brainstorm potential solutions. Jot down anything that comes to mind. If this is an issue you have already thought about, you may even be able to identify how long each solution might take and/or the potential associated cost. If you have this information, note it. If not, that is ok too. The focus of the first two-thirds of your time should be to let the ideas flow. In the last third of your time, organize your thoughts on the first two sections. I find it easiest to do my organizing in a presentation software like PowerPoint, Google Slides, or Canva. You can follow the below outline or check out more details in my prior blog on getting your ideas approved at your organization.Problem Statement – Identify the issue in 1-3 sentences.Impact Statement – Identify the impact of the issue. You want to quantify this in some way, although at the early stages you might just put a placeholder or blank in here.Cause(s) – Identify the top 3-5 causes of the problem.Potential Solutions – How much you put here will really vary, but try to at least get your top idea into writing.Next Steps – Identify the next steps. If you’re not sure here, leave this blank. When you have your first conversation (more on that below), you can add information here. If you are clear about what you want to do, spend time on this section. This is an area where you can make any asks you have.Once you have completed your strategic thinking time, decide whether you want to share this plan. You may not do so with each monthly idea but you should share at least two outputs of your strategic thinking each year if you want to demonstrate your strategic ability. When you are sharing, I recommend starting with your boss. If that feels too vulnerable, you may decide to share with a co-worker first, but you will want to go to your boss next. Make sure you make clear that the goal of the session is to get their feedback. During that presentation, ask for feedback on the idea, next steps, as well as who else’s input might be valuable. If things go well, you will likely go forward with presenting to others. If your boss feels like this idea is not viable at this time, make sure you ask if there are any other similar projects that you can get involved in? Note that it might feel like a letdown if your boss says this isn’t the right time for this project. Keep in mind, however, that your goal was to showcase your strategic thinking and you will have accomplished this goal by presenting. I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention the primary obstacles I hear from people who “want” to do such an exercise. I don’t have time. I hear you – this is not something that is necessarily part of your day job, and if you’re fighting fires, you’re likely at your maximum capacity. However, think of this as a career investment. If you want to get out of the firefighting mode, invest in this work even if it is outside of your typical work hours or job responsibilities. I can’t take on the solution I’m suggesting. You can always have this discussion with your boss. It may be that there are resources that can help you or perhaps someone else takes on driving the solution. Either way, you will be able to showcase your strategic thinking.I’m worried that I will damage my reputation because this isn’t part of “my job.” Each organization is different and values this type of work differently. I will say that if this is something you really enjoy and is important to you, and your organization or role doesn’t value this work, you should consider whether your passions align with your current role.How to Show Up as Strategic in Tactical SituationsIf you can’t take on the strategic thinking right now, or if you want to press fast forward on you being seen as a strategic resource, there are ways you can show up strategically in your day-to-day interactions. When someone comes to you with a specific request for action, pause and ask yourself these three questions:“why” are we doing this;“what” broader impact will this have; and“how” does this relate to other things going on inside the organization? Take the example of a lawyer coming to you holding their latest law firm bill – fuming! “I just heard that we are paying twice on our matter for Firm ABC than Jane is paying on her matter for similar Firm ABD. Firm ABC’s rates are ridiculous – please negotiate them down right away.” You could absolutely pick up the phone and call Firm ABC. Or, you could think about the above questions. In doing so, you may realize that we are due for an annual firm rate adjustment across all our firms and that this firm has a very specialized area of expertise. If you share with this lawyer that the department has an overall rate discussion coming up that would potentially impact all of their matters, rather than just this one, as well as positively impact other matters with this firm. You can share that your preference would be to not make a phone call now but instead work this into a broader more strategic conversation with the firm. This second response showcases how you are thinking about the bigger picture and longer-term consequences for the organization. It also shares with the lawyer that you have proactive measures that you are working on that positively impact their world.legal-operationslegal-ops, blog, legal-operations,legal-ops; bloglighthouse

What is the most frustrating thing when you have spent months overhauling and then launching a new contract lifecycle management (CLM) solution? Nobody using it! Or, more likely, a few people are using it but most people are hesitating to change their current processes and start using the new solution. I hear this frustration in contract management solutions as well as other large project implementations. As I sat down to think about this challenge, I read many articles about the best business practices to apply to avoid this. These articles focused on bringing business process management to this process, which is valuable, but even with those processes, your implementation could be left with very little adoption.Then I had a light bulb moment – why not pull from a discipline whose main focus is to resonate with its clients and users – product management. It wasn’t a far reach given my product management background and certification. Product managers do a lot of different things at different organizations but I think most people would agree that they play a key role in building and launching a successful product. More specifically, a product manager is tasked with knowing her or his customer base so well that he or she can speak for them and direct the development of a product into one that resonates with its users. A product that resonates with users is more highly adopted and therefore, typically seen as more successful. So what can we, in legal operations, learn from this field?1. Focus on what really matters to your users and potential usersStart by interviewing people who are directly involved with the contract management process as well as some people who are adjacent to the contract management process. Make sure to capture the views of people close to contracts (e.g. attorneys), as well as those who rely on the outputs of those contracts (e.g. finance and sales). Ask about each person’s main goal in contract management and what is preventing them from achieving that goal. Specific to CLM solutions, metadata can be critical to understand and map early, so I would recommend asking people what metadata they rely on when searching for contracts.[1]In these interviews, make sure you understand the impact of any contract management challenges raised in the interviews. You may hear a variety of complaints, but how many of those are frustrations that make the process inefficient versus just minor grumblings. When someone mentions an issue, you should always ask them to quantify, on a scale of 1-10, how big an impact that problem has in their daily life. You should also ask how pervasive the problem is, on a scale of 1-10, across their peers. This will allow you to more quickly identify the real issues that will be impactful to solve. For example, someone may be frustrated that they have to log in to a different technology to manage a contract workflow. Another person may be frustrated that they cannot tie together later revisions to contracts, such as renewals, pricing, or amendments. By asking for the impact during the interviews, you will likely learn that the technology switching challenge is a 2 out of 10 on the impact scale whereas the issue of the later revision is a 9 out of 10. You can prioritize solving for the latter and have tremendous business impact and avoid mistakes by other departments relying on outdated terms.2. Launch a beta solution for a handful of usersMost products have some sort of test user group that is able to provide feedback on releases early. Since you likely are not engineering your own CLM, I would recommend gathering a small group of “early adopters” to test your new CLM solution in three ways:First, you should map out your ideal state process. Bring this group together to talk through that ideal state and suggest any tweaks. Second, when you have narrowed your technology selection to one or two technologies, you can bring the group together to test those technologies. Finally, this group should be your first users of the final solution, the technology and process combined, once implemented.This may be self evident, but be sure to include yourself in the testing group. Often people feel like they are running the project so they should not participate in the feedback. However, given the deep immersion in the contract management process and your knowledge of the organization, your feedback is critical to shaping the right solution. 3. Use your personas in communicationsCommunicating about your solution is a critical step in any CLM solution. That communication is what gets users using the solution and what jump starts change. Making this communication effective can be daunting, but here is the product management formula. Start with the challenges that your users shared with you. When they see their voices reflected, they will immediately be interested in the message. Next, state in 1-2 sentences how you have solved the challenge. When people see that a challenge they have raised has been solved, it is highly likely that they will adopt the new solution. With this, you should have a 3 sentence “elevator pitch” that connects with your intended audience. If appropriate for your organization, you could also consider shortening those three sentences to a tagline that could be used within the legal department to give visibility to the project. A great example of a tagline was Apple’s iPod: “1,000 songs in your pocket.” This was a short statement showing how the product solved the problem. Something similar in the CLM space could be “your contracts, and revisions, in one place” or “automating the contracts that don’t need your attention.” 4. Check in on user satisfactionRemember that your job is not finished upon implementation. Continue to check in with your users to see how things are going. When checking in, the best thing to do is a survey so you can measure the response empirically. The most common question to ask in a customer satisfaction survey is how satisfied they are with the solution on a scale of 1-5. You can follow that up by asking what would improve their satisfaction. The survey can be helpful to understand how the solution is working as well as a way to gather areas of improvement. Before making any changes, however, I would recommend doing some interviews to understand the impact and pervasiveness of the issues so you can determine what changes are needed.[1] Typical fields include party name, party state, contract type, contract expiration date, notification period (to the extent different, next contract review date), contract amount (or at least a small/med/large designation), internal legal contact, department, limitation of liabilities, and early payment.legal-operationslegal-ops, blog, legal-operations,legal-ops; bloglighthouse

The goal of Practice Direction 57AD (PD57AD, previously known as the Disclosure Pilot Scheme) is to modernise the UK’s disclosure practice. This transformation is essential because the traditional, manual, and combative approach to disclosure is unsustainable in the face of today’s massive data volumes and ever-evolving data sources. Manually collecting and reviewing millions of documents one-by-one has become prohibitively expensive, impossibly time consuming, and prone to the risk of both under and over disclosure. When you add in the combative approach between opposing parties, the traditional disclosure process becomes a recipe for skyrocketing legal costs, missed deadlines, and data issues that can derail entire matters. Conversely, a more cooperative approach that leverages AI technology can help improve the process—by allowing attorneys to focus their expertise on critical parts of the matter and refining AI tools to better handle data now and for future, related matters.Thus, PD57AD focuses on two pivotal elements to modernise disclosure: cooperation and technology. Specifically, PD57AD requires parties to “liaise and cooperate with the legal representatives of the other parties to the proceedings…so as to promote the reliable, efficient, and cost-effective conduct of disclosure, including through the use of technology.” Similarly, the Disclosure Review Document asks that each party outline how they “intend to use technology assisted review/data analytics to conduct a proportionate review of the data set” and further reminds parties of their duty to cooperate. Through PD57AD, legal teams’ relationships to each other and with technology is changing in a few crucial ways that present opportunities to work smarter, more cost effectively , and with greater agility.The duty to cooperateJudges are increasingly focusing on the language requiring cooperation between parties in PD57AD and will admonish counsel who attempt to use the disclosure process as a tool to punish an opposing party. For instance, in McParland & Partners Ltd v Whitehead, when a dispute arose involving the framing of the issues of disclosure, the judge took the opportunity to broadly remind both parties of the following: “It is clear that some parties to litigation in all areas of the Business and Property Courts have sought to use the Disclosure Pilot as a stick with which to beat their opponents. Such conduct is entirely unacceptable, and parties can expect to be met with immediately payable adverse costs orders if that is what has happened.”As data volumes grow and PD57AD becomes more cemented into the fabric of UK’s disclosure practice, there is a growing intolerance for “weaponised” disclosure practices by courts. Certainly, parties can expect that the days of “data dumping” (i.e., the strategy of over collecting and producing documents to bury the opposing party in data) or conversely, winning burden arguments related to the cost and time of manual review, are over. The duty to leverage technology Instead of this combative approach, courts will expect that parties come together cooperatively to agree on the use of technology to perform targeted disclosure that is both more cost effective and efficient. Indeed, in a cloud-based world, this symbiotic relationship between technology and legal is the only successful path forward for an effective disclosure process. Under this modern approach, the technology used to collect, cull, review, and produce data must be leveraged in such a way that results can be verified by opposing counsel and judges. This means that all workflows and processes must be transparent, defensible, and agreed upon by opposing counsel. Even prior to the implementation of the Disclosure Pilot Scheme in 2018, judges had begun to crack down on parties who attempted to “go it alone” by unilaterally leveraging technology to cull or search data in a non-transparent way, without the consent of opposing counsel and/or without implementing industry standard best practices. For example, in Triumph Controls UK Ltd., the judge explicitly admonished a party for deploying a computer assisted review (CAR) search strategy overseen by “ten paralegals and four associates” rather than a “single, senior lawyer who has mastered the issues in the case” to ensure that the criteria for relevance was consistently applied to effectively teach the CAR technology. He also rebuked the party’s CAR approach because it was not transparent and could not be independently verified. Because these technology best practices were not followed, the judge forced the producing party to go back and cooperatively agree with opposing counsel on an alternative review methodology to sample and re-review a portion of the original dataset. The future of disclosure for counsel and clients The modernisation of the disclosure process through cooperation and technology means that it will be increasingly imperative that each party has the requisite legal and technology expertise to meet the requirements of PD57AD. Specifically, each party must have a barrister who understands disclosure law and can guide them through each step of the process in a way that complies with PD57AD. Each party should also have an expert who understands how to implement technology to perform targeted, efficient, and transparent disclosure workflows. As seen from legal decisions emanating around PD57AD, parties without this expertise who attempt to “wing it” will increasingly find themselves facing delayed proceedings, hefty legal costs, and unfavourable judgements by courts. Law firms or corporations that don’t have the requisite expertise internally must look for an external partner that does. This is where an experienced managed review partner can provide a true advantage to both law firms and their clients. Parties should look for a partner who can provide a team of technology experts and experienced barristers, working in tandem and leveraging the industry’s best technology. This team should be ready to jump in at the outset of every matter to understand the nuances of the client’s data, as well as the underlying legal issues at play, so that each step of the disclosure process is performed transparently, defensibly, and efficiently. Over time, a managed review team can become a valuable extension of corporate in-house and law firm teams. This partner can use institutional knowledge, gained by working with the same clients across multiple matters, to create customised, strategic, and automated disclosure workflows. These tailored processes, designed directly for a client’s data infrastructure and technology, can save millions and achieve better outcomes. In turn, law firms can refocus their attention on the evidence that actually matters, while assuring their clients that the disclosure process is contributing to lower legal costs and better overall results.ConclusionUnder the modern approach to disclosure, parties must have someone on their team with the necessary legal and technology expertise to perform the type of targeted, cooperative, and transparent disclosure methodology now required by PD57AD. This partnership between legal and technology is truly the only path forward for a successful disclosure endeavour in the face of today’s more voluminous and complicated datasets. Parties that do not have this expertise should look for an experienced managed review partner who can provide a consistent team of legal and technology experts who can perform each step of the disclosure process efficiently, transparently, and defensibly. ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-reviewreview, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-reviewreview; ai-big-data; blogjennifer cowman

Co-authored by Hannah Fotsch, Associate, Lathrop GPM; Samuel Butler, Associate, Lathrop GPM; and Casey Van Veen, Vice President Global eDiscovery Solutions, Lighthouse2020 has been an incredibly tough year for many businesses, with companies big and small shuttering at a record pace due to COVID-19 restrictions and significant reductions in customer travel and spending. But there is one surprising business type that many people seem to want to continue to invest in despite the pandemic: the franchise business model.For example, both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business.com recently highlighted franchise-model businesses that were not only surviving the pandemic and associated lockdowns, but thriving. And in fact, one of those thriving franchise business types called out by the authors was franchise consulting businesses (consultants that help match aspiring franchise owners with franchise opportunities). Apparently, the pandemic has actually increased investment interest in franchise opportunities.There may be a few different reasons why people are looking to the franchise business model during an economic downturn. Many franchise businesses have the benefit of a widely known name brand and market presence. Many have the benefit of leveraging a fully baked business model ‚Äì one that has presumably already been proven successful. Many also have more support than solo businesses in a variety of key business development areas, including marketing, advertising, and training. In short, the franchise business model may have more appeal during this economic upheaval than a solo business model because people trust the support it can provide in times of economic trouble.However, there are still several common pitfalls that can drag profits down and slow economic growth, leaving the franchise model just as exposed to failure as a solo business model in this time of economic uncertainty. One of those pitfalls is litigation and internal investigations, and the resulting eDiscovery challenges those two can raise. Not only do businesses operating within a franchise model face the same types of litigation and employee workplace issues that all other businesses face ‚Äì they may also have to deal with added litigation that is unique to the franchisor-franchisee relationship. All of this means increased cost and overhead, especially when it comes to preserving, collecting, reviewing, and producing the required data during the discovery phase.In this article, we discuss the legal eDiscovery challenges and the primary legal issues that we see affecting franchise businesses, large and small. We‚Äôll also provide best-practice tips that can help keep eDiscovery costs down and enable franchise businesses to utilize their advantage and continue to survive and thrive during this trying time.Legal eDiscovery ChallengesThere are four main challenges we see affecting franchise businesses currently: (1) the explosion of data sources; (2) the increased frequency of internal investigations and compliance matters; (3) the lack of a playbook to ensure discovery is managed in a low risk, low-cost manner; and (4) big data challenges.Explosion of Data SourcesWalk through any franchise store, restaurant, or facility today and you will be amazed at the number of devices and systems that must be contemplated in discovery.Fixed systems on property: Video security, card key access, time clock, email, and desktop computersCloud-based systems: Many of the above systems can also be found in the Cloud along with M365 and Google Suite of business documents, email, collaboration tools, and backupsEmployee sources: Personal email, cell phones (video, app chat, texts), iPads, and tabletsCorporate maintained systems: Marketing documents, HR systems, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), proprietary training, and competitive analysis documentationMoreover, employees at different franchise businesses may often choose to communicate on different platforms, which can exponentially diversify data sources. This amount and variety of sources can pose a myriad of challenges from an eDiscovery perspective.The duty to preserve data begins as soon as litigation is ‚Äúreasonably foreseeable.‚Äù Thus, once an allegation that may lead to litigation surfaces, the clock begins ticking, not only to effectively respond to the allegation but also to ensure that evidentiary data at issue is preserved. And once discovery begins, that preserved data will need to be collected. All of this can present challenges for the ill-prepared: How do you collect data from employees‚Äô personal devices? What are the local state and federal rules regarding the privacy of personal devices? How does collecting the data differ from Apple device vs Android devices? The need to be aware of platforms that create data and the possibilities for collecting that data from them must be addressed before litigation begins, or businesses risk losing data that could be essential to litigation.Key takeaway: Know your data sources as a standard course of business. Make sure that you know where data resides, how it can be accessed, and what can and cannot be collected from data sources.Internal Investigations & Compliance MattersThere has been a drastic increase in internal investigations and compliance matters with franchise clients recently. Hotline and compliance phone line tips, allegations around employee theft, and suspected fraud are on the rise. The key to resolving these types of investigations quickly and cost efficiently is speed. Attorneys and company executives need to know as soon as possible: is there truly an issue, how far does it go, how long has it been happening, how many employees does this effect, and what is the exposure (financially, socially). It is important to develop workflows and tools to help decision-makers and their legal experts sift through the mountains of data quickly.To understand the importance of this, consider this example. A company sales representative leaves the business and does not disclose their next line of work. A tip line reveals they the representative may have left for a competitor. Shortly thereafter, business deals that were executed and even ones in the pipeline suddenly disappear to a competitor. The former employer quickly conducts a forensic investigation on the representative‚Äôs laptop computer. Despite their attempt to hide their activity, the investigation reveals that the representative had downloaded proprietary customer lists, price sheets, and other valuable IP during their last week of employment and had also moved large chunks of confidential information from the company‚Äôs servers to thumb drives and utilized their personal email to store work communications. Without a strategic plan in place laying out how to quickly execute a forensic internal investigation in this type of situation, the company would have lost substantial revenue to a competitor.Companies that are particularly concerned about former employees stealing proprietary information can even go further than creating an effective investigatory and remediation strategy ‚Äì putting a departing employee forensic monitoring program in place can prevent this time of abuse from happening in the first place.Key takeaway: Have a program in place to certify that departing employees leave with only their personal belongings and not proprietary company information.Lack of an eDiscovery PlaybookPlaybooks come in many forms today: user manuals, company directives, cooking instructions, and recipe guides. A successful playbook for the legal department will establish a practical process to follow should a legal or compliance issue arise. Playbooks, like a checklist for a pilot about to fly a plane, ensure that everyone is following a solid process to avoid risk. These documents also prevent rogue players from recreating the wheel and going down potentially expensive rabbit holes.Repetitive litigation situations are particularly well suited for acting according to playbooks, and standardizing the response to these situations helps to ensure the predictability of both outcomes and expenses. For example, these documents can be as granular as necessary but typically include a few key topics such as:The process for responding to a 3rd party subpoena, service, or allegation of wrongdoingThe company‚Äôs systems that are typically subject to discoveryIT contacts that can help gather the information/dataA list of service providers/trusted partners to assistStandard data processing and production specifications (i.e. time zone, global deduplication, single-page TIFF images 400 dpi, text, and metadata fields)Preferred technologies to search, review, and produce documents (i.e. Relativity)Key takeaway: Playbooks can shave days off of the engagement process with outside counsel and data management companies. Having a repeatable process and plan on day one will save time and money as well as reduce risk.Big Data ChallengesFranchisors face issues in litigation that are unique to the industry, from vicarious liability claims involving the actions of franchisees or their employees to the sheer unpredictability that comes from extensive business relationships involving franchisees of a breathtaking range of sophistication. An increase in litigation leads to an increase in data. Even a run-of-the-mill dispute can lead to the need to gather (and potentially review) more than 100,000 documents. Add one or two more small disputes, and the amount of data quickly becomes unmanageable (and expensive).Fortunately, there have been impressive advances in the field of advanced legal analytical and artificial intelligence (AI). These innovative eDiscovery tools can help legal professionals analyze data to quickly identify documents that are not important to the litigation or investigation (thereby eliminating the need to review them), as well find the ‚Äústory‚Äù within a data set. For example, some analytical tools can help identify code words that an employee might have used to cover up nefarious actions, or analyze communications patterns that allow attorneys to identify the bad actors in a given situation. Other tools now have the capability of analyzing all of the company‚Äôs previously collected and attorney-reviewed data, which substantially reduces the need for attorney review in the current matter.All of these tools work to reduce data burden, which in turn reduces costs and increases efficiency.Key takeaway: Take the time to learn what eDiscovery solutions are available on the market today and how you can leverage them before you are faced with a need to use them.To discuss this topic more, please feel free to reach out to me at CVanVeen@lighthouseglobal.com. ediscovery-review; ai-and-analyticscloud, ai-big-data, compliance-and-investigations, ediscovery-process, blog, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analyticscloud; ai-big-data; compliance-and-investigations; ediscovery-process; blogcasey van veen

Most of you are pretty familiar with using website chatbots in your daily lives – whether to assist in your online banking or to help with a product issue. But what if you went to report sexual harassment at work and you were greeted by a chatbot? That may seem a little unusual, however, there are a couple of advantages to this approach, including a better customer service experience for internal customers and allowing the compliance professionals to take on more complex work. For several years the legal and compliance industry discussions around chatbots have focused on how law firms can use chatbots. In this blog, I will focus on three ways in-house legal and compliance departments should use them to their advantage.1. As a legal intake tool.A common challenge for legal departments is how to intake matters and manage the work in the legal department. Legal operations teams are always looking for ways to understand what people are doing and how to make the process more efficient. There is a lot of discussion on how forms and/or workflow tools can be leveraged to solve this issue – and they are very helpful – but you can take this one step further with a chatbot. When someone inside your organization comes to the legal team, you can have a chatbot gather basic, or even more detailed, information about what they need. You can train a chatbot to understand the category of their need – advice, contract, patent, litigation, eDiscovery – and then take them through a series of questions to better understand the need. You can then even have the request routed through your workflow tool so it gets assigned to the right person (e.g., assigned to an attorney, a paralegal, or an eDiscovery project manager). As your chatbot gets familiar with the questions, you can have it ask deeper questions and take the request even further.2. To answer common legal questions.Legal departments tend to run lean. As a former general counsel who still speaks with a lot of legal department leaders, I know these leaders are always looking for ways to do more with less (or the same). They want to ensure their teams are spending time on substantive legal issues and not answering common questions that come up and can be handled differently. For example, answering questions about where to find the sexual harassment training or how to send over or sign a standard NDA, are questions that come into the legal department and lawyers spend their time answering them. These questions could easily be answered by a chatbot trained with common questions. This would provide a better user experience because the information is shared instantaneously with the user and it also frees up time for legal resources to spend their time on more unique issues. Finally, legal team members also feel more productive and engaged because their time isn’t being spent on more administrative tasks!3. In place of a hotline.This is one of the more unique use cases I have heard recently but it makes a lot of sense. Compliance hotlines work well because of the anonymity available but there is not an opportunity to share information back with the person reporting. For example, the person reporting an incident may want to know what the next steps might be, where they can find a certain policy, or where they can find additional resources. None of that is available via a hotline or even a form. With a chatbot, however, you can keep the anonymity but mimic a more personal conversation where additional resources can be shared. As shared on the Women in Compliance podcast, one organization has trained chatbots to be their first line of intake and support on sexual harassment complaints. The internal response has been very positive.legal-operationscompliance-and-investigations, legal-ops, blog, legal, legal-operations,compliance-and-investigations; legal-ops; blog; legallighthouse

As eDiscovery becomes more complex, organizations are turning to hybrid solutions that give them the flexibility to scale projects up or down as needed. Hybrid solutions offer the best of both worlds: the ability to use self-service, spectra for small matters or full-service for large and complex matters. This flexibility is essential in today's litigation landscape, where the volume and complexity of data can change rapidly. Hybrid solutions give organizations the agility to respond quickly and effectively to changing eDiscovery needs. In a recent webinar, I discussed hybrid eDiscovery solutions with Jennifer Allen, eDiscovery Case Manager at Meta, and Justin Van Alstyne, Senior Corporate Counsel, Discovery and Information Governance at T-Mobile. We explored some of the most pressing eDiscovery challenges, including data complexity, staffing, and implementation. We also discussed scenarios that require flexible solutions, keys to implementing new technology, and the future of eDiscovery solutions. Here are my key takeaways from our conversation.Current eDiscovery challengesA hybrid approach can transition between an internally managed solution and a full-service solution, depending on the nuances and unique challenges of the matter. This type of solution can be beneficial in situations where the exact needs of the case are not known at the outset. A few challenges come into play when deciding your approach to a project:Data volume: When dealing with large data sets, being able to scale is critical. If the data for a matter balloons beyond the capacity of an internal team, having experts available is critical to avoid any disruptions in workflows or errors.Data predictability: When it comes to analyzing data, consistency and predictability can greatly inform your approach to analysis. Standard data allows for more flexibility, as there is an expectation that the results will fall within a certain range. However, to ensure accurate representation, caution must be exercised when dealing with complicated big data. It is important to consider variables, potential outliers, and how the data is compiled and presented. Internal capacity: It's important to monitor and manage the internal workload of your team closely. When everyone is already at their maximum capacity, it can be tempting to outsource various tasks to a full-service project manager. Technology can be a more cost-effective and efficient method for filling the gaps.The right talent and knowledge Finding and utilizing the right team in today's competitive labor market can be difficult. A hybrid solution can help with this by providing a scalable way to get the most out of your workforce. With a hybrid solution, you have the option to staff fewer technical positions and provide training on the data or matters your organization most frequently encounters with your existing team. But, if you have a highly complicated data source, you can still staff an expert who knows how to handle that data. An expert can shepherd the data into a solution, do extensive quality control to ensure that you marry up the family relationships correctly, and give confidence that you're not making a mistake.To assuage concerns about the solution being misused, technology partners can provide training and education, and limit access to who can create, edit, or delete projects within the tool. This training helps to upskill your team by teaching them more advanced technology, which leads to more efficient and sophisticated approaches to matters.Flexible solutions for different mattersA hybrid solution can be a great option for a variety of matters, including internal investigations, enforcement matters, third-party subpoenas, and case assessments. These matters can benefit from the flexibility and scalability provided by a hybrid approach.When determining if a matter needs full-service treatment, it's important to consider the specific requirements at hand. Questions around the volume and frequency of data production, the types of data involved, and the necessary metadata and tagging all play a role in determining if a self-service, spectra approach will suffice or if full-service support is needed. It's always important to consider the timeline and potential challenges during the transition. Using experience with similar cases can provide valuable insight into what might work best in your situation.Keys for implementing eDiscovery solutionsThere are a few critical components to keep in mind when evaluating which eDiscovery solutions and tools are right for your business now, and as it grows.Training team: With any new solution or product there may be some trepidation around learning and adoption. Leverage vendor support to answer your questions and help train your team. Keep them involved in your communications with outside counsel and internal teams so you can receive suggestions and assistance if needed. As users get more experience with the software, they will begin to feel empowered and understand how the tool can be used most effectively. Scalability: One of the most significant hurdles to scaling big eDiscovery projects is the amount of data that needs to be processed. With new data sources, tighter deadlines, and more urgency, it can be difficult to keep up with the demand. Using a fully manual process or a project management solution has a greater chance for error or increased cost. A flexible solution can help your team keep up with increasing data volumes while reducing costs and errors. Automation: Automating repetitive tasks and workflows can dramatically speed up data collection and analysis. This can be a huge advantage when investigating large, complex cases. Additionally, automation can help to ensure that data is collected and parsed consistently.Cost-benefit analysis: Through support and training with a self-service, spectra tool, you can work to reduce the number of support requests. This can minimize the time your team spends on each request and ultimately lowers the cost of providing support. The cost reduction of self-service, spectra tools is often substantial, and it can have a positive snowball effect as your team becomes more skilled at the task. You can reinvest those savings into other business areas with less need for oversight and fewer mistakes. The future state of eDiscovery solutionsThe proliferation of DIY eDiscovery solutions has made it easier for organizations to take control of their data and manage their cases in-house. As AI technology, including continuous active learning (CAL) and technology-assisted review (TAR), continues to evolve, teams will better understand how to handle the growing demands of data and implement hybrid tools. As we move into the future of eDiscovery and legal technology, DIY models will play an increasingly important role in supporting business needs.ediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryself-service, spectra, blog, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analyticsself-service, spectra; blogself-service, spectrapaige hunt

Complexity, resiliency, adaptability are some of the defining traits from the past year, with good reason. From navigating hybrid workplaces and new collaboration platforms to weathering economic uncertainty and new regulatory postures, the legal industry, and workforce overall, have faced extraordinary challenges. But, with the adversity came great innovation and problem solving. Developments in communications, artificial intelligence (AI), and data have opened new, and often unexpected, possibilities for years to come.With these dynamics in mind, below we've compiled some of our best thinking from 2021, covering critical topics in eDiscovery such as data privacy, AI, information governance, analytics, privilege, and big data. Explore the posts below for some fresh thinking to enter a new year:Navigating the Intersections of Data, Artificial Intelligence, and PrivacyMaking the Case for Information Governance and Why You Should Address it Now Is Your AI Algorithm Admissible in Court? Some Things to ConsiderBig Data Challenges in eDiscovery (and How AI-Based Analytics Can Help)Privilege Mishaps and eDiscovery: Lessons LearnedFour Ways a SaaS Solution Can Make In-House Counsel Life Easierediscovery-reviewblog, ediscovery-reviewbloglighthouse

Are you a healthcare provider or payor with any of these concerns?Your company is trying to manage its budget for litigation and investigations but can’t find the most effective approachYou’re concerned that you may be missing critical insights because you can only review a small subset of your document population to stay within your budgetYou’re subject to an investigation and you want to quickly understand if the government or opposing party has any “gotcha” informationYou want to proactively perform a risk assessment to monitor for fraudulent activitiesIf so, you’re not alone. These are challenges that depend on finding pertinent facts, many of which are buried in the volumes of electronic information most companies now have, quickly and efficiently. In the healthcare industry especially, where litigation and investigation risks are common, complex data environments can pose confounding obstacles to finding key information quickly.In the case of any litigation or investigation, it pays to be able to hit the ground running. Early and effective fact-finding can provide valuable insights for both company and counsel, enabling cost-effective resource alignment based on the strength of the case and faster development of the narrative.Since most insight comes from an assessment of facts that lie within electronically-stored information (ESI), advance preparation for data preservation and collection is critical. So is having the right methodology, tools and expertise in place to find key information once you’ve identified the most important data to explore. Here’s how to optimize those efforts.It's all about data. Plan accordingly.In today’s complex healthcare data landscape, knowing (and finding) the key documents and other information located within massive data collections is no mean feat. Although many data repositories in an enterprise are contained and accessible, today’s myriad data sources, from mobile devices to billing systems to sensor data, are growing in size and complexity every day. Advance planning can speed up the process and enable straightforward and beneficial negotiations with the opposing counsel or regulatory agency.What to do? In advance of litigation or investigation, make sure the enterprise maintains an inventory of data systems that includes descriptions of business owners, users, locations, functionality, backups, data types, possible PII/PHI, and a potential preservation/collection approach. Counsel and in-house legal teams should work with IT to organize this information in a format that can be useful for eDiscovery to enable an expeditious and organized response to a matter.Then make sure that you have the right experts to preserve/collect data from the implicated sources. You may need forensic collections or different ways to extract relevant information from certain data stores. Databases and other structured data sources may require reporting rather than collection techniques, for example, and it’s best to know that early, when you can inform and negotiate with the requesting agency or other side, setting expectations and mitigating potential conflict.Finding key documents quickly is essential. Scrap an out-of-date workflow and explore new methods and tools. There are complex needs involved in a litigation or investigation response and a dizzying array of service providers, tools and technologies to choose from, with new ones being offered every day. The traditional workflow of finding key documents—developing keyword search terms to cull the documents then performing a manual review—is just not efficient. New data analytics and machine learning tools (not to mention the experts that provide them) have opened up a whole new fact-finding horizon. Imagine a team of linguists and search experts with experience in the healthcare domain attacking a complex data population with advanced search and analytics tools going after key documents right from the very start. Actually experiencing how experts leverage such tools to accelerate time to critical insights may be eye-opening for any legal teams who have had to spend weeks and months trying to piece the facts together.What to do? If you haven’t explored new ways to find key documents, you’re probably bogged down with an out-of-date workflow. Pairing advanced analytics tools with the right expertise can accelerate fact-finding and document review, but you may have to try it to believe it. You could discover that having the right expertise on hand in advance of the need will expedite response efforts, reduce cost and risk, and lead to the best possible outcome.Learn more about finding facts fast with Key Document Identification. ediscovery-reviewblog, -investigations, key-document-identification, fact-finding, healthcare-litigation, healthcare-investigations, ediscovery-review,blog; key-document-identification; fact-finding; healthcare-litigation; healthcare-investigationslighthouse

Key ResultsEarly fact-finding with IQ AnswersAvoided weeks of traditional attorney work, resulting in massive savings and a crucial head start.AI-Powered quality control with IQ IssuesAchieved 90% alignment with IQ Issues and counsel’s coding on initial document sample, eliminating the need for a second sampling round.Custom AI Summarizations for second-level reviewDesigned and deployed a custom solution in one week to accelerate second-level review with comprehensive document summaries and key language excerpts.The Challenge: Anticipating Regulatory Scrutiny and Conquering Complex DataA large, multinational consumer platform received a regulatory information request from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consumer-protection concerns involving a core offering. Facing a high-stakes investigation, the company’s outside counsel needed to move quickly to interrogate a large volume of data, be proactive with anticipated follow-up requests, and ensure defensibility from the outset.The matter presented two time-sensitive challenges:Fact-Finding: To meet critical regulatory milestones and get ahead of the FTC, counsel needed to immediately interrogate the data and establish key facts. This urgency was compounded by the desire to identify and vet potential custodians in anticipation of the FTC expanding the scope of the information request. Tailored Solutions: A substantial portion of the relevant data was sourced from proprietary exports from two non-standard enterprise collaboration tools. These non-standard CSV-based exports were incompatible with industry-standard eDiscovery chat processing tools, creating a major roadblock for efficient and defensible review.In total, Lighthouse received roughly 4TB of raw data, which translated to just under 1.4M documents requiring processing.The Solution: A Two-Pronged Approach with AI and Custom EngineeringLighthouse partnered with outside counsel to deploy a strategy that leveraged advanced AI for early fact-finding and custom data engineering to normalize the most challenging data sources.IQ Answers: Accelerating Early Case Assessment and Fact-FindingTo address the volatile custodian list and scope, counsel utilized IQ Answers. This allowed the case team to move beyond the traditional “hunt and peck” method of keyword searching and instead use natural language prompts to interrogate the data early and efficiently.With guidance from the Expert Search team, counsel was able to get at their specific goals for early assessment including:Further targeting key data types crucial to the response.Identify potential custodians who were not yet formally in scope.This proactive, AI-driven exploration eliminated the need for weeks of manual attorney review typically required for initial fact-finding. Based on feedback from counsel, Lighthouse determined that one IQ Answers query and response saved 15-20 hours of review time. Thus, the use of IQ Answers allowed outside counsel to realize a savings of more than $400K in the initial case assessment phase.IQ Issues + Summarization: QC and Second-Level EfficiencyOnce the initial culling processes reduced the document population to 47K documents for review, IQ Issues was used as a Quality Control (QC) measure against first-level reviewers.QC Validation: Lighthouse provided a 200-document sample for counsel’s issue coding and generated AI issue codes for the same set. The results showed a remarkable 90% alignment for Responsive documents, significantly exceeding the typical target of 80% alignment. Because of this high precision, the typical second round of sampling was deemed unnecessary.Custom Enhancement: The case team requested a more robust output for second-level review—a comprehensive document summary and key language excerpts to support the issue codes. Leveraging close client collaboration and responsiveness, the Lighthouse team designed a custom solution on an accelerated timeline that added:A full Document SummaryKey Language Excerpts tied directly to the relevant issues.This customized approach was applied to 38K+ documents in the review corpus, and improved the efficiency of the second-level review by an estimated 38%, resulting in an estimated savings of $300K. On top of this, since alignment between the case team and IQ Issues was so high, it’s reasonable to believe these issue codes could eliminate the need for first-level review entirely, which could result in an additional savings of $45K, if not more depending on review volume.Custom Data Engineering for Modern Collaboration DataReceiving proprietary collaboration data in non-standard CSV exports rendered these data types incompatible with typical processing tools. To overcome this, the Lighthouse Innovation Data Engineering team developed a custom, defensible chat processing workflow to handle proprietary CSV exports.The engineered workflow consolidated, cleaned, and structured the data into 24-hour conversational transcripts while embedding attachments and preserving all necessary metadata. This process allowed the complex, non-standard chat data to be transformed into defensible, review-ready datasets, overcoming a significant roadblock that would have stalled the matter for weeks. As an added benefit, this new workflow is now a reusable framework for future custom conversational exports.The Result: Proactive Defensibility and Accelerated ReviewBy combining an array of LighthouseIQ modules with custom data engineering, the corporate team was delivered proactive, high-confidence results:The strategic use of IQ Answers for early fact-finding allowed counsel to anticipate regulatory needs and prepare for potential scope expansion, resulting in $400K+ in savings and a crucial head start.The deployment of IQ Issues provided a high degree of confidence and quality control over the first-level reviewers, evidenced by the 90% alignment score. Moving forward, based on this high alignment, first-level review could be completely eliminated, resulting in $45K in savings.The quickly developed custom summarization solution reduced second-level review time by over a third, resulting in an estimated savings of $300K.The innovative custom chat processing workflow successfully unlocked previously incompatible data sources, turning a complex data roadblock into a defensible, reusable, and review-ready asset.The partnership ensured both the in-house team and their law firm maintained control over the data investigation, allowing them to approach the FTC with confidence and a clear, defensible response.

The Challenge An attorney reviewing an important Gmail message notices that even though the message was sent two years ago, one of the linked attachments was modified just a couple of months ago. How long after the message was sent did the referenced file change? What exactly was altered, and does it have any bearing on her client’s case? Does the version in hand still have meaningful probative value? The e-discovery industry has grappled with “modern attachments”—items that present only as a reference or link to content stored outside the email system—for quite some time. Some are generally static: photographs, training videos, AI-generated images, PDF files, ZIP containers. Others are purpose-built for collaboration, with multiple users contributing content over time, leaving comments, and resolving tasks. Collection, review, and production of this dynamic information can be a moving target. Our Study We set out to gather empirical evidence to evaluate the true scope of the situation. Although this topic has many layers—each with important and often subjective legal implications—we focused narrowly on two questions: What is the ratio of non-editable modern attachments to those that are inherently dynamic and collaborative? In other words, how many of these linked items actually have the ability to evolve in place over time? Of the editable modern attachments, what is the frequency and prevalence of modification after a communication containing the link has been sent? Helpful Metadata The following data elements can be acquired or computed using output from Google Vault and a variety of other acquisition toolkits. Gmail Sent Date/Time: the UTC timestamp of when the message was delivered to Google’s cloud servers for routing to recipients. GDrive Modified Date/Time: the UTC timestamp of the most recent modification to the hyperlinked Google Drive item at the time of collection. The collection event may have taken place hours, days, or many years after the original communication. A change in the Modified Date of an editable linked item after the communication was transmitted is the marker of post-transmittal modification for the purposes of this study.GDrive Item Type: to separate static GDrive items from editable ones, we built an inventory of document types considered collaborative and editable for the purposes of the study. A JPEG is an image unlikely to be edited over time; a Google Sheets file may remain static but also welcomes in-place edits throughout its life. Gmail Age at Collection (Days): the number of days elapsed between when the Gmail message was sent and when the collection event took place. To allow sufficient time for hyperlinked items to potentially undergo modification, we excluded messages where this figure was less than 180 days (approximately six months). This threshold is adjustable for future studies. Findings Using 19 data sets spanning industries and organization sizes, we examined 271,145 hyperlinks to GDrive items from within Gmail messages. Of those, 150,321 links (55%) pointed to items considered collaborative and editable in place, while the remaining 45% pointed to typically non-editable binary files such as images and video. Of the editable corpus, 90,574—60%—were modified in some manner after the Gmail message was sent and prior to the collection event. Caveat Emptor The primary limiting factor in this study is the reliance on the Modified Date of hyperlinked GDrive items as the barometer for substantive change to document content. In Google Workspace, this metadata field is more volatile than it is on a Windows-centric file system such as NTFS or FAT. Simply opening a Google Doc and pressing the space bar causes the item to auto-save and update the Modified Date. Other triggering actions include making or editing comments, resolving comments, updating permissions, and renaming the file. We recognize this is an imperfect metric for evaluating substantive content changes. Due to the volatility of the Modified Date, our tally of modified items necessarily overstates the true frequency of post-transmittal content modification. A second compounding factor: Google Vault follows links anywhere in a Gmail thread, including replied-to body text and forwarded content buried months or years deep. A link from an old message in a long thread gets re-collected at acquisition time, giving it more calendar time to accumulate Modified Date changes without any actual content alteration. This also causes our post-transmittal modification tally to be overstated. Additional Parameters and Implications At the time of publication, Google Vault does not include hyperlinked GDrive items from other potential sources within the Google ecosystem, such as Calendar, GChat, or other Google Docs files. The source data for this initial study therefore focused only on Gmail. It remains unclear whether the type of communication providing the links has a material effect on the resulting metrics. Improvements for Future Studies Google Drive Audit Log—sample events for a Google DocFuture studies should seek to move beyond reliance on GDrive Modified Dates as indicators of substantive content modification. Hash values offer little additional help: the server-side hash values provided by Vault include the Modified Date in the hash computation, further reducing visibility. The following data points and workflows may prove useful: Number of post-transmittal revisions. Fifty subsequent revisions over three months may suggest substantive change; five revisions very soon after transmission may indicate noise such as comment resolution. Number of different contributors. If ten different accounts made post-transmittal changes, this may indicate meaningful collaborative activity, as opposed to a single actor refining a draft. File size. Generally unreliable except for drastic changes—for example, an item that grew from 24KB to 240KB—and even then the change could be entirely attributable to commenting activity. Acquisition of all versions of each hyperlinked item. This would yield a rich dataset but is impractical for most routine e-discovery collections due to data volume, time, and cost. AI may be able to assist with evaluating content changes across versions if provided a thoughtful prompt. Expansion of source communication types. This study focused on Gmail, but many other sources warrant consideration: Google Calendar and Groups, GChat and in-meeting messaging, Slack channels and direct messages, text messages, WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, Signal, and others. Google Drive Audit Log. The audit log may provide the clearest window into whether a document’s content—as distinct from its metadata, comments, or permissions—was actually changed. It records events with enough granularity to distinguish views, comments, renames, permission changes, and true edits. Filtering to “edit” events alone would be a meaningful improvement over relying on Modified Date. Key challenges include: Default log retention of only six months, though events can be ported continuously to SIEM systems such as Google Security Operations or Splunk. Potentially tens of thousands of entries per GDrive item, requiring targeted filtering at collection time. High-level tenant access requirements, particularly for pulling data via the Reports API and/or Drive Activity API. Unavailability of equivalent log data for personal Google accounts not part of a Workspace tenant. Final Thoughts The data points leveraged in this initial study are admittedly imperfect, but more precise metrics are coming within reach as our industry’s tools and collective knowledge about collaboration platforms improve. We hope this inaugural research leads to further discoveries that better inform discovery practitioners and the courts. Tools & Further Reading Lighthouse’s Linked Files Solution for Google Workspace Lighthouse’s Modern Data SolutionsCraig Ball, “A Dog and Its Tail: Don’t Let Version Uncertainty Cloud Linked Attachment Production”Metaspike’s Forensic Email Collector‍

ChallengeWhen a whistleblower allegation placed a company’s future in question, outside counsel needed answers immediately. Executives had to determine whether the allegations were credible, whether fraud or criminal exposure existed, and whether the business could continue operating—all within days.The investigation involved more than 126,000 documents spanning email, collaboration platforms, messaging applications, and business records. A traditional review would have required weeks before attorneys could begin developing meaningful legal strategy.With critical business decisions on the line, an Am Law 50 firm partnered with Lighthouse to rapidly identify the evidence that mattered most while maintaining a defensible investigative process.SolutionUsing IQ Case Strategy, Lighthouse and outside counsel replaced the traditional review-first approach with a question-first investigative methodology.Rather than reviewing every document equally, counsel first identified the legal and factual questions that would determine the outcome of the investigation. Lighthouse then transformed those questions into a structured investigative workflow that rapidly surfaced the evidence most relevant to each issue.Approximately 150 targeted investigative questions guided the analysis across more than 126,000 documents, including email, WhatsApp, Signal, Discord, ChatGPT conversations, and other business records.As the investigation progressed, Lighthouse continuously identified, organized, and synthesized the most relevant evidence while attorneys refined investigative priorities and validated findings. Instead of spending weeks reviewing low-value material, counsel could immediately focus on the documents that informed legal strategy and business decisions.IQ Case Strategy delivered a comprehensive merits assessment that included:Executive summary of key findings, risks, and unresolved questionsPrioritized hot documents supporting and challenging each allegationIssue-based evidence summaries with integrated chronologiesStructured evaluation of competing factual theoriesDocument-level investigative coding and supporting data indexThe result was more than a streamlined document review—it was an evidence-based strategic assessment that enabled counsel to quickly evaluate risk, advise leadership, and determine the appropriate path forward.ImpactThe investigation produced meaningful business results in less than three days.Completed the investigation in under 72 hoursReduced 126,000 documents to approximately 1,100 critical recordsGenerated more than $335,000 in estimated cost savings compared to traditional review methodsEnabled counsel to rapidly assess the credibility of the allegations, potential fraud, criminal exposure, and operational riskEquipped executive leadership with evidence-based guidance to make critical business decisions within days rather than weeksThe Lighthouse DifferenceHigh-stakes investigations demand more than faster document review—they demand earlier insight, stronger strategy, and defensible outcomes.IQ Case Strategy combines AI-powered analysis with the expertise of legal strategists, investigators, and technologists to transform complex legal questions into actionable intelligence. By identifying the evidence that matters most at the outset of an investigation, legal teams can assess risk sooner, test legal theories more effectively, and provide business leaders with the confidence to make informed decisions.Whether responding to whistleblower allegations, regulatory inquiries, internal investigations, or complex disputes, Lighthouse helps organizations reduce review time and cost while accelerating the path from information to insight.When every decision matters, IQ Case Strategy empowers legal teams to move beyond document review and deliver what clients need most: actionable intelligence that drives confident, strategic decisions.

The Challenge A national healthcare provider faced 14 related matters across 9 jurisdictions, with 11M documents dispersed across multiple vendors, databases, and case teams.Redundant Review Is a Data Problem, Not a Legal OneWith a traditional eDiscovery model, each matter would have required reprocessing, rehosting, and/or rereviewing large portions of the same data. Data insights and work product would be siloed inside individual matters and within disparate legal teams. This would severely escalate costs and drive inconsistent outcomes and operational drag.The SolutionLighthouse recognized that the problem wasn’t just data volume. It was the absence of a system that could learn across matters and apply that intelligence forward. With LighthouseIQ, counsel could take a fundamentally different approach—using a centralized, AI-backed data system guided by expert judgment, where decisions, insights, and work product flow seamlessly between matters and legal teams.AI-Backed ResultsReduced 11M documents to 90K requiring reviewReused 100K coding decisions across 14 related mattersAvoided duplicate hosting, processing, and review of 1.2M documentsEnabled instant productions from a national database with LighthouseIQ$650K in cost savings delivered with consistency and defensibility built in, not traded offBuilding Human-Guided AI at Multidistrict ScaleStep 1: An AI-Powered Data Repository, Expertly DesignedLighthouse migrated all 11M documents (from both Relativity and non-Relativity sources) into a single LighthouseIQ hosting environment. Lighthouse experts designed the repository architecture upfront to support cross-matter reuse and long-term litigation strategy.Lighthouse eliminated duplicate hosting, processing, and review of 1.2M documents.Step 2: AI Normalization and Cross-Matter MatchingWithin the repository, LighthouseIQ normalized documents and applied proprietary hashing to identify duplicates, near-duplicates, and previously reviewed content across matters. Lighthouse experts validated how matches and inherited decisions were applied, ensuring accuracy, consistency, and defensibility across jurisdictions.Lighthouse reused 100K coding decisions across matters.Step 3: AI-Guided Prioritization, Expert Review StrategyLighthouse review experts designed one strategic review plan for all 14 matters that lowered costs and maximized data reuse and cross-matter insights. Using cross-matter intelligence, IQ Review identified 150K documents (from within the 11M housed in the repository) that were most likely to be responsive across jurisdictions.This dataset was published to the national review database and fully reviewed by an experienced Lighthouse review team (trained by Lighthouse review managers) to categorize each document for both national and jurisdictional responsiveness. After review, Lighthouse copied this strategic production set to each jurisdictional database. This approach kept hosting costs drastically lower for each individual matter, while providing all local case teams with an immediate first production, well ahead of production deadlines.Out of 11M documents, just 90K required human review.Step 4: Continuous Learning Through a Human-in-the-Loop Feedback CycleAfter production, expert-approved coding decisions were fed back into the repository. LighthouseIQ automatically matched those decisions to corresponding documents across matters, creating immediate efficiencies while preserving expert intent. With every matter, the system became: more informed, more consistent, more cost-effective.‍The Results: A System That Gets Smarter Over TimeBy using LighthouseIQ, a sprawling, multidistrict litigation environment was transformed into a reusable intelligence system. The client achieved significant cost savings and faster productions, without sacrificing judgment, consistency, or defensibility.In the process, LighthouseIQ delivered $650K in cost savings.

The ClientThe client operates at the forefront of AI innovation while simultaneously navigating heightened regulatory oversight and increasingly complex civil litigation.The Legal ChallengeOver the past two years, this client has faced a sharp increase in high-profile, high-stakes litigation and regulatory investigations. Matters often involve novel technologies, modern collaboration and messaging platforms, and compressed response timelines.This was creating sustained pressure on traditional eDiscovery models and legacy discovery tools, which proved to be inefficient and difficult to scale at the speed required. Repeated data recollection, redundant review, and inconsistent issue identification also introduced unnecessary costs and risks. The client needed an approach that could apply intelligence across matters, learn from prior work, and deliver defensible results quickly.The Lighthouse SolutionWe implemented a LighthouseIQ-driven eDiscovery program capable of scaling across the client’s litigation and investigative portfolio, prioritizing the client’s need for speed, consistency, and defensibility. Through the rapid design and deployment of this framework, Lighthouse has helped the client:Meet aggressive discovery and regulatory obligationsReduce eDiscovery risk across multiple concurrent mattersSave hundreds of thousands of dollars in just a few monthsMaintain consistency, defensibility, and institutional knowledge across a growing litigation portfolioAs new matters arise, the program continues to scale, leveraging prior AI-driven insights rather than restarting the discovery process with each engagement.Pillars of the LighthouseIQ eDiscovery ProgramIn 2024, Lighthouse launched a programmatic eDiscovery initiative for this client that was grounded in what would become the LighthouseIQ platform and application suite. The objective was to move beyond point solutions and instead create an adaptive framework that continuously improves as new matters arise. The pillars of this framework and the results achieved in just the first year are below.Reusing Work Product at Scale with LLM-Backed TechnologyLighthouse built a centralized data repository designed specifically to support work product reuse across litigation. Each matter is maintained in its own siloed workspace, where LighthouseIQ is used to:Identify when prior work product is relevant to new mattersReuse review decisions, key documents, and privilege determinationsControl reuse across matters while maintaining strict, matter-level silos for privilege and confidentialityThe result:Reduced unnecessary recollection and reprocessing across litigation by over 10 terabytesSaved tens of thousands of dollars by minimizing duplicative attorney review while improving cross-matter consistencyAccelerating Fact Development Under Regulatory DeadlinesThe impact of LighthouseIQ has also been pronounced in matters requiring rapid issue and document identification under regulatory pressure. In a recent regulatory inquiry, outside counsel had only days to identify critical facts from hundreds of thousands of documents. This timeline would have been impossible to achieve using traditional search and review technology.Lighthouse deployed IQ Case Strategy to:Rapidly analyze hundreds of thousands of documentsSurface the key documents tied to three core legal issuesPrioritize results for attorney review within daysThe result:Reduced review costs by more than $100,000Completed the regulatory response within two weeksDelivered the documents attorneys needed within days (vs. the months it would have taken with traditional search tools), giving them more time to work on data-backed legal analysisBuilding a Defensible Forensics FoundationLighthouse also designed and implemented a centralized forensics collection program spanning all of the client’s major data sources, including:Google Vault and Google DriveSlackMobile devicesNon-standard messaging and social applicationsThe forensic program addressed nuanced challenges that arise in modern data environments, including the preservation, collection, and treatment of hyperlinked attachments, particularly where contemporaneous versions are unavailable. Lighthouse’s forensic team improved collection efficiency and defensibility by:Developing a core forensics playbook to standardize data retrieval across mattersDesigning targeted collection workflows that leverage usage and access patterns to prioritize files actually accessed by custodians, significantly reducing over-collectionThe result:Improved collection consistency across matters while minimizing unnecessary data processing and review via a repeatable forensic program

Background Regulators issued a sweeping investigation tied to a global company’s high-profile acquisition. The scope and timeline were demanding: more than 30TB of data required analysis, risk assessment, and production in less than 30 days. A defensible, scalable approach that met regulatory requirements while controlling cost, mitigating risk, and ensuring flawless execution was non-negotiable. The Lighthouse Approach LighthouseIQ eliminated unnecessary human review, decreased scope early, surfaced risk faster, and executed at scale without errors. Key elements included: IQ Review used AI to surface only what truly required human judgement. In parallel, a 300-person managed review team was rapidly ramped to handle the doc volume. IQ Priv accelerated privilege identification and used generative AI for privilege log drafting and names list creation. Key documents identified via modeling in parallel to review. Cross-matter analytics and work-product reuse across a parallel antitrust litigation Custom operational workflows, including M365 cloud attachment linking and secure reuse repositories All of it executed in parallel. No bottlenecks. No rework. Results 10TB, including 20M images were produced with M365 cloud attachments as required by regulators in under 60 days. This delivery boasted an 100% error-free production result and $20M in total cost savings. Cost avoided:

When an engineering partner suddenly pulled out of a major project, a global manufacturer needed answers fast. Was the termination allowed under the contract, or had the partner crossed a line that could lead to litigation? The company’s law firm had to move quickly. A deadline was approaching to file a termination claim, but that was only the first step. Once the partner responded, the firm expected tough follow-up discovery. To be ready, they needed to understand the full story before the dispute escalated. The firm identified and collected more than one million documents across fifteen custodians, most in the United States. While this is a large but not uncommon volume of data for such a complex investigation, the real challenge was determining how to interrogate it quickly without iterating dozens of times on keywords as is the case with traditional keyword search. As one attorney explained, “Most of the time, we don’t know the exact words people used and everyone uses different language anyway.” Every guess costs time, and every missed variation risks overlooking critical evidence. The Lighthouse ApproachLooking for a faster and more reliable approach, the firm used IQ Answers directly inside their Relativity environment, starting with Microsoft 365 data from the U.S. custodians. IQ Answers is not a general-purpose chatbot. It’s an enterprise AI tool that leverages large language models and other AI and ML models to answer questions but is grounded solely in the documents in your case. Instead of building complex keyword searches, attorneys simply asked questions and received clear, document-backed answers. Using this approach, the team conducted an early case assessment without relying on months of manual review. Once all documents were loaded, they used the AI to explore the data directly. Over the course of less than two months, the team asked 182 natural-language questions. That process captured 6,325 documents, of which the team flagged 835 as potentially important. To confirm the results, the firm conducted a second-level manual review of those documents. Attorneys validated 190 documents as key evidence and identified another 130 as potentially key. Notably, 832 of the 835 documents directly related to the 14 issues identified for the case. By combining AI-driven discovery with focused human review, the team turned an overwhelming volume of data into clear, actionable insight—delivering results in a fraction of the time required by traditional methods. Based on the intelligence IQ Answers delivered, the firm made a critical strategic decision: they opted against a full review. What would have been months of traditional document review and significant expense became a targeted, AI-driven investigation that gave them exactly what they needed in pre-litigation.

BackgroundThe client faced a high-stakes Hart Scott Rodino (HSR) Second Request with tight compliance deadlines under FTC oversight:7.5M documents (7.8TB) were collected in 2 phases from 28 custodians collected across email, collaboration platforms, mobile data, and hard copy sources.Differentiated responsiveness standards between groups of custodians, requiring tailored review strategies.The matter was re-opened months later and additional documents requested.The Lighthouse ApproachThe team implemented both IQ Review and IQ Priv, combining AI analysis with disciplined managed review execution. Key elements included: AI-supported relevance review and a team of 30 contract attorneys for documents that required eyes-on review Privilege review, privilege log and names legend automation via AIAI image analysis for visual and scanned contentTwo separate AI models were trained to address differing responsiveness criteria across custodial groups, ensuring precision without sacrificing defensibility.ResultsLighthouse successfully processed 7.5M total documents across both collections. Because our AI models remain largely stable even with new documents, analysis of the second phase of collection was able to start immediately. LighthouseIQ powered analysis meant that only 2,500 contract review hours were needed in total. Using AI insights, our contract review attorneys maintained high review velocity across responsiveness, privilege, and PII review streams. The approach delivered FTC-ready defensibility under close regulatory scrutiny while enabling rapid adaptation to an evolving regulatory scope. Through expert coordination across legal, technical, and review teams, the engagement delivered predictable, consistent performance even under compressed timelines and shifting requirements.

Key Events and OutcomesClient initiated an internal investigation into executive misconduct, requiring high-precision document discovery and behavioral analysis.Multiple search workstreams delivered thematic overviews, interview prep kits, and targeted behavioral evidence.Lighthouse search experts across multiple time zones gave the case team access to support whenever priorities shifted.Lighthouse delivered 160 total key documents over four days in three deliveries to accelerate the time to knowledge and minimize the risk of missing critical evidence.Counsel prepared more strategic witness interviews using behavioral evidence and operational insights surfaced by IQ Answers and Lighthouse search experts.What Was NeededA large retailer launched an internal investigation after receiving whistleblower allegations of misconduct. The project required rapid, high-precision document discovery and behavioral analysis across a substantial volume of internal communications. The client needed thematic overviews of key communications, curated document sets to support interview preparation, and targeted behavioral insights to inform legal and internal review. All work had to be completed within a single week to enable critical witness interviews and support preparation of a summary report for outside counsel.ProcessThe first step in triaging the needs related to the matter involved outside counsel conducting initial research using IQ Answers. This early facts assessment confirmed that the central concerns of the investigation were reflected in the data, and helped refine the goals and targets for a hand-off to the Lighthouse expert search team.Leveraging insights from counsel’s initial use of IQ Answers, the expert search team used advanced techniques developed within Lighthouse’s proprietary systems to support Key Document Identification workflows. These methods, combined with tagging and document filtering workflows for compliance and legal review, targeted queries of linguistic patterns, indicators of tone and behavior, and other expressions of language.In parallel, IQ Answers powered conceptual and semantic queries, surfacing nuanced patterns and sentiment indicators across a voluminous set of 300,000 documents. The combined technology and workflow approach allowed Lighthouse's expert search team to precisely identify the documents of highest importance and potential impact for the investigative team. Volume-reduction methodologies were applied to isolate the most likely relevant, non-duplicative content. Linguistic and behavioral searches focused on topics prioritized by counsel, with results delivered on a rolling basis to support interview preparation and legal review.Throughout the project, Lighthouse's expert search team worked in close coordination with the matter team, leaning on global coverage to provide seamless support and incorporating feedback into iterative search cycles.Expert Search ResultsLighthouse's expert search team delivered three waves of curated document sets totaling approximately 160 records, each tagged with topics and annotation fields to support rapid review. This enabled highly targeted interview preparation by surfacing behavioral indicators, communication patterns, and operational insights relevant to the investigation. The outputs integrated into client workflows, including saved searches and coding layouts within the review platform.By combining multiple information retrieval, analysis, and synthesis technologies and augmenting with human expertise, the team surfaced unique documents responsive to similar lines of inquiry—providing broader and more comprehensive information coverage in a shorter time frame than any single approach could have achieved alone.

A global consumer products company with a distributed workforce needed to strengthen its information security posture. With sensitive intellectual property, regulatory obligations across multiple jurisdictions, and increasing use of Microsoft 365 collaboration tools, the security team sought a more resilient approach to protecting critical data against leakage, misuse, or unauthorized access. Challenge The existing environment lacked unified policies for sensitivity labeling, retention, and data loss prevention, making it difficult to enforce consistent governance across all business units. The client faced significant risks around: Data leakage from collaboration data in Microsoft Teams, SharePoint, and OneDrive. Lack of consistent data classification leading to overexposed sensitive content. Insufficient DLP controls for email and cloud-based sharing, creating regulatory and reputational risks. Growing compliance pressure across global operations, requiring alignment with GDPR, CCPA, and industry-specific regulations. Solution Lighthouse partnered with the client to design a comprehensive Microsoft Purview Information Protection and Data Loss Prevention (DLP) framework pilot that could scale globally. The solution included: This design provided the foundation for both proactive risk reduction and reactive incident handling. Results Through this engagement, the client achieved: Reduced risk of data exposure by applying consistent labeling and DLP rules across collaboration platforms. Improved regulatory compliance by aligning information protection policies with global privacy and industry frameworks. Enhanced incident visibility with reporting dashboards and adaptive policies that alerted security teams to high-risk events. Sustainable governance model enabling scalability as new collaboration tools and AI-driven workflows are adopted. Why It Matters As global enterprises accelerate digital collaboration, data security gaps in Microsoft 365 environments can create regulatory, financial, and reputational risk. By implementing a comprehensive governance and DLP framework, organizations can protect their most valuable assets: intellectual property, customer data, and regulated records, while enabling employees to work securely across borders. This project highlights how a well-designed information protection program, supported by Microsoft Purview, can simultaneously strengthen security and simplify compliance for multinational companies.

The ChallengeA major media company received a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) from the FCC, triggering a high-stakes regulatory investigation. The company was required to produce relevant communications within a month—but two weeks in, the legal team still needed to collect over 2 million documents from 16 custodians. Complicating matters further, the company’s software platform was mid-transition, raising serious concerns about data integrity and reporting reliability. The SolutionRecognizing the urgency and complexity of the matter, the media company and its outside counsel turned to Lighthouse. With an immense volume of documents, looming regulatory deadlines, and a technology transition in progress, they needed more than linear review—they needed a strategic partner with forensic, eDiscovery project management, and AI expertise. Within just four days, Lighthouse’s forensics experts collaborated with the company to collect and process all relevant custodian data, including associated family files. From there, our project management team worked with the company and its counsel to apply targeted filtering—focusing on communications between key senders and recipients. This reduced the original 2 million documents to a refined universe of 94,000. Using advanced email threading and junk file analysis, the team further reduced the review set to 59,000 documents. Given the aggressive timeline, volume of documents, and the dataset’s low privilege risk, Lighthouse consultants recommended deploying Relativity aiR for Review. Working closely with inhouse and outside counsel, Lighthouse developed a defensible AI review prompt using an iterative sampling workflow designed to meet stringent recall standards and maximize precision. Only 300 documents were reviewed during this iterative phase. Relativity aiR identified a predicted responsive universe of 28,000 documents. A first-level review was completed in just five days, followed by a quality control review conducted by outside counsel. Final validation confirmed 88% recall and 96% precision—exceeding regulatory and eDiscovery defensibility standards. The ResultsUltimately, 18,000 documents were successfully produced on time, along with an expert declaration on the defensibility of the process from a Lighthouse Strategic Consultant. When the FCC issued a supplemental request, the teams were able to use the aiR-powered workflow once again to quickly review 2,000 additional documents—resulting in the production of the 300 relevant files.

Client: Global academic medical system Stakeholders: CISO, Information Governance, Legal Tech stack: Microsoft 365 + Microsoft Purview (SharePoint, OneDrive, Exchange, Teams) Objective: Identify, label, and protect high‑value IP across M365 Business Challenge Conventional pattern matching missed nuanced research content; labels were inconsistent. Emerging IP taxonomy lacked consistent, enforceable labels across repositories. Conventional pattern matching couldn’t reliably detect unstructured, nuanced IP. Teams needed clarity on when to use Sensitive Info Types (SITs), Exact Data Match (EDM), and Trainable Classifiers, and how to govern them. Wanted to compare outcomes with prior third‑party classifiers. What Lighthouse Did IP Taxonomy + Purview Labels Mapped proprietary IP categories to a label set Blended Classifier Strategy Combined SIT, EDM, and Trainable Classifiers Operationalize Piloted and tuned models aligned with retention/legal hold/eDiscovery, with auto‑labeling and user prompts. Controls Developed change‑management materials Outcomes Common IP Language: Agreed taxonomy mapped to enforceable labels. High‑Confidence Detection: Trainable classifiers surfaced custom IP Consistent Protection: High‑value content auto‑labeled with policy‑driven controls in M365. Governed Workflows: Clear guidance on SIT vs EDM vs Trainable; fewer false positives/negatives; faster to eDiscovery. Timeline Weeks 0–1 — Kickoff + Plan Weeks 2–4 — Design + Setup Weeks 5–9 — Run Pilots Weeks 10–11 — High Level Design + Training Why Microsoft Purview for Data Protection Enterprise-wide strategy - Unified data security, governance, compliance Integrated governance - DLP, retention, legal hold, eDiscovery Flexible detection models - Sensitive Info Types, Exact Data Match, Trainable Classifiers Persistent, label-based protection - Embedded permissions travel with data

During the first trial of a high-stakes, serialized product liability case, a legal team was stunned when opposing counsel introduced damaging documents that had originated from the client’s own production. Despite months of review by both in-house and outside counsel, these documents had slipped through the cracks—threatening to derail the case and set a dangerous precedent for future litigation.With millions at stake, they needed a solution—and fast. They turned to Lighthouse. In just three days, a Lighthouse expert dug into the 25,000 documents in the production, uncovering 14 crucial rebuttal documents that counsel used at trial to challenge the plaintiffs’ claims.This swift, targeted response set the client up for success and in a position to save the company millions of dollars in judgments and protect them from similar challenges in upcoming cases.In the world of serialized product liability litigation, where one case can impact many others, the power of rapid, focused eDiscovery can be the difference between a costly loss and a decisive win.

SolutionThe Director of Information Security partnered with Lighthouse to conduct a comprehensive scan using Lighthouse’s proprietary environment scan technology and Microsoft Information Protection (MIP). This scan could locate sensitive data across the enterprise and provide the necessary visibility to roll out full MIP policies.1. Lighthouse’s Comprehensive Environment Scan Lighthouse’s scan helped identify and locate sensitive data, helping the security team to understand its exposure and design its protection strategy. An example of findings included:Teams: /LegacyRightAngleData contained 139,000+ instances of sensitive data. SharePoint: /Financial_DMS stored 52,000+ instances of sensitive data. OneDrive: /[single employee] held 18,900+ instances of sensitive data. Most Common Sensitive Data TypesABA Routing NumbersEU Passports NumbersSWIFT CodesU.K. National Health identifiers2. Created Sensitivity Labels in Pilot Mode Following the scan, Lighthouse supported the security team in developing sensitivity labels in pilot phase, including: Testing Auto-Labeling & Classification: Defining initial label rules based on scan results. Evaluating Impact Before Full Rollout: Assessing how sensitivity labels functioned across departments and workflows.Preparing for Future Policy Implementation: Establishing a structured data protection strategy before MIP policies were fully deployed. Key Outcomes The Lighthouse environment scan gave the organization critical visibility into sensitive data locations, laying the groundwork for stronger data governance, protection, and compliance. Critical Visibility for Future Protection: Identified where sensitive data resided to guide security and governance efforts. Pilot Sensitivity Labeling Program: Launched sensitivity labels to test the efficacy of policies and refine data governance practices. Foundation for MIP Rollout: Positioned the team to automate protection and enforce compliance through Microsoft Purview. The Lighthouse environment scan helped the client uncover hidden risks and build a foundation for stronger data governance. With clear visibility and a pilot labelling program, the organization is prepared to advance its Microsoft Purview rollout and reduce exposure.

The ChallengeRecently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a broad and urgent HSR Second Request in connection with a high-profile merger for a large, highly-regulated corporation. The regulatory inquiry required fast, defensible data collection from a range of custodians, many of whom were senior executives. With just weeks to act, the stakes were clear: respond efficiently and thoroughly or risk delaying the transaction’s approval.The request included nearly 30 custodians spread across the U.S., many with privacy sensitivities around their mobile data.The SolutionLighthouse assembled a cross-functional team of digital forensics experts and client services professionals to lead a high-touch, high-urgency workflow. Coordination between the digital forensics project manager and client services project manager ensured that collections, handoffs, and processing moved forward without bottlenecks—driven by daily alignment and real-time communication.Over six weeks, Lighthouse collected mobile data from all 27 custodians using a mix of remote and on-site methods, all handled in-house to minimize disruption and maintain control. The team leveraged industry-standard tools and proprietary workflows to extract encrypted messaging data from apps like WhatsApp and Signal, even when on-site collection was required. To address privacy concerns, Lighthouse implemented a workflow where custodians approved contact lists before any messages were filtered and prepared for review. This approach ensured rapid turnaround—often within one business day—without compromising data integrity or custodian trust.ResultsBy strategically splitting collections between remote and on-site, the Lighthouse team accelerated the project, completing collection in just 1.5 months and saving an estimated 60 hours of work time. More importantly, the client was able to respond to the DOJ within deadline—and was armed with complete, accurate, and defensible data drawn from even the most sensitive mobile sources.

Challenges The legacy environments included approximately 2,200 repositories with structured data. IT aimed to decommission these systems to reduce costs, while Legal needed confirmation that legal holds were preserved before signing off on each system. The client also had to navigate international data privacy regulations, particularly when data consolidation meant data was moved across borders. Initially, two service providers split the responsibilities: the General Counsel’s office engaged one, and the eDiscovery department turned to Lighthouse because they had a long-term relationship. This fragmented approach introduced inefficiencies and risk.Solutions Lighthouse consultants:Liaised between Legal and IT, validating preservation plans for each repository. Built a detailed playbook, documentation standards, and a quality control process to provide consistency across the project. Conducted regular review calls with IT. Approved or rejected plans based on standards defined by Legal, ensuring retrieval capabilities, immutability, and long-term access. When the client saw our approach, they consolidated the work under Lighthouse, extended the engagement by 24 months, and rescoped the project.Wins The acquiring company: Gained a defensible, repeatable preservation process aligned with legal and regulatory obligations. Decommissioned costly legacy systems while maintaining legal hold compliance. Improved coordination between Legal and IT, expediting approvals. Mitigated regulatory risk by tracking and documenting preservation decisions. Ensured cross-border data preservation aligned with jurisdictional privacy regulations.Reduced long-term operational costs by retiring expensive platforms.Take Aways This project illustrates how cross-departmental cooperation can reduce risk and costs in post-acquisition decommissions and rationalizations. With a well-designed playbook and a team fluent in legal obligations and technical systems, the client adopted a defensible preservation strategy and unlocked long-term savings.

The project included replacing expensive third-party archives with native tools in M365, utilizing an automation solution that Lighthouse had recently prototyped for a large global manufacturer, and other breakthroughs the institution was unable to make before engaging with Lighthouse. Our work with the institution helped unblock their Microsoft 365 deployment and ultimately led to disclosure to regulators for institution’s intent to use M365 as system of record.SIFIs have long wished for a better way to meet their mutability requirement. Historically, they have relied on archiving solutions, which were designed years ago and are poorly suited for the data types and volume we have today. For years, people in the industry have been saying, “Someday we’ll be able to move away from our archives.” It wasn’t until the introduction of M365 native tools for legal and compliance that “someday” became possible.Data Management for SIFIs is Exceptionally ComplexThe financial services industry is one of the most highly regulated and litigious sectors in the world. As a result, companies tend to approach transformation gradually, adopting innovations only after technology has settled and the regulatory and legal landscape has evolved.However, the rate of change in the contemporary world has pushed many financial heavyweights into a corner: They can continue struggling with outdated, clunky, inadequate technologies, or they can embrace change and the disruption and opportunities that come with it.From an eDiscovery perspective, there are three unique challenges: (1) as a broker-dealers, they have a need to retain certain documents in accordance with specific regulatory requirements that govern the duration and manner of storage for certain regulated records, including communications (note that the manner of storage must be “immutable”). This has traditionally required the use of third-party archive solutions that has included basic e-discovery functionality. (2) As a highly regulated company with sizable investigation and litigation matters, they have a need to preserve data in connection with large volumes of matters. Traditionally, preservation was satisfied by long-term retention (coupled by immutable storage) and without deletion. Today, however, companies seek to dispose of legacy data—assuming it is expired and not under legal hold—and are eager to adopt processes and tools to help in this endeavor. (3) They have a need to collect and produce large volumes of data—sometimes in a short timeframe and without the ability to cull-in-place. This means they are challenged by native tooling that might not complete the scale and size of their operations. This particular company’s mission was clear: to use M365 as a native archive and source of data for eDiscovery purposes. To meet this mission, Lighthouse needed to establish that the platform could meet immutability and retrievability requirements—at scale and in the timeframe needed for regulatory and litigation matters. Lighthouse Helps a Large Financial Institution Leverage M365 to Replace Its Legacy Archive SolutionLighthouse is perfectly positioned to partner with financial services and insurance organizations ready to embrace change. Many on our team previously held in-house legal and technology roles at these or related organizations, including former in-house counsel, former regulators, and former heads of eDiscovery and Information Governance. Our team’s unique expertise was a major factor in earning the trust and business of a major global bank (“the Bank”). The Bank first engaged with Lighthouse in 2018, when we conducted an M365 workshop demonstrating what was possible within the platform—most notably, at the time, the potential for native tools to replace their third-party archives. Following the workshop, the Bank attempted, together with Microsoft, to find a viable solution. These efforts stalled, however, due to the complexity of the Bank’s myriad requirements. In 2020, the Bank re-engaged Lighthouse to supports its efforts to fully deploy Exchange and Teams and, in doing so, to utilize the native information governance and e-discovery toolset, paving way for the Bank to abandon its use of third-party archiving tools for M365 data. Our account team had the nuanced understanding of industry regulations, litigation and regulatory landscape, and true technical requirements needed to support a defensible deployment.As a result, we were able to drive three critical outcomes that the bank and Microsoft had not been able to on their own: (1) A solution adequate to meeting regulatory requirements (including immutability and retrievability). (2) A solution adequate to meeting the massive scale required at an institution like this. (3) A realistic implementation timeline and set of requirementsLighthouse Ushers the Bank Through Technical and Industry MilestonesWe spent six months designing and testing an M365-based solution to support recording keeping and e-discovery requirements for Teams and Exchange (including those that could support the massive scalability requirements). The results of these initial tests identified several gaps that Microsoft committed to close. The six month marked a huge milestone for the financial services industry, as the Bank disclosed to regulators their intent to use M365 as system of record. This showed extreme confidence in Lighthouse’s roadmap for the Bank, since a disclosure of this nature is an official notice and cannot be walked back easily. Over the next few months, we continued to design and test, partnering with Microsoft to create a sandbox environment where new M365 features were deployed to the Bank prior to general availability, to ensure we were able to validate adequate performance. During this time, Microsoft made a series of significant updates to extend functionality and close performance gaps to meet the Bank’s requirements. Finally, in February 2021, all the Bank’s requirements had been met and they went live with Teams—the first of their M365 workload deployments. That configuration of M365 met only some of the Bank’s need, however, so Lighthouse had to enable additional orchestration and automation on top. As it happens, we had recently done this for another company, creating a proof of concept for a reusable automation framework designed to scale eDiscovery and compliance operations within M365. Building on this work, we were able to quickly launch development of a custom automation solution for the Bank. This project is currently underway and is slated to complete in June, coinciding with their deployment of Exchange Online.Lighthouse Enables Adoption of Teams and Exchange and Scales M365 Compliance FunctionalityCompliant storage of M365 communications using native tools, rather than a third-party archive. Scaled and efficient use of M365 eDiscovery, including automation to handle preservation and collection tasks rather than manual processes or simple PowerShell scripts.Improved update monitoring, replacing an IT- and message-center-driven process with a cross-functional governance framework based on our CloudCompass M365 update monitoring and impact assessment for legal and compliance teams.Framework for compliant onboarding of new M365 communication sources like Yammer. Framework for compliant implementation of M365 in new jurisdictions, including restricted country solutions for Switzerland and Monaco. Framework to begin expanding to related use cases within M365, such as compliance and insider risk management. Lighthouse Paves the Way for Broader M365 Adoption Across the Financial Services IndustryFollowing the success of this project, we have been engaged by a dozen other large financial institutions interested in pursuing a similar roadmap. The roadblocks we removed for the Bank are shared across the sector, so the project was carefully watched. With the Bank’s goals confidently achieved and even surpassed, its peers are ready to begin their own journey to sunset their archives and embrace the opportunities of native legal and compliance tools in M365.

Firms Needed Fast Analysis of 25M Documents More than a dozen international law firms—including a Joint Defense Group (JDG) of 11 firms and several firms representing defendants outside the JDG—were engaged in a complex cluster of cases spanning over 30 US jurisdictions. The total document tranche included over 25M documents. The firms needed to find and understand the key players, timelines, and nuances involved in each litigation, while also preparing for hundreds of depositions, witness interviews, hearings, and trials scheduled across the litigation universe. However, traditional approaches to fact-finding and litigation (i.e., document review, keyword searches, etc.) were drowning case teams in extraneous and duplicative information. They came to Lighthouse looking for a strategic, unified approach to fact-finding, led by experts who could deliver the key documents, information, and details the case teams needed—and nothing more. Custom Workflows Power Consistency, Speed, and Efficiency Our experts started by creating a topic map across matters, which helped them quickly provide case teams with the core themes in each jurisdiction while reducing redundant search work. From there, as case strategy for each matter developed, the Lighthouse team drilled down into more nuanced fact-finding to help surface the documents case teams needed to learn the key details of each matter, through strategies like: State/Jurisdictional Overview Workflow – We used advanced search technology to target key documents in incoming productions and categorize them by jurisdiction, providing case teams with an immediate thematic overview of key facts and timelines. Re-Deployable Linguistic Model Workflow – Lighthouse linguists developed models based on intimate knowledge of the language used within the datasets, then deployed them within proprietary search technology to sort documents into tiers based on the likelihood that they contained key information. Deposition Kit Bundle Workflow – By bundling deposition kit requests from the same jurisdictions and departments together, we could search across smaller collections of documents and take a deponent-agnostic approach. Previously Delivered Name Hit Workflow – We provided case teams with documents from previously delivered results, giving them an advanced start on deposition preparation while further reducing duplicative searching. These repeatable workflows significantly reduced the volume of searching and coordination required across matters and enabled Lighthouse experts to quickly zero-in on the exact documents needed—without wasting counsels’ time with redundant and unimportant documents. Critical Docs Found and Delivered Across Dozens of Matters and Hundreds of Kits Over the course of two years, Lighthouse experts prepared dozens of case teams for complex litigation and handled a deluge of competing deadlines, priorities, and ad hoc requests (totaling as many as 70 requests at a time). For the Joint Defense Group, this meant: Over 1,150 deposition kits across 24 matters, encompassing 245K unique documents Over 100 state overviews across 21 different jurisdictions, encompassing 80K documents For law firms representing individual defendants, Lighthouse provided an additional:150 deposition kits, encompassing 13K documents 30 defensive overviews across 20 jurisdictions, encompassing 6K documents 1.3K documents in response to ad hoc requests and trial support Each delivery was limited to essential information—including key themes and players in every jurisdiction, potential gaps in productions, lists of hot/sensitive documents and potential deponents, and key strategy documents—and avoided redundant and unimportant documents. The combination of innovative workflows and cutting-edge technology enabled Lighthouse to keep our team small and consistent throughout the engagement, so the entire effort was achieved by a handful of Lighthouse experts with institutional knowledge of every matter. Since this engagement, we have used the same workflows for other clients facing complex Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)—making Lighthouse key document identification one of the most valuable and scalable litigation technology solutions on the market today.

The Lighthouse team of SMEs applied their dedication to exemplary customer experience and unique strategy of marrying compliance, security, IT, and legal needs to help a global chemistry solutions and specialty material producer meet the ever-evolving security and compliance demands and challenges facing international manufacturing and regulations to effectively deploy Microsoft Purview across workstreams while preparing for needs and reducing costs. Global Leader in Chemistry Solutions Transforms Enterprise Data Protection with Microsoft Purview An international producer of commercial chemicals and specialty materials upholds a commitment to people safety and well-being as part of their core tenets. As cyber risks increased along with data volumes, the organization extended their commitment to safety to include the security of data accessed, produced, and stored within their enterprise. Now, the company has implemented a comprehensive data protection program using the entire Microsoft 365 Information Protection suite. After careful design, the team is piloting the solution before a global rollout. A Commitment to Physical and Digital Safety As one of the world’s largest acetyl products manufacturers and a top-tier producer of high-performance engineered polymers, the company supplies chemicals across major industries and for a variety of industrial and consumer applications. Over 10,000 employees in offices, technical centers, and 50+ manufacturing facilities work to realize a vision of improving the world and everyday life through people, chemistry, and innovation—with products that impact the lives of millions. For the organization, an operational approach rooted in well-being has always meant physically safe working environments for employees, and safe solutions for their customers and their communities. However, in this digital age, they have expanded their notion of safety to include data protection for employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which they operate. The company’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) notes that committing to data protection means a “higher level of assurance—making sure that our security controls keep pace with the threats that surround us every day and seek to exploit vulnerabilities in companies like us every day. You can’t stand still. You always have to evolve—you always have to get better, otherwise you’re devolving, and you’re getting worse, and becoming more vulnerable.” Advancing Data Protection with a Trusted Partner A few years ago, when the company decided to make the move to the cloud, they chose Microsoft 365 E5 and Microsoft Azure, building on their longstanding use of Microsoft technologies. Prior efforts to overhaul their data protection program had been unsatisfactory. However, with access to new Microsoft Purview capabilities, the Information Security team saw an opportunity to try again. They hoped to utilize the full breadth of the Microsoft 365 Information Protection suite including Information Protection Classification and Labeling, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), and Insider Risk Management solutions. Microsoft tapped Security Solutions and Advanced Specialization Designation-Information Protection and Governance Partner Lighthouse Global to lead the engagement for their ability to effectively understand complex compliance needs across IT, security, and legal departments. They hoped that together they could develop a solution to realize the investment they’d made in Microsoft 365, and to support their corporate commitment to safety for both employees and customers. “If you were to interview a bunch of companies, those who have actual, very successful DLP and data labeling programs typically have a hodgepodge of solutions that get melded together,” reflected the CISO, “and that’s where Lighthouse was successful…we’ve been able to leverage the investment…and get it to work, [and not] have to go spend more money to hodgepodge together a solution.” Developing a Comprehensive, Scalable Solution The Lighthouse team started by holding a series of working sessions to align the company’s vision and requirements and design the implementation approach. Using Microsoft Compliance Check, Lighthouse scanned the company’s environment to get an understanding of current state activity and sensitivity intelligence. The team also reviewed existing policies and approaches for the handling of sensitive data and data loss prevention to identify any areas of opportunity or gaps that could exist. From there, the combined teams were able to successfully design and configure a holistic data protection solution leveraging multiple Microsoft Purview products including Data Loss Prevention, Information Protection, and Insider Risk Management. Starting with data classification, the team defined the sensitive information types that needed to be identified. From there, they developed a set of sensitivity labels corresponding to the data protection policy. This set of classification techniques and labels were generated in the course of both Data Loss Protection and Insider Risk Management implementation, ensuring a comprehensive data life cycle protection program from content identification through insider threat analysis. Finally, the Lighthouse team supported the integration of the Microsoft products with the company’s third-party HR software to feed HR data into the Data Theft by Departing Employee Policy, enabling the creation of a truly end-to-end solution. Fulfilling a Mission of Security The company’s dedication to safety, security, and well-being across applications and contexts drove this project’s success. “Because we see security as part of our commitment to people and innovation, we take a uniquely holistic approach and have strong support all the way up to our board of directors,” says the company’s CISO. The CISO also credits Lighthouse’s unwavering commitment to partnership. “They helped us not only implement the technology and guide us through some of the critical points to consider as we implemented the technology, but also the process and decision points with data—which ultimately, in the end, actually worked,” they conclude. Now, with the design and implementation of the Microsoft Purview-based Data Protection program behind them, the organization’s information security team is focused on operationalizing the program through a series of pilots scheduled over the next year. Their ultimate goal is total, global implementation of the solution—and total, global protection for all employee and customer data. Corporate Case Studymicrosoft; big-datamicrosoft-365; data-privacy

Over the course of five months, Lighthouse delivered approximately 4,500 documents for review—out of the 2.3 million document review set—for a Fortune 100 health insurance provider. The Challenge Complex internal False Claims Act investigation 2.3M total documents for review Five-month timeline and tight budget Lighthouse Key Actions Provided curated weekly deliveries of the most important, inclusive documents for review—with no redundant or duplicative versions Compiled summary reports of each delivery (including highlights of high-priority information) to expedite counsel review Out of 2.3M documents, identified and delivered just the 4,500 documents counsel needed to review in order to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis Key Results for Counsel Immediately gained a grasp on the relevant facts and timelines hidden within a massive review set—without wasting time reviewing irrelevant information Quickly developed a deeper understanding of the underlying risks and nuances of the investigation, through consistent and iterative communication with Lighthouse search experts Confidently completed the investigation on time and within budget—even after large volumes of new data were added mid-investigation A Challenging Internal Investigation into False Claims Act Violations A Fortune 100 health insurance provider was pursuing an internal investigation involving potentially improper diagnosis practices undertaken by a wholly-owned provider group. The scope of the investigation included analysis of reimbursements processed across 20+ disease categories, potentially triggering False Claims Act violations. With 2.3M documents to review, it was unclear how the internal investigation would be completed within a constrained budget and timeline. Counsel reached out to Lighthouse for help. Lighthouse Hands Counsel the Keys to a Focused, Efficient Investigation A small team of Lighthouse information retrieval, legal, data science, and linguistic experts immediately began working with counsel to understand the specific allegations at issue, as well as catalogue the various sources of data that needed to be investigated. The team then designed and executed a battery of complex searches tailored to find instances of fraud or wrongdoing related to the allegations at hand. By staying in close communication with counsel, the Lighthouse team ensured that new search requirements and data sources were quickly integrated into the workstream to support fact development. On a weekly basis, Lighthouse delivered a streamlined set of documents responding to counsel’s evolving theory of the case. These deliveries also included a detailed breakdown of the categories of documents identified each week, descriptions of relevant internal processes and policies, and flagging of high-priority documents of particular interest to counsel. Each delivery was distilled down to only the most inclusive, non-redundant versions of relevant documents. In addition to keeping pace with ongoing requests and deliverables, the Lighthouse team also re-executed previous searches to address waves of new data rolling in midway through the engagement. A Faster and More Comprehensive Investigation Resolution Over the course of five months, Lighthouse delivered approximately 4,500 documents for review—out of the 2.3 million document review set. The Lighthouse deliveries encompassed everything counsel needed to know in order to resolve their investigation—and nothing more. The team accomplished this precision through deep subject matter expertise surrounding the allegations and underlying issues at play, consistent and effective communication with counsel, expert topic-based searching, and additional proprietary data analytics to remove unnecessary duplicative content. By the end of their short engagement with Lighthouse, counsel had developed a comprehensive understanding of the pertinent risk areas and confidently completed their investigation—on time and within budget. Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; fact-finding; document-review; investigations; kdi; key-document-identification; keyword-search; insurance-industry; analytics; ai-and-analyticsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, fact-finding, document-review, investigations, KDI, key-document-identification, keyword-search, insurance-industry, analytics, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

Lighthouse's proprietary AI technology solves a unique data deduplication challenge while migrating over 25 terabytes for an extensive healthcare system. Key Results In 5 months, Lighthouse migrated four databases—with 25 TBs of data—all while keeping the databases active for review and production for current matters. Leveraging our AI technology, Lighthouse created an innovative solution for a large volume of Lotus Notes files originally processed as HTML files by a legacy processing tool. This solution ensured that any new Lotus Notes files would deduplicate against the migrated data, regardless of the file type or the tool used for processing. A Challenging Data Deduplication Problem A large healthcare system had been hosting its data (over 25 TBs of data across four databases) on another vendor’s platform for nearly a decade. The company knew it was time to modernize its eDiscovery program with Lighthouse. In order to do so, all 25 TBs would need to be migrated over to Lighthouse for hosting and future processing. However, in addition to data migration, the company also had a unique deduplication challenge due to the previous vendor’s original processing tool. The company’s data had originally been processed with the vendor’s legacy processing tool—which processed Lotus Notes data as HTML files, rather than the more modern EML version. The prior processing of these files into an HTML format meant that whenever duplicate Lotus Notes files were added to the database and processed using a more modern processing tool, those EML files would not deduplicate against the older HTML files in the databases. With over half their data consisting of Lotus Note files processed by the older tool in HTML format, the company was concerned that this issue would significantly increase review cost and slow down review time. Thus, in addition to the overall migration process, the company came to Lighthouse with an unfortunate Catch-22: in order to modernize its processing and eDiscovery capabilities, it was losing the ability to deduplicate a majority of its data with each new ingestion. Lighthouse Migration Expertise Because of the volume of new clients moving to Lighthouse for eDiscovery support, Lighthouse has developed an entire practice group dedicated to data migration. This group is adept at creating customized solutions to the unique challenges that often arise when migrating data out of legacy systems. The team works closely with each client to understand the scope, types of data, challenges, and future needs so that the data migration process is seamless and efficient. The Lighthouse migration team quickly got to work gathering information from the healthcare company to start this process, paying particular attention to the Lotus Notes deduplication issue. Once all relevant information was gathered, Lighthouse worked with stakeholders from the organization to form a comprehensive migration plan that minimized workflow disruption and included a detailed schedule and workflow for future data. In the process, Lighthouse also developed a custom solution for the Lotus Notes issue using our proprietary AI technology. An Innovative Solution: Lighthouse AI Lighthouse’s advanced AI technology can create a unique hash value for all data, no matter how it was originally processed. The Lighthouse migration team leveraged this innovative technology to create a unique hash value for the Lotus Notes files that were originally processed as HTML files. That hash value could then be matched against any new Lotus Notes files that were added to the database by the company, even when those files were processed as EML files. With this proprietary workflow, the healthcare company was able to seamlessly move to Lighthouse’s eDiscovery platform, which was better equipped to serve its eDiscovery needs—without losing the ability to deduplicate its data. Set Up for Success In just five months, Lighthouse completed a seamless migration of the healthcare company’s data by creating a custom migration plan that minimized blackouts and kept all databases up and running. Importantly, Lighthouse also leveraged its proprietary AI to create an innovative solution to a complex problem, ensuring continued deduplication capability and reduced discovery costs. ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; ai; ai-and-analytics; ai-big-data; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; ediscovery-migration; prism; processing; project-management; healthcareediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, AI, ai-and-analytics, AI-Big-Data, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, eDiscovery-Migration, Prism, Processing, Project-Management, Healthcare, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics

A prominent law firm leveraged a cloud-based software solution to increase efficiency and scale, resulting in significant costs savings. What They Needed A mid-sized East Coast law firm­—known for its expertise and experience in complex and high-stakes matters—was looking for new software to replace its in-house legacy technology. Their in-house tool did not provide the level of sophistication or throughput the team needed to continue to scale their work for their clients. In assessing their potential new partner, the firm required access to best-in-class technology, in particular Relativity and Nuix, as the firm’s employees were already familiar with these platforms. In addition, they wanted to leverage automation to have repeatable processes that would save both themselves and their clients time and money. ‍ How We Did It Lighthouse Spectra was selected for its simple and intuitive interface that allows users to internally manage client matters across best-in-class technology – including Relativity, Nuix, and even Brainspace. With Spectra, the firm can now start matters immediately, without having to go through the vendor solicitation and/or statement of work processes, creating real time savings. And the monthly subscription price for Spectra gave them more transparency around billing and greater cost control to help them stay within their budget. The onboarding and training processes were quick, due to the experience of the internal team coupled with the ease of use of Spectra’s. After the initial deployment of Spectra, the firm started processing client data through the tool immediately. They were able to get these matters through processing (Nuix) to review (Relativity) within a few hours, rather than an entire day or more, as was typical with their previous in-house solution. We can go from soup to nuts without having to reinvent the wheel each time. It is truly self-service. — Law Firm The Results Soon after onboarding, the firm took on a couple quick-turn and complex matters that they were able to handle more quickly due to the speed and scale of Spectra, as well as the support of Spectra team. In one instance, they received a request late in the work day that needed to be turned around within a short period of time. Prior to deploying Spectra, that would have taken some hands-on experience and a day’s worth of time. With Spectra, they were able to process it as soon as they received it and it was available for review within a few short hours. In another instance, the firm received a request with a pressing deadline where the document set consisted of approximately 95% foreign-language text. Quickly translating the text to English was imperative to firm’s success. To solve this problem, the Spectra team pointed the firm to a machine language translation tool that easily integrates with Spectra. By deploying the integrated translation service on the workspace, documents submitted for translation were loaded back into the workspace as easily as if it was performing a mass edit. This provided an easy solution for the firm for this particular matter, and now that it’s integrated, the feature is available to the firm on demand. By moving to Spectra, the law firm was able to leverage best-in-class technology, gain more transparency and control around the entire eDiscovery process, and create efficiencies and therefore, reduce costs for themselves and their clients. Leveraging Spectra, the law firm can now do more with less and scale their business to support their clients’ growing needs. ‍ Law Firm Case Studycase-study; ediscovery; self-service, spectra; spectra; ai-and-analytics; analytics; processing; tar-predictive-coding; technology-assisted-review; tar; law-firmediscovery-review; client-successCase-Study, client-success, eDiscovery, self-service, spectra, Spectra, ai-and-analytics, analytics, Processing, TAR-Predictive-Coding, technology-assisted-review, TAR, Law-Firm, ediscovery-review,

How They Did ItPenningtons Manches Cooper partnered with Lighthouse to deploy Spectra, which was implemented within three months from initial proof of concept to rollout with live matters. Primary areas of focus during the implementation were training, process design, and internal change management. The project began with roundtable sessions to fully understand the scope and ensure that deployment was customized to fit Penningtons Manches Cooper’s requirements, deliverables, and goals. And because Spectra is a cloud-based solution, there was no capital expenditure or additional IT resourcing required for implementation. This allowed for a flexible approach, fast implementation, and low ongoing maintenance for Penningtons Manches Cooper.Once the tool was initially implemented, the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper identified a suitable matter to be used in a proof of concept. Lighthouse trained key Penningtons Manches Cooper personnel on how to use Spectra, and together the two teams worked to create a scalable and repeatable workflow for particular work types. All items were recorded in a bespoke playbook, which fully documents Spectra’s capabilities and process as well as specific Penningtons Manches Cooper requirements.Next, Lighthouse provided training to the wider Penningtons Manches Cooper team on Spectra's built in analytics and redaction tools. Due to the simplicity and on-demand nature of Spectra, the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper was able to realize a 1 to 4-hour reduction in the time it takes to create a matter and upload data into Relativity. Further, Lighthouse developed a custom Relativity template. to ensure the user experience in Relativity is mirrored across matters and complements the firm’s workflows.Following the successful trial period, Penningtons Manches Cooper has identified and managed many other matters in Spectra with very little external support. Setup of each new matter has been reduced significantly, in some circumstances by up to 2-3 days, as there has been a significant reduction in the number of steps required to instruct external eDiscovery vendors, including no need to gather price proposals, no delay while vendors run conflict checks, and no need for any additional contract negotiation. As a consequence, each legal team was typically able to begin reviewing documents on the same day the data was received by the firm.In conjunction with the above, predictable and recurring billing practices were implemented and custom reports were developed around the firm’s matters and metrics. This, in turn, will allow Penningtons Manches Cooper to manage cost recovery and integrate billing for a more seamless and efficient process.The ResultsPenningtons Manches Cooper partnered with Lighthouse to roll out Spectra, which enabled their team to control the process from the very start and create efficiency and predictability of cost and process. By using Spectra, the team at Penningtons Manches Cooper was able to create matters and upload and process data quickly, all within a simplified and intuitive interface. The use of best-in-class technology, combined with repeatable process and in-house expertise, created a tangible benefit, ensuring eDiscovery and document review are completed with minimal cost, a savings which can be passed on directly to the client.

Lighthouse Spectra helps a considerable healthcare organization gain control, pricing transparency, and efficiency gains in the eDiscovery process. What They Needed A large healthcare organization was looking to solve their eDiscovery challenges around speed and cost. Specifically, they needed to increase their overall efficiency, and have more control over their matters with truly transparent and lower ediscovery-related costs. How We Did It Lighthouse Spectra was chosen to help achieve these key goals. Spectra is a self-service, on-demand eDiscovery tool with a transparent subscription-based pricing model. Spectra users can also access a full-time project management team at Lighthouse, whenever needed – all for one predictable price. Spectra onboarding was tailored to the users’ needs and focused on teaching users how to use Spectra itself, as well as when and how to use Brainspace, an analytics engine available inside the platform. Since Spectra is built with an intuitive interface, it only took a few short trainings over the course of a few weeks for the users to become comfortable using it. The Lighthouse team also ensured that Relativity and Spectra were customized to the organization’s specific needs. Our teams ensured that all customized permissions and views were set up within Relativity and worked with the organization to create custom Relativity templates to apply their standard coding pallets, rule-based coding propagations, pre-baked saved searches, standard views/layouts, imaging profiles, and more. Additionally, the Lighthouse team also assisted in building a continuous multi-model learning (CMML) workflow for their team to leverage within Spectra. Once set up was complete, the organization immediately started leveraging Spectra to process their data and run search terms as needed on a variety of diverse case types, including labor and employment cases, internal investigations, and OIG requests. The Results By moving to Spectra, the healthcare organization gained more control over their eDiscovery processes, created more efficient workflows, and achieved significant cost savings with transparent and predictable pricing. Since deploying the tool, the organization found that using the search and analytics capabilities of Spectra reduced the volume of natives to just 4.5% of the total hosted volume, minimizing the count of documents being reviewed by 95%. The custom Relativity template prevents the need to reinvent the wheel with each new matter and drive consistency across their portfolio. Further, the CMML workflow allows the organization to prioritize review of documents that are most likely to be responsive, as well as minimize the number of documents that go to review. Both of these enhancements allowed the organization to increase their overall speed from collection to production while lowering their overall eDiscovery-related costs. Through these new workflows and processes, the healthcare organization has achieved both defensibility and affordability and reduced review time from days to hours. This has resulted in an overall savings of $500K in their first year with Spectra.\ Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; ediscovery; self-service, spectra; spectra; ai-and-analytics; analytics; processing; tar-predictive-coding; technology-assisted-review; tar; healthcareediscovery-review; client-successCase-Study, Corporate, Corporation, eDiscovery, self-service, spectra, Spectra, ai-and-analytics, analytics, Processing, TAR-Predictive-Coding, technology-assisted-review, TAR, Healthcare, ediscovery-review

Cleary Gottlieb and Lighthouse save millions of dollars and thousands of hours in HSRs Second Request for Fortune 500 company. What They Needed A global Fortune 500 electronics company received an HSR Second Request from the Department of Justice (DOJ), with an extremely aggressive timeline to reach substantial compliance. They engaged Cleary Gottlieb (“Cleary”), a global technology-savvy and innovative law firm with extensive experience handling challenging Second Requests. After Cleary led negotiations with the DOJ to reduce the scope of the investigation, the client was faced with 3.3M documents to review—a significant subset of which included CJK language documents that would require expensive and time-consuming translation. To further complicate matters, the DOJ and Cleary remained engaged in ongoing scope negotiations, resulting in additional data being added throughout the project. Cleary knew that conventional TAR technology was not capable of evaluating a dataset with ever-changing review parameters. How Cleary and Lighthouse Did It CJ Mahoney, counsel and head of the eDiscovery and litigation technology group at Cleary, has extensive experience working on complex HSR Second Requests and has pioneered a number of different analytics-driven methods to reach substantial compliance in the past. Based on prior joint success in innovating new ways to use this technology to improve privilege analytics, CJ immediately saw the potential of Lighthouse’s proprietary AI technology for this challenge. Together, CJ and the Lighthouse data scientists developed a unique training workflow to achieve highly precise responsive prediction results on this challenging dataset. CJ secured the DOJ’s first-ever approval of this workflow with Lighthouse’s proprietary AI technology. Immediately after approval, responsive and privilege analysis and review began simultaneously, enabled by AI technology. For responsiveness, the teams utilized an active learning TAR workflow wherein subject matter experts reviewed a control set of randomly selected documents. After only a few training rounds, the system reached stability and began scoring the remaining dataset for responsiveness. A privilege classifier was built based on 20K previously confirmed privilege calls and applied to score all documents in the privilege workspace. The teams used a combination of the analytic results and privilege terms to identify potential privileged documents. All documents within this set that were scored as “highly likely to be privileged” were immediately routed to reviewers for review and privilege logging. Conversely, documents scored as “unlikely to be privileged” were removed from privilege review after Cleary’s attorneys verified the accuracy of the results using a random sample. Further, the teams used the privilege classifier to identify additional privilege documents that had not hit on privilege terms. As the timeline for substantial compliance approached, negotiations with DOJ regarding relevant timeframes and custodians continued, resulting in the near-constant addition and removal of documents from the dataset. The Lighthouse and Cleary teams managed the ever-changing dataset with ease using the Lighthouse technology and workflow developed by the teams. The Results Using a specialized TAR workflow leveraging advanced AI, the teams delivered highly accurate responsive classification, resulting in more than 500K (or more than 40%) fewer documents requiring further review and production to the DOJ, when compared to legacy TAR tools. By creating a smaller volume of documents requiring production, the amount of privilege and foreign language review was also lessened. For example, 120K fewer foreign language documents were included in the final responsive set compared to legacy TAR tool results. This reduction of review and translation saved approximately $1M alone. For the client, the smaller responsive set meant faster production turnaround times, lower overall costs, and risk mitigation through the decreased chance for inadvertent production of non-responsive documents. The Lighthouse and Cleary partnership resulted in the removal of 200K documents from privilege review beyond what could have been possible through conventional methods, leading to cost savings of $1.2M and time savings of 8K review hours. The team further mitigated risk to the client by identifying privilege documents that did not hit on standard privilege terms. The Cleary and Lighthouse partnership resulted in substantial compliance with the HSR Second Request, increased risk mitigation, faster document review, and remarkable savings for the client. Law Firm Case Studycase-study; antitrust; ediscovery; tar; tar-predictive-coding; law-firm; hsr-second-requests; investigations; mergers; ai-and-analytics; ai-big-data; artificial-intelligence; ai; acquisitions; analytics; predictive-coding; prism; privilege; privilege-review; tech-industryediscovery-review; antitrust; ai-and-analytics; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryCase-Study, client-success, Antitrust, eDiscovery, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, Law-Firm, HSR-Second-Requests, investigations, Mergers, ai-and-analytics, AI-Big-Data, artificial-intelligence, AI, Acquisitions, analytics, predictive-coding, Prism, privilege, privilege-review, tech-industry, ediscovery-review, antitrust, ai-and-analytics

Lighthouse saves insurance giant millions of dollars during major technology upgrade. Key Actions Microsoft referred the Company to Lighthouse to resolve existing concerns from the Company’s IT and legal departments that were stifling their automation and transition process to Microsoft 365 (M365). Lighthouse held educational workshops on eDiscovery tools within M365, and devised a comprehensive plan for the compliance. Key Results Unblocked the M365 transition effort and enhanced the partnership between legal and IT. Compliance concerns were answered within M365, saving the company millions of dollars in retaining or updating legacy data management systems. What They Needed Legal Concerns Churn 11th Hour Nightmare for IT Department In 2017, a nationwide insurance giant initiated a transition from an on-premises Microsoft solution to a cloud-based M365 solution fueled by gain from cost, performance, and security improvements. Years later, and well past the intended launch date, the Company’s legal team suddenly halted the transition entirely due to concerns of M365’s eDiscovery capabilities, specifically, how M365 would handle the identification, preservation, and collection of email, instant messages, and files for the Company. The legal department insisted the company retain its custom-built archival solution until all compliance concerns were allayed. These demands put the IT department in an extremely tough spot after having already invested several years into the transition to M365. If forced to extend their aging, on-premises solution, the team would face substantial costs. To help unstick the implementation project, Microsoft suggested the Company engage Lighthouse to assist. Lighthouse immediately understood the legal team’s concerns and acted swiftly to address the Company’s insistence on exercising the transition to M365 with great caution, all while remaining vigilant of the Company’s receipt of hundreds of new legal matters monthly. The sensitive nature of data in this industry and the complex regulatory environment made the potential risk related to mismanagement very high. The process was intricate and complex, and required high-level integration to mitigate the significant risks that were specific to individual privacy regulations, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Hands-on Experience and High-touch Service Bridge the Gaps Lighthouse fielded a team of experts with direct experience in the same or similar roles as the various client stakeholders, ranging from IT to records management, corporate legal, and public affairs. This hand-selected team led a three-part process with their counterparts from the Company: Providing education on the eDiscovery aspects of M365 Analyzing current workflows and performance, and expressing their desired future state Devising a high-level design document for how relevant parties could conduct eDiscovery tasks in compliance with the requirements while using M365 The first two processes helped restore unity among stakeholders, while the design document delivered on the legal team’s concerns, including specified settings for a range of M365 applications and components, such as Exchange Online, SharePoint Online, OneDrive for Business, and Teams. The design document made room for process automation and/or custom workflows, as well as for third-party system integration (for compliance archive, legal hold, matter management, etc.). The initial project success led to a continuing relationship between the Company and Lighthouse, and over time Lighthouse has become a critical element in the Company’s ongoing M365 implementation and adoption journey helping them in charting a path forward. Corporate Case Studycase-study; big-data; cloud-migration; cloud; cloud-services; ccpa; corporate; corporation; data-privacy; data-protection; emerging-data-sources; information-governance; ediscovery; microsoft; gdpr; legacy-data-remediation; legal-holds; risk-management; insurance-industry; record-managementmicrosoft-365; data-privacy; information-governance; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-information-governanceCase-Study, Big-Data, Cloud-Migration, cloud, Cloud-Services, ccpa, Corporate, Corporation, Data-Privacy, data-protection, Emerging-Data-Sources, Information-Governance, eDiscovery, microsoft, gdpr, Legacy-Data-Remediation, Legal-Holds, microsoft, risk-management, insurance-industry, Record-Management, microsoft-365, data-privacy, information-governance

Lighthouse bridges internal gaps during technology overhaul and solves longstanding compliance issues for a German multinational healthcare manufacturer. Key Actions Lighthouse engaged company stakeholders in operational planning and received funding from Microsoft to devise and integrate a premium Microsoft 365 (M365) add-on to existing Purview Premium eDiscovery, which resolved an outstanding compliance need. Key Results The proof-of-concept achieved a zero-trust security model integrated with third-party software, and satisfied the barring of critical needs for the Company that centralized IT and legal departments after years of dysfunction. What They Needed Automating a transition to M365 commonly yields a clash between IT, legal, and compliance stakeholders if the decision to convert was spearheaded by IT and made without consulting legal and compliance teams. Typically, during planning or implementation of converting to M365, legal teams ask IT how the new platform will manage compliant and defensible processes, and if IT doesn’t have the answers, the project stalls. This was the situation facing a multinational manufacturing Company that engaged Lighthouse for help during the spring of 2020. At that time, the Company was several years into its M365 transition, and the legal teams’ requirements for adoption of native M365 compliance tools barred a complete transition. Pressure to adopt the tools escalated as M365 workloads for content creation, collaboration, and communication were already rolled out, creating an increasingly large and complex volume of data with significant degrees of risk. Lighthouse Responds to Need and Launches New Technology In partnership with Microsoft Consulting Services, Lighthouse organized a companywide M365 “reset,” hosting a three-day workshop to revamp the transition process and generate an official statement of work. The strategic goal was to streamline the stakeholders from litigation, technical infrastructure, cybersecurity, and forensics teams that previously failed to align. The workshop fielded critical topics geared to encourage constructive discussions between stakeholders and to strengthen departmental trust. The outcome of these discussions eventually enabled the company to move forward with critical compliance updates, including the collection and parsing of Microsoft Teams data, and the management of myriad files and email attachments. Lighthouse took stock of the current state, testing potential solutions, and arrived at a proof-of-concept for an eDiscovery Automation Solution (EAS) that augmented existing M365 capabilities to meet the legal team’s security requirements and remediate any performance gaps. Microsoft recognized the potential value of the EAS for the wider market, ultimately leading to Microsoft funding for the proof-of-concept. Inside the eDiscovery Automation Solution (EAS) Technology Azure-native web application designed to orchestrate the eDiscovery operations of an M365 subscriber through Purview Premium eDiscovery automation Maximized Microsoft Graph API “/Compliance/eDiscovery/” functions and other Microsoft API Simplified to Azure AD trust boundary, targeting the M365 tenant hosted within, and enabling full governance of identity and entitlement throughout Azure and M365 security features Benefits Achieved a zero-trust security model Authorized high-velocity, high-volume eDiscovery tasks without outside technology through automation and orchestration of existing M365 eDiscovery premium capabilities native to M365 Mobilized integration with third-party software included in the Company’s eDiscovery workflows Amplified workload visibility by automatically surfacing relevant Mailboxes, OneDrives, and other M365 group-based technologies dependent upon selected Custodians’ access Corporate Case Studybig-data; case-study; cloud-migration; cloud; cloud-services; cloud-security; corporate; corporation; data-privacy; emerging-data-sources; information-governance; ediscovery; microsoft; manufacturing-industry; risk-managementchat-and-collaboration-data; ediscovery-review; microsoft-365; data-privacy; information-governance; client-success; lighting-the-path-to-better-information-governanceBig-Data, Case-Study, Cloud-Migration, cloud, Cloud-Services, Cloud-Security, Corporate, Corporation, Data-Privacy, Emerging-Data-Sources, Information-Governance, eDiscovery, microsoft, manufacturing-industry, risk-management, chat-and-collaboration-data, ediscovery-review, microsoft-365, data-privacy, information-governance

Lighthouse's forensics experts found hidden clues missed during an internal investigation, proving a departing employee was stealing company data. Lighthouse Key Results By quickly engaging Lighthouse forensics experts: The company stopped proprietary and sensitive information from being disseminated and used by competitors. The company’s law firm was able to quickly take action against the employee, preventing any further malfeasance or damage. Investigation Overview Week 1 Day 1 – 4 — Employee uploads company data onto a personal Google Drive account over the span of four days. ‍ Day 4 – 5 — An internal investigation concludes that all company data has been deleted from the employee’s personal data sources and no further action is needed. However, the company’s outside counsel calls in Lighthouse forensics experts to perform a separate investigation for affirmation. ‍ Day 6 — Lighthouse forensics experts find evidence missed during the company’s internal investigation, indicating that the laptop provided to internal investigators was a “decoy,” and that the employee had actually transferred the proprietary company data onto an as-of-yet undisclosed laptop. Week 2–4 Outside counsel uses Lighthouse’s findings to file a restraining order against the employee and elicit a confession wherein the employee admitted they had downloaded the proprietary data onto a secret laptop—owned by another business. Week 6 Lighthouse forensics team is provided access to the additional laptop and the employee’s private Google Drive account. Although there is no company data stored on the drive, the Lighthouse team dives deeper and immediately finds that the employee had restored the previously deleted company data back to their Google Drive account, transferred it the secret laptop, and then deleted it again from the Google Drive account. These findings enable outside counsel to take additional remediating actions. Suspicious Activity by a Departing Employee Raises Alarm Bells During routine internal departing employee analysis, a global company was alerted to the fact that an employee had uploaded more than 10K files containing sensitive proprietary data to a personal Google Drive account. The company immediately launched an internal investigation and engaged their outside counsel. Over the course of the internal investigation, the employee admitted they had uploaded company data to their Google Drive, and then used an external hard drive to transfer that data onto a personal laptop. However, the employee avowed that all company data had since been deleted—which the company’s IT team confirmed by examining all three data sources. However, due to the sensitivity of the data, outside counsel wanted additional reassurance that the employee was no longer concealing proprietary company data. The law firm had previously relied on Lighthouse forensics experts for similar investigations and knew that they could count on Lighthouse expertise to find any hidden clues that would point to additional hidden data. Finding the Forensic Breadcrumbs Week 1 The Lighthouse forensics team received access to forensic images of the employee’s personal laptop and external hard drive within one week of the first suspicious upload. The team immediately noticed that the employee’s data tracks conflicted with the timelines and statements provided by the employee during the company’s internal investigation. Key Evidence Found by Lighthouse Forensics Experts The external hard drive used to transfer company data had not been plugged in to the personal laptop during the relevant time frame. File paths identified on the external hard drive (which show the file locations where data was downloaded upon connection) did not match those on the personal laptop provided to internal investigators. This evidence led the Lighthouse team to conclude that the laptop provided by the employee was not the laptop used to download company data—and that a different laptop with the stored proprietary company data existed but had not been disclosed by the employee. Week 2–4 A Lighthouse forensics expert provided a sworn declaration explaining the evidence found during the examination of the employee’s personal devices. The company’s law firm used this declaration to file a restraining order to stop the employee from continuing to steal or disseminate proprietary data. The law firm also used Lighthouse’s findings to elicit a confession from the employee, admitting that they had been secretly working part-time for another business, and had transferred the company’s proprietary data onto a laptop provided to the employee by that business. Week 6 Within two weeks of the Lighthouse forensics expert’s sworn declaration, the Lighthouse team was provided access to the laptop owned by the other business, as well as the employee’s personal Google Drive account. Lighthouse’s inspection of the Google Drive did show that all company data had been deleted, as had been confirmed by internal investigators. However, Lighthouse immediately went deeper into the Google Drive and found conclusive evidence that the employee had subsequently “restored” the deleted proprietary data just a few days after the internal investigation ended, in an attempt to continue with the data theft. Key Evidence Found by Lighthouse Forensics Experts Despite the fact that no company data was stored on the employee’s personal Google Drive account at the time Lighthouse received access to it, Lighthouse forensics experts went above and beyond to do a deeper forensic dive into the user activity log, email account, and internet searches stored on the Google Drive. That deeper analysis showed that: Two days after the internal investigation ended, the employee began conducting numerous internet searches for ways to “restore” deleted files on Google Drive. Two weeks later, the employee emailed a private IT company asking for help restoring deleted Google Drive files. One day after sending that email, thousands of files were restored to the employee’s Google Drive. Those restored files were once again deleted a few days later. Before the restored files were re-deleted, the employee downloaded some of the files containing company data to the “secret” laptop owned by another business. Keeping a Lid on Pandora’s Box The evidence found by Lighthouse forensics experts after their initial examination of the employee’s personal devices enabled the company’s law firm to take legal action against the employee less than one month after the first suspicious data upload. Within one day of being provided access to the employee’s personal Google Drive account, Lighthouse forensics experts were able to find exactly how and where the stolen proprietary and sensitive data was hidden. This enabled the company to permanently prevent any dissemination of that proprietary and sensitive data to competitors. ‍ ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; g-suite; forensics; investigations; collections; fraud-detection; red-flag-reporting; departing-onboarding-employeedigital forensics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, -G-Suite, digital forensics, investigations, collections, fraud-detection, Red-Flag-Reporting, Departing-Onboarding-Employee, digital forensics

Lighthouse experts distilled crucial information from millions of produced documents for a client's legal strategy during a Department of Justice investigation. Key Actions Lighthouse created 35 deposition kits by conducting two large-scale data investigations—and addressing multiple ad-hoc emergency investigations in the process—on an initial production set of six million documents, identifying the 4,100 most relevant items. Lighthouse adhered to a complex delivery schedule so the case team had time to prepare for each deposition. ‍ Key Results Counsel was well-prepared for 35 depositions using the deposition kits delivered by Lighthouse. Instead of spending time and review cycles finding they evidence, they used the bandwidth they saved to hone their legal strategy. ‍ Responding to a Fast-Moving Government Investigation, with a Merger on the Line When two of the largest publishing companies in the country entered a merger deal, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reacted with a large anti-trust investigation. Pursuant to an HSR Second Request, the companies produced a combined six million documents to the DOJ. In response, the DOJ sought to depose 35 individuals within a few months’ time. This left outside counsel with just two months to prepare for the defense of a massive potential merger, including intensive preparation for all 35 depositions. To do so, they knew they would need to find every shred of relevant information hidden within those six million documents—as quickly as possible. Executing a Plan for Better Legal Strategy When the law firm reached out to Lighthouse for help, our agile search team of analytic, legal, and linguistic experts immediately got to work, consulting with counsel to understand the specifics of the investigation, as well as the case team’s initial strategy for response. Using this background, the Lighthouse team mapped out a information search plan leveraging advanced volume reduction technologies and linguistic search models, delivering: Comprehensive deposition kits for all 35 deponents. Each kit was scheduled to be delivered well ahead of the corresponding deposition date, and included summaries of Lighthouse experts’ findings and highlights of notable documents and facts, in order to give counsel adequate time to prepare for each deposition. Key and relevant documents related to the DOJ’s anti-trust concerns and outside counsel’s defense strategies. These documents, provided on a rolling timeline, were uncovered by conducting two large scale data investigations: one to find all documents related to determining which publishers participated in or won the auctions, and another to find all documents necessary to facilitate the creation of an all-encompassing book auction timeline. Given the legal and analytic expertise of our specialists, Lighthouse search results often uncovered new areas of importance for the case team. When the case team responded to this new information with urgent follow-up search requests (with results sometimes needed in 24 – 48 hours), our team also boosted efforts to provide the requested information. Powering Counsel with Knowledge—and Time By partnering with Lighthouse, the case team stayed focused on preparing for depositions and crafting a response to the DOJ’s concerns to the merger, instead of conducting database searches and reviewing irrelevant or redundant documents. In just two months, Lighthouse found and delivered the 4,100 documents the case team needed, out of an initial population of six million documents. This included creation and delivery of 35 deposition preparation kits, all documents related to the case team’s strategy for responding to the DOJ’s antitrust concerns (delivered on a rolling basis), and results of six ad hoc case team investigation requests. All deposition kit and derivative search deliveries met or exceeded counsel’s delivery deadline expectations. Law Firm Case Studycase-study; document-review; ediscovery; fact-finding; kdi; key-document-identification; law-firm; hsr-second-requests; investigations; mergers; acquisitionsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; antitrust; client-successCase-Study, client-success, document-review, eDiscovery, fact-finding, KDI, key-document-identification, Law-Firm, HSR-Second-Requests, investigations, Mergers, Acquisitions, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics, antitrust

Lighthouse proprietary, technology-enabled strategy for finding key documents gives counsel a strategic advantage in a challenging HSR Second Request. Key Results In just three weeks, the Lighthouse team found the 1K most important documents out of an initial data population of 19M documents. Lighthouse experts began flowing key documents to the case team just three days after the initial kickoff meeting. Lighthouse saved counsel at least a month’s worth of preparation time for witness interviews and defense planning by efficiently finding the most important documents. A Mountain of Data and a Short Timeline A global technology company and their two outside counsel teams needed to quickly prepare a winning defense in a high-stakes, time-sensitive, Department of Justice (DOJ) Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Second Request. To do so, they would have to identify and review all potentially damaging (or alternatively, helpful) documents within an initial data population of 19M documents. Finding the most important documents within that massive data volume—in less than one month—presented a Herculean task. A Proprietary Solution for Finding the Most Important Documents Lighthouse’s technology-enabled search strategy is led by information retrieval experts with decades of industry experience, who utilize robust search technologies that support large data volumes beyond industry-standard tools. Together, this combination of cutting-edge technology and data expertise quickly surfaces critical documents, streamlining legal analysis and case preparation for case teams. Handing Over the Keys to a Strategic Defense With no time to lose, Lighthouse TAR and review experts were able to whittle down the 19M documents to just over 990K responsive documents for production to meet substantial compliance. Simultaneously, Lighthouse experts quickly got to work finding the most important documents for the case team. Rather than relying on keyword culling, the Lighthouse team analyzed the data population and leveraged proprietary algorithms to safely reduce the universe to documents that contained the unique content the case team needed. From there, a team of six data retrieval experts leveraged proprietary search technology and institutional knowledge of the client’s data, gleaned from working with the company in a managed services capacity, to find key documents that were critical to the case team. Our experts used an iterative process and had weekly meetings with the case team so that they could instantly integrate counsel and witness feedback throughout the project, which helped yield more accurate search results. With this process, the Lighthouse team began flowing key documents to the case team just three days after the initial kickoff meeting. Over the course of the next three weeks, the Lighthouse team provided a total 1K key documents (out of a 990K responsive documents) in eight rolling deliveries. By gaining immediate access to these documents and eliminating the need for time-consuming and costly manual review, Lighthouse saved the team at least a month’s worth of preparation time for witness interviews and defense preparation. Law Firm Case Studyantitrust; case-study; document-review; ediscovery; fact-finding; kdi; key-document-identification; tar; tar-predictive-coding; law-firm; hsr-second-requests; investigations; mergers; acquisitionsediscovery-review; ai-and-analytics; antitrust; client-successAntitrust, Case-Study, document-review, eDiscovery, fact-finding, KDI, key-document-identification, TAR, TAR-Predictive-Coding, Law-Firm, HSR-Second-Requests, investigations, Mergers, Acquisitions, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analytics, antitrust

Lighthouse red flag report prevents proprietary data from being taken by departing employee. Key Actions A global company partnered with Lighthouse to create a proactive departing employee program to prevent data loss and theft. Lighthouse forensics experts prepared Red Flag Reports for every departing employee that fell within a specific category of employees. Each report outlined the risks associated with the departing employee based on a skilled forensic examination of their activity and data. Soon after implementing the program, a Lighthouse Red Flag Report alerted the company to suspicious activity by a departing employee indicating a high risk for data loss. Key Results Because of Lighthouse’s analysis and quick response, the company was able to: Prevent sensitive data from being disseminated outside the company. Avoid costly litigation associated with proprietary data loss. Reevaluate the departing employee’s severance package due to breach of contract, resulting in additional cost savings. ‍ What They Needed A global company was dealing with an increased risk of data loss and theft from departing employees. The company retains large volumes of proprietary data spread across their entire data landscape. Much of that data is also highly sensitive and would create a competitive disadvantage for the company if it were to end up in competitors’ hands. The company was also facing a higher volume of employee turnover—especially within roles that had access to the company’s most sensitive data (e.g., company executive and management roles). The company was concerned that these factors were creating a perfect storm for data theft and loss. They realized they needed a better system to catch instances of proprietary data loss before any data left the company. Company stakeholders reached out to Lighthouse because they knew our forensics team could help them build a proactive, repeatable solution for analyzing and reporting on departing employee activity. How We Did It Lighthouse forensics experts worked with the company to create a custom departing employee program for data loss prevention. With this program, Lighthouse experts prepared a Red Flag Report for every departing employee that fell within specified high-risk categories (e.g., employees above a specific seniority level, or employees that had access to highly sensitive company data, etc.). Each Red Flag Report was prepared by a Lighthouse forensics expert and summarized the data theft risk associated with the underlying employee. Every report contained: A high-level summary of the risk of data theft presented by the employee. A collection of attachments with highlights and comments by the Lighthouse forensics examiner (for example, a list of files stored in an employee’s personal cloud storage account, with an explanation of why that activity may indicate a higher risk of data theft). A forensic artifact categorization with associated risk ratings (e.g., if there were no suspicious search terms found during a scan of the employee’s Google search history, the examiner assigned that category a lower risk rating of “1”). Recommended next steps, with options for substantiating high-risk employee behavior. Reports were delivered to a cross-functional group of company stakeholders, including IT, human resources, and legal groups. The Results The Lighthouse program very quickly paid off for the company. Soon after initiation, Lighthouse escalated a Red Flag Report for a departing employee that showed a high risk of data loss. Specifically, the Lighthouse forensics examiner flagged that the employee had connected two different external thumb drives containing sensitive company data to their laptop. This activity was flagged by the Lighthouse forensics examiner as high risk because: The employee had already been directed by the company to return any device that had corporate data saved on it; and The employee had previously indicated that they didn’t have any devices to return. As soon as Lighthouse escalated the Red Flag Report, company stakeholders scheduled an interview with the employee. This interview resulted in the employee admitting that they had taken corporate data with them, via the two thumb drives. Because Lighthouse was able to quickly flag the employee’s suspicious activity, the company was able to retrieve the thumb drives before the proprietary data was disseminated to a competitor. The company was also able to reevaluate the employee’s severance package due to the breach of company policy, resulting in a significant cost saving. Even more importantly, the company now has a proven, proactive, and customized solution for preventing data loss and theft by departing employees—implemented by Lighthouse’s highly skilled forensics team. ‍ Corporate Case Studycase-study; corporate; corporation; forensics; investigations; collections; fraud-detection; red-flag-reporting; departing-onboarding-employeedigital forensics; client-successCase-Study, client-success, Corporate, Corporation, digital forensics, investigations, collections, fraud-detection, Red-Flag-Reporting, Departing-Onboarding-Employee, digital forensics

Imagine you are an attorney general suing a pharmaceutical company that manufactures a synthetic opioid spray and you're alleging racketeering. You've received 1.5 million documents in production and your team has three weeks before the next case management conference. Traditional review would have meant that you would spend months and likely millions of dollars to interrogate your data. Let's see what IQ Answers can do in the next several minutes. First off, I'm gonna just ask general questions within my dataset to get a sense of what was going on with this product and who it was prescribed for and what was happening with those prescriptions. So I'm typing a question about that generally to see what that returns for me. You'll notice here at the end of the query that you get an overall answer, but you also get topics surfaced for you along with citations that match each of these topics that highlight the particularly important parts of the document that can help lead you to the conclusions that are surfaced for you with IQ Answers. So here we see that this was a spray that was approved for breakthrough cancer pain and that that was the FDA intent of the approval. But what I'm also seeing in these topics that is being surfaced for me is that a lot of off-label prescription for non-cancer pain is apparently going on with this product. And I can tell that from these particular documents that I've clicked on here along with the citations where I'm seeing a hundred plus prescriptions a month that are off label. Well that's interesting. Now I'm also seeing that the salesforce has been explicitly instructed to prioritize high volume opioid prescription writers regardless of their specialty and regardless of what's happening with that prescription. And I can click into the documents and see that the volume is what is driving here. And then I also can look and see that there's been awareness internally that the approved indication from the FDA is not actually matching the patient population. So that's very interesting. It seems like we definitely have some use here that it was not intended, and I could figure that out in about 30 seconds in IQ Answers. I have the foundation. So, if the drug is approved for cancer pain, but the company is deliberately targeting non-cancer patients, that's definitely a gap from the FDA approval. And so, let's understand how they're going about making this happen. How are they getting doctors to keep writing these prescriptions? I'm going to go ahead and ask an additional question of IQ Answers to figure out what they're doing to get this volume of prescriptions written. And in particular, I noticed that there was something about speaker engagements that they were doing with doctors. So I'm going to ask about those speaker engagements. And you'll see here that basically the speaker engagement program was a way for them to pay doctors for prescriptions. I can see that they were tracking the ROI of those speaker payments as compared to the amount of prescriptions a doctor was writing. And I can also see from the documents and the citations that if they did not feel that a doctor was writing enough prescriptions, they were no longer part of these speaking events and, and thus paid through these speaking events. I also see these speaking events are not really genuine educational activity and it looks like the company was aware of this and was terminating doctors when they were not writing enough prescriptions to satisfy the amount of money that they were giving the doctors. So this all does not look very great for them in terms of how these programs were essentially bribery of these doctors. So if they're bribing the doctors, that still doesn't answer for me what's happening with the insurance companies. The product costs thousands of dollars a month and insurance companies wouldn't just approve that without any questions. So Vantage clearly needed a way to get these insurers to pay. Let me ask about that. I'm gonna type in a question about their programs to deal with the insurance companies and the way in which they instructed their employees. All right, so now I see in my answer that they had created what was called a Vantage Reimbursement Center. That was essentially their way of tracking the approvals from the insurance companies. And it looks like from the topics that's being surfaced here, that they were also using it as a vehicle to instruct their staff on how to deceive the insurance companies. In particular, here you can see in this document where they talk about using particular types of language, lingo, or diagnoses to get the insurance companies to approve the use of these drugs for the written prescriptions. But it also looks like they know that these are false statements that are being made when they are talking with the insurance companies. You can see here they're tracking and they want a 100% authorization success rate. So they're essentially giving all of their employees the way to beat the system, to cheat the insurance company, and to get them to approve something under false pretenses. So I now have two parallel fraud streams that are emerging here. One to bribe doctors to write prescriptions, one to deceive insurance companies to pay. For a RICO case, I also need to know that this was coming directly from management and from the top. So let's see if I can find that out in the dataset and ask a question about that to help me win my conviction. Alright, so now I'm gonna ask in particular, what evidence do we have that the CEO knew about this speaker program and this insurance program? Now that I'm asking this of the documents, what I can see here that is surfacing is that in fact the CEO did have direct knowledge and there's multiple documents that substantiate this. And in particular you can see this one here where he personally directs a speaker fee increase that is tied to prescription volume. In this document, you would have him talking about different tiers of speaker programs and that someone is no longer going to be invited to be a part of these speaker programs if they are not writing a certain amount of prescriptions. There's one here that surfaces a document where a hundred percent of the authorization success rate is something that he is directing and he's also calling for in the data. You also see here that I have additional follow up questions that I can be asked that are being surfaced by IQ Answers that will help me investigate and interrogate each one of these particular questions and the information I found up in these questions. But overall, it looks like I, in a matter of minutes, have been able to find key documents and important fact timelines that help me substantiate my case and know that I have a good chance of success moving forward and make me feel set up really well for my next case management conference.

Hi, Karl. Hi Stacy. How are you doing today? Good. It's good to see you. Good to see you too. Thanks for spending a little time with us today. Why don't you start out by telling us a little bit more about your role at Kirkland & Ellis and the types of matters that you handle? I'm a partner at Kirkland. My practice really involves the intersection of traditional discovery, preparing documents for production, meeting discovery obligations, and the like, and preparing case strategy, digging into the facts, understanding what those documents all show largely in the mass tort context. So large, very high-value litigation where facts and understanding the facts is really important. Well, so you just talked a little bit about case strategy, so I'd love to hear more about how you've used IQ Case Strategy, As part of litigation, it's really important that we understand what's in the materials, especially early on in the case. It's important to develop case strategy that's based on the actual evidence, based on the actual facts. And then we've, for a long time, been partnering with the Lighthouse team and members of the Lighthouse team to help us weed through, cull through the vast amount of material that often gets collected and produced in a case to really focus on what matters. It's important to be able to cull through those and really develop case themes, understand how particular issues are addressed in the documents, and then really leverage that information to be able to build out case themes, case arguments, develop our strategy for the case. And I think you've used IQ Case Strategy for depo prep in the past. We've actually, in a number of our cases, have really been able to leverage the deposition preparation to have our team focus on the substance of the case. Not spending time reading through a hundred thousand documents produced for custodian, but, focusing on the 100, 200, 300 that really matter the most for that person. That allows our team to focus on the substance as opposed to trying to figure out where in the vast universe of documents out there, that information is. That's great. So maybe touch a little bit on how AI is changing how you handle your client work at Kirkland. Yeah, it's a really exciting time, I think, for the entire field. I literally started in 2010 working on deposition prep, where I had partners who printed off tens of thousands of documents on hard paper and we would sift through them, flipping through them, and putting sticky notes on them. Since then, we've come a long way. The technology we have, especially with the evolving AI technologies, allows us to do more. More work and more effectively. Right by, early on in a case, understanding what the materials are, what the issues are, what the evidence shows, what the document shows, we're able to build out better case strategies that help our clients achieve their goals in litigation. So now that we've rolled out the full suite of applications under LighthouseIQ, I'm curious, beyond IQ Case Strategy, do you see yourself using some of the other tools that we've rolled out? We really do. We've really appreciated the Lighthouse IQ Case Strategy system and method for allowing us to do our work most efficiently and effectively for our clients. That said, I think with the advent of all the AI technologies and the implementation of those into the Lighthouse suite of tools that we've been talking about, we're really, really excited to leverage those materials and do more with them. In particular, the IQ Answers. We're really excited to, to try out on our next case to really help our teams and allow our teams to leverage the information that we're able to glean most quickly from, again, a large set of documents. That's great. Karl, thank you so much for spending time with us today. We really appreciate your partnership. Absolutely. Thank you, Stacy.

Hear how Eric Wieder and his team at Baker Botts uses LighthouseIQ get more control over when and how we review data.

Hear how Bryan Marra of Arnold & Porter uses IQ Case Strategy to get to insight faster. Hi Bryan. Hey Stacy. Good To see you. Why don't we start out by just sharing a little bit about your role at Arnold & Porter and the, the types of matters that you handle? So my practice focuses on merger investigations, the second requests, antitrust conduct investigations from the government and also merger litigation and other antitrust litigation. My specialty is really driving the eDiscovery process, um, helping clients use technology to drive more efficient outcomes for them in eDiscovery and complying with these government requests.Why don't You share a little bit about your use of LighthouseIQ, how it's helped you with your clients? Sure. So I used IQ Case Strategy. It was an antitrust litigation and we were facing trial in federal and state court in a matter of months. It was a very aggressive deposition schedule. We had over 30 depositions coming up in a matter of weeks, and we had a production population of over 23 million documents to look through.So how are we gonna tackle that? We could have done this the old fashioned way, hired an army of contract attorneys or used firm attorneys to basically sift through millions of documents, maybe use search terms to winnow it down, but then look at the results. It would've taken a long time, but instead we used IQ Case Strategy. So we worked with a small team of experts, linguists technologists, and we trained them on basically what they were looking for in terms of documents, what the case themes were about the witnesses. And they started delivering documents to us in a week. They kept up a weekly schedule basically to keep up with the depositions.They ultimately did depo prep kits for over 30 depositions and it worked well. I mean, out of 23 million documents, they surfaced thousands of the key documents and they surfaced them early enough for us to get insights and use them for prep in advance before the depositions. You mentioned using linguists and our Lighthouse team. How did pairing Lighthouse expertise with our LighthouseIQ technology help have a better outcome for you? The team we worked with, they basically developed classifiers and linguistic models, uh, using your technology to essentially identify key documents and it ended up being a really a seamless process. I mean, we thought the documents they came up with were relevant and were key documents and we thought it was an excellent use case.Maybe share a little bit what was the biggest impact of using LighthouseIQ? I mean, it was definitely the cost and time saving that was involved. I mean, we basically avoided having to do a massive document review effort, which would've cost the client a lot of money. And so by using this technology, we were able to short circuit having to do that and do things in a more efficient and focused way to get actionable intelligence that we could use, um, right away with our depositions and for the litigation strategy. So now that we've rolled out other applications, I know you've used some of them, but what are your overall thoughts of like using LighthouseIQ more broadly in the future? Yeah, I definitely see use cases to use more of LighthouseIQ technology.I mean, how I use AI is really to make eDiscovery more efficient for my clients to save money, to do things in a more focused way. And I can see use cases for IQ Answers. I'm, I'm looking forward to using that application for early case assessment to help clients find out what's in their documents at an early point to help focus the case strategy ahead of time. Maybe share a little bit more about how early insights really helps you and your teams. Definitely. So in merger investigations, finding out what's in your documents at an early point can be crucial.Oftentimes you produce like a million documents to the government and you don't really know what's in them ahead of time. But if you can know what's in your documents at an early point, it can really help you drive case strategy ahead of time. I Know you've used it on some large matters, but think about how, how would you use it on small matters or how you're thinking about the use of AI in the future. So I think size isn't really the main factor. I mean, clients are always looking to save money and they're always looking to find out more intelligence about their documents at an early point. And I think even in smaller matters, smaller investigations, this could be a way to see what's in your documents at an early point to drive case strategy.I look forward to using IQ Answers to do that, what I've seen of it that looks great and, and I think will help me in my practice for my clients. That's Great. Why don't you share a little bit about how you think about the use of AI in your practice? Really, AI helps you move from broad-based review solutions towards more focused actionable intelligence. And that's what we're trying to do in my practice to help clients use technology to find out more about their documents ahead of time to get through, you know, what would've been a massive costly undertaking much faster and more efficiently by using ai. And that's how I see my role is sort of being someone that uses this technology to drive these outcomes for my clients.Thank you so much for your time, Bryan. Really a pleasure to have this conversation with you. It was great speaking with you.

In every matter, there's a moment that changes everything. The moment information turns into understanding the moment, every decision becomes clearer, faster. The moment you can act with confidence, get to that moment quicker with LighthouseIQ, where intelligence meets performance. Hello and welcome. I'm Stacy Ybarra, Chief Marketing Officer at Lighthouse. Earlier this year we introduced LighthouseIQ, our eDiscovery platform, designed to bring earlier insight and greater control to the discovery lifecycle. Today you'll hear directly from clients putting that approach into practice. You'll also see how it helps legal teams stay flexible, whether they're managing complex matters today, or planning for how review platforms will evolve. To ground in how LighthouseIQ was built to support that flexibility, I'll turn it over to Iram Arras, our head of product and engineering. Iram. Thanks, Stacy. I'm Iram Arras, Senior Vice President of Product and Engineering at Lighthouse. My role is to make sure what we build actually works in the real world - not just in a controlled demo, but on live matters at scale when timelines are tight and consequences are real. Before joining Lighthouse, I spent time at Microsoft where the teams I worked with built Purview eDiscovery, which is used by many of the largest organizations in the world. That experience shaped how I think about this space. Legal technology has to be scalable, dependable, and defensible, and designed for pressure. Otherwise it doesn't matter how impressive it sounds. Since LighthouseIQ launched, a lot of questions I've been hearing are less about what it is and more about how it's different and why it was built the way it was. Lighthouse has been working with large language models and applied AI well before this technology became a headline. That gave us time to focus on the work behind the scenes, tuning models to handle real world scale, dialing in precision through continuous refinement, and building the safeguards that make them trustworthy in practice. The result is a platform teams can rely on day in and day out. From a product perspective, LighthouseIQ is a purpose-built eDiscovery intelligence platform with two core parts: IQ Applications that address specific high value workflows and IQ fabric, which is the foundation that weaves everything together. The goal is straightforward, help legal teams understand their data faster, make better decisions and control costs without compromising quality or defensibility. Today LighthouseIQ includes four core production grade applications designed for scale, accuracy, and consistency. Each built specifically for real eDiscovery workflows and already in use on complex matters. They are: IQ Answers, which allows teams to ask direct questions of their data and get immediate reliable answers; IQ Case Strategy helps translate insight into action; IQ Review delivers high quality relevance and classification across large data sets with speed and repeatability; IQ Priv provides precise privilege identification and logging, giving teams confidence in their outcomes. Underneath all of this is IQ Fabric, which brings together three core capabilities: Processing that standardizes data at massive scale while preserving fidelity; Cognition that helps interpret content and surface meaningful insights; Orchestration that connects workflows, tools and teams so work moves forward smoothly. Together these capabilities turn raw data into real action at scale and speed modern eDiscovery demands. That's the thinking behind LighthouseIQ and how we're seeing it used today. To illustrate how this works practice, Stacy sat down with Bryan Marra from Arnold & Porter to talk about how they use LighthouseIQ. Hi Bryan. Hey Stacy. Good to see you. Why don't we start out by just sharing a little bit about your role at Arnold & Porter and the types of matters that you handle? So my practice focuses on merger investigations and second requests, antitrust conduct investigations from the government and also merger litigation and other antitrust litigation. My specialty is really driving the eDiscovery process - helping clients use technology to drive more efficient outcomes for them in eDiscovery in complying with these government requests. Why don't you share a little bit about your use of LighthouseIQ and how it's helped you with your clients. Sure. So I used IQ Case Strategy. It was an antitrust litigation and we were facing trial in federal and state court in a matter of months. It was a very aggressive deposition schedule. We had over 30 depositions coming up in a matter of weeks and we had a production population of over 23 million documents to look through. So how are we going to tackle that? We could have done this the old fashioned way - hired an army of contract attorneys or used firm attorneys to basically sift through millions of documents, maybe used search terms to winnow it down, but then look at the results. It would've taken a long time. But instead, we used IQ Case Strategy. So we worked with a small team of experts, linguists, technologists, and we trained them on basically what they were looking for in terms of documents, what the case themes were about the witnesses, and they started delivering documents to us in a week. They kept up a weekly schedule, basically, to keep up with the depositions. They ultimately did depo prep kits for over 30 depositions and it worked well. Out of 23 million documents, they surfaced thousands of the key documents and they surfaced them early enough for us to get insights and use them for prep in advance before the depositions. You mentioned using linguists and our Lighthouse team. How did pairing Lighthouse expertise with our LighthouseIQ technology help have a better outcome for you? The team we worked with, they basically developed classifiers and linguistic models using your technology to essentially identify key documents and it ended up being a really a seamless process. We thought the documents they came up with were relevant and were key documents and we thought it was an excellent use case. Maybe share a little bit, what was the biggest impact of using LighthouseIQ? It was definitely the cost and time saving that was involved. I mean, we basically avoided having to do a massive document review effort, which would've cost the client a lot of money. And so by using this technology, we were able to short circuit having to do that and do things in a more efficient and focused way to get actionable intelligence that we could use right away with our depositions and for the litigation strategy. So now that we've rolled out other applications, I know you've used some of them, but what are your overall thoughts of using LighthouseIQ more broadly in the future? I definitely see use cases to use more of LighthouseIQ technology. I mean, how I use AI is really to make eDiscovery more efficient for my clients - to save money, to do things in a more focused way. I can see use cases for IQ Answers. I'm looking forward to using that application for early case assessment to help clients find out what's in their documents at an early point and to help focus the case strategy ahead of time. Maybe share a little bit more about how early insights really help you and your teams. Definitely. So in merger investigations, finding out what's in your documents at an early point can be crucial. Oftentimes you produce like a million documents to the government and you don't really know what's in them ahead of time, but if you can know what's in your documents at an early point, it can really help you drive case strategy ahead of time. I know you've used it on some large matters, but think about how would you use it on small matters or how you're thinking about the use of AI in the future. So I think size isn't really the main factor. Clients are always looking to save money and they're always looking to find out more intelligence about their documents at an early point. And I think even in smaller matters, smaller investigations, this could be a way to see what's in your documents at an early point to drive case strategy. I look forward to using IQ Answers to do that. What I've seen of it, it looks great and I think will help me in my practice for my clients. That's great. Why don't you share a little bit about how you think about the use of AI in your practice? Really, AI helps you move from broad-based review solutions towards more focused actionable intelligence and that's what we're trying to do in my practice - to help clients use technology to find out more about their documents ahead of time to get through what would've been a massive costly undertaking much faster and more efficiently by using AI. And that's how I see my role, is sort of being someone that uses this technology to drive these outcomes for my clients. Thank you so much for your time, Bryan. Really a pleasure to have this conversation with you. It was great speaking with you. Wow, that was a great conversation. What Bryan described is a model where intelligence comes first, giving your team flexibility before committing to full review. Iram, help us understand how LighthouseIQ was designed to support that approach as platforms continue to evolve. Customers are rightly asking two related questions: What happens with the retirement of Relativity Server in 2028? How will they reduce risk when changing something as central as a review platform? Our answer is straightforward. We reduce this risk by moving intelligence earlier in the lifecycle. So the choice of review platform matters far less than it does today. LighthouseIQ is designed to manage this transition seamlessly. It does not force workflow changes and it does not require customers to retool how they operate. Matters continue to move through LighthouseIQ without a dependency on Relativity Server because the platform is not tied to any single review tool or even to the assumption that documents must be reviewed in a traditional system at all. That flexibility is deliberate. Customers can choose how and where they review documents, if they choose to review them. LighthouseIQ sits above those decisions, providing consistent intelligence regardless of the tools underneath. And to be clear, we remain fully committed to Relativity and will continue to offer RelativityOne as a review option when it's the right fit for a matter. What fundamentally changes is where value is created. That shift is what gives customers more control, more optionality, and far less risk as the ecosystem evolves. With that context, it's more meaningful to hear how this plays out in practice. So next you'll hear directly from Eric Wieder at Baker Botts about how LighthouseIQ is helping their teams navigate these changes and deliver better outcomes on real matters. Hi Eric. Thank you so much for joining us today. I'd love to just hear a little bit about your role at Baker Botts and the type of matters that you oversee. Absolutely. So I am Senior eDiscovery Council at Baker Botts. I've been working in the eDiscovery industry for over 20 years and my role is across the spectrum of the EDRM from collection through production with a focus on review and I've managed many large second requests, multi-district litigation, both civil and criminal cases. I wanted to start out talking about Relativity and the announcement of Server going away in January, 2028 and curious, how does that operationally affect your team and how you think about eDiscovery? So in terms to the transition from Server to RelOne, we're not looking to replace Relativity. We're looking for an AI platform that will extract intelligent data from our clients and seamlessly integrate into Relativity for the benefit of our matter teams. This is what LighthouseIQ does. So tell me a little bit more, expand on that, on how LighthouseIQ will help you with that transition. LighthouseIQ gives us more control over when and how we're going to review the data. It used to be you collect the data and you review it linearly. LighthouseIQ gives us the chance to break it up into parts and review in a prioritized way to the benefit of the case. You've used IQ Priv for some of your cases. Can you share a little about that experience and how it's helped you? Yeah, so we have used the GenAI component of IQ Priv to assist us with our privilege log. As you know, the burden of preparing a privilege log is costly and expensive for our clients. We've been able to use the GenAI tool to more efficiently review documents and then perform a heavy QC so that we could submit a log that is less likely to be contested by the regulators. I understand you've used IQ Answers for some of your matters. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on how you've used it and how it's helped support your team? We have used IQ Answers on two different matters. One a second request, a second one a criminal litigation. In both instances, IQ Answers was very helpful in getting to the question of particular issues quicker than you would normally do just searching a Relativity database. Using an iterative process, we were able to get to the answer for the matter team in a short amount of time. Eric, it's been great spending time with you today. Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with us. Really appreciate you and appreciate the partnership with Lighthouse and Baker Botts. My pleasure, thank you. Wow, another insightful conversation. What Eric just described reinforces that this isn't about swapping platforms, it's about moving intelligence earlier so your teams are much less dependent on the review tools, or norms, at any one point in time. Iram, as you look ahead to 2028 and beyond, bring this all together for us. What does this shift really mean for legal teams as we look ahead to the future? Thanks, Stacy. What it comes down to is when legal teams get clarity. What you heard from Eric around IQ Answers is about getting meaningful insight earlier, while there's still time to shape strategy and make better decisions. When teams understand their data sooner, they can narrow scope, focus on what actually matters, and move forward with a far more confidence. That early clarity changes everything that follows. Decisions are more deliberate, costs are easier to control, and teams spend their time acting on insight instead of searching for it. That's the value of early intelligence and that's the direction we're building toward with LighthouseIQ. Hi Karl. Hi Stacy. How are you doing today? Good. It's good to see you. Good to see you too. Thanks for spending a little time with us today. Why don't you start out by telling us a little bit more about your role at Kirkland & Ellis, and the types of matters that you handle? Yeah, I'm a partner at Kirkland. My practice really involves the intersection of traditional discovery, preparing documents for production, meeting discovery obligations and the like, and preparing case strategy, digging into the facts, understanding what those documents all show largely in the mass court context. So large, very high-value litigation where facts and understanding the facts is really important. So you just talked a little bit about case strategy, I'd love to hear more about how you've used IQ Case Strategy. In litigation, it's really important that we understand what's in the materials, especially early on in the case. It's important to develop case strategy that's based on the actual evidence, based on the actual facts. We've, for a long time, been partnering with the Lighthouse team and members of the Lighthouse team to help us weed through, cull through, the vast amount of material that often gets collected and produced in a case to really focus on what matters. It's important to be able to cull through those and really develop case themes, understand how particular issues are addressed in the documents, and then really leverage that information to be able to build out case themes, case arguments, develop our strategy for the case. And I think you've used IQ Case Strategy for depo prep in the past. Yeah, and we've actually in a number of our cases, really been able to leverage the deposition preparation to have our team focus on the substance of the case. Not spending time weaving through a hundred thousand documents produced for a custodian, but, focusing on the 100, 200, 300 that really matter the most for that person. It allows our team to focus on the substance as opposed to trying to figure out where in the vast universe of documents out there that information is. That's great. So maybe touch a little bit on how AI is changing how you handle your client work at Kirkland. Yeah, it's a really exciting time, I think for the entire field. I literally started in 2010 working on deposition prep where I had partners who printed off tens of thousands of documents on hard paper and we would sift through them, flipping through them and putting sticky notes on them. Since then, we've come a long way. The technology we have, especially with the evolving AI technologies, allows us to do more, more work and more effectively. Early on a case understanding what the materials are, what the issues are, what the evidence shows, what the document shows. We're able to build out better case strategies that help our clients, achieve their goals in litigation. So now that we've rolled out the full suite of applications under LighthouseIQ, I'm curious, beyond IQ Case Strategy, do you see yourself using some of the other tools that we've rolled out? We really do. We've really appreciated the IQ Case Strategy system and method for allowing us to do our work most efficiently and effectively for our clients. That said, I think with the advent of all the AI technologies and the implementation of those into the Lighthouse suite of tools that we've been talking about, we're really, really excited to leverage those materials and do more with them. In particular, IQ Answers, we're really excited to try out on our next case to really help our teams and allow our teams to leverage the information that we're able to glean most quickly from, again, a large set of documents. That's great. Karl, thank you so much for spending time with us today. We really appreciate your partnership. Absolutely. Thank you, Stacy. As we shared in January, we made IQ Answers available as a risk-free trial. IQ Answers is built on a simple promise: ask anything, get accurate answers. It allows teams to extract insight immediately before committing to a full review. In just the past few weeks, dozens of customers have already applied it to millions of their own documents. To show you how that works in practice, I'd like to bring in Cassie Blum, our Senior Director of AI and Analytics. She'll walk through a brief demonstration. Imagine you are an attorney general suing a pharmaceutical company that manufactures a synthetic opioid spray and you're alleging racketeering. You've received 1.5 million documents in production and your team has three weeks before the next case management conference. Traditional review would've meant that you would spend months and likely millions of dollars to interrogate your data. Let's see what IQ Answers can do in the next several minutes. First off, I'm gonna just ask general questions within my dataset, to get a sense of what was going on with this product, who it was prescribed for, and what was happening with those prescriptions. So I'm typing a question about that generally to see what that returns for me. You'll notice here at the end of the query that you get an overall answer, but you also get topics surfaced for you along with citations that match each of these topics that highlight the particularly important parts of the document that can help lead you to the conclusions that are surfaced for you with IQ Answers. So here we see that this was a spray that was approved for breakthrough cancer pain and that that was the FDA intent of the approval. But what I'm also seeing in these topics that is being surfaced for me is that a lot of off-label prescription for non-cancer pain is apparently going on with this product. And I can tell that from these particular documents that I've clicked on here along with the citations where I'm seeing a hundred plus prescriptions a month that are off-label. Well that's interesting. Now I'm also seeing that the salesforce has been explicitly instructed to prioritize high volume opioid prescription writers, regardless of their specialty and regardless of what's happening with that prescription. And I can click into the documents and see that the volume is what is driving here. And then I also can look and see that there's been awareness internally that the approved indication from the FDA is not actually matching the patient population. So that's very interesting. It seems like we definitely have some use here that it was not intended and I could figure that out in about 30 seconds in IQ Answers; I have the foundation. So if the drug is approved for cancer pain, but the company is deliberately targeting non-cancer patients, that's definitely a gap from the FDA approval. And so let's understand how they're going about making this happen. How are they getting doctors to keep writing these prescriptions? I'm gonna go ahead and ask an additional question of IQ Answers to figure out what they're doing to get this volume of prescriptions written. In particular, I noticed that there was something about speaker engagements that they were doing with doctors. So I'm gonna ask about those speaker engagements. You'll see here that basically the speaker engagement program was a way for them to pay doctors for prescriptions. I can see that they were tracking the ROI of those speaker payments as compared to the amount of prescriptions a doctor was writing. And I can also see from the documents and the citations that if they did not feel that a doctor was writing enough prescriptions, they were no longer part of these speaking events, and thus paid through these speaking events. I also see these speaking events are not really genuine educational activity and it looks like the company was aware of this and was terminating doctors when they were not writing enough prescriptions to satisfy the amount of money that they were giving the doctors. So this all does not look very great for them in terms of how these programs were essentially bribery of these doctors. So, if they're bribing the doctors, that still doesn't answer for me what's happening with the insurance companies. The product costs thousands of dollars a month and insurance companies wouldn't just approve that without any questions. So Vantage clearly needed a way to get these insurers to pay. Let me ask about that. I'm gonna type in a question about their programs to deal with the insurance companies and the way in which they instructed their employees. All right, so now I see in my answer that they had created what was called a Vantage Reimbursement Center that was essentially their way of tracking the approvals from the insurance companies. And it looks like from the topics that's being surfaced here, that they were also using it as a vehicle to instruct their staff on how to deceive the insurance companies. In particular here, you can see in this document where they talk about using particular types of language, lingo, or diagnoses to get the insurance companies to approve the use of these drugs for the written prescriptions. But it also looks like they know that these are false statements that are being made when they are talking with the insurance companies. You can see here they're tracking and they want a 100% authorization success rate. So they're essentially giving all of their employees the way to beat the system and to cheat the insurance company and to get them to approve something under false pretenses. So, I now have two parallel fraud streams that are emerging here. One to bribe doctors to write prescriptions, one to deceive insurance companies to pay. For a RICO case I also need to know that this was coming directly from management and from the top. So let's see if I can find that out in the dataset and ask a question about that to help me win my conviction. Alright, so now I'm gonna ask in particular, what evidence do we have that the CEO knew about this speaker program and this insurance program? Now that I'm asking this of the documents, what I can see here that is surfacing is that in fact the CEO did have direct knowledge and there's multiple documents that substantiate this. And in particular you can see this one here where he personally directs a speaker fee increase that is tied to prescription volume. In this document, you would have him talking about different tiers of speaker programs and that someone is no longer going to be invited to be a part of these speaker programs if they are not writing a certain amount of prescriptions. There's one here that surfaces a document where a hundred percent of the authorization success rate is something that he is directing and he's also calling for in the data. You also see here that I have additional follow-up questions that I can be asked that are being surfaced by IQ Answers that will help me investigate and interrogate each one of these particular questions and the information I found up in these questions. But overall, it looks like I, in a matter of minutes, have been able to find key documents and important fact timelines that help me substantiate my case and know that I have a good chance of success moving forward and make me feel set up really well for my next case management conference. Stacy, I'm gonna send it back over to you. Thank you, Cassie. Given the strong response we've seen, we are extending the IQ Answers risk-free trial. If you'd like to get started, visit iq-answers.com and explore how it can help your team surface insight earlier, narrow scope faster, and make more confident decisions. And if you'll be at Legalweek, we'd welcome the opportunity to connect in person and talk through how LighthouseIQ can support your matters and your priorities. And if not, we're also happy to set up time to meet with you at your convenience. Thank you again for spending time with us today, and we look forward to continuing the conversation.

Join Lighthouse Senior Director of AI & Analytics, Cassie Blum, for a quick demo of IQ Answers inside of LighthouseIQ. Today, I'll show you how LighthouseIQ transforms your entire workflow. For this time together, we'll focus on trial and deposition prep from high level research to comprehensive interview kits. I wish I had time to show you all of LighthouseIQ, but today we're going to focus on IQ Answers and IQ Case Strategy. Let's just dive right on into Lighthouse IQ Answers. I am trying to get an early assessment of what's in my data. Specifically, how did one of my custodians interact with the subject matter at dispute? So I have custodian Jane Hopper that I would like to know what her involvement was with that campaign. So I'm going to type in this question. What was Jane Hopper's involvement with JUUL's youth marketing strategy and appeal to minors? And when we talk about how it analyzes your data, IQ Fabric is doing something proprietary that's a little different from other tools on the market that helps with both its accuracy and its scale. The way in which specifically that we chunk the data for analysis is unique to us in that we make sure with our proprietary chunker, that we are not cutting through sentences or themes. That we are leaving those intact for when we are doing the underlying query. The other thing that it's doing for you is it's surfacing follow up questions for you. So you'll see here I have additional lines of inquiry I can undertake now as a result of what has surfaced in this original question that I queried. So now if I click ask in these, it will run that question for me. And similarly, I now have those results returning to me with document IDs, with highlighting and with citations in the particular record. Now let's switch to IQ Case Strategy. This is the stage of your case where mistakes and miss data cannot happen. It's critical for your frontline litigators to be armed with all the proper data and insights for your matter. So continuing to inquiry Jane Hopper's data set, I'm now inside of the deposition summary for this particular custodian. You'll see here that I not only have a summary, but I have several other important artifacts that are going to help me navigate my trial prep. I have topics that have also been surfaced, and so if I look at these topics, I can click into them and I can see a chronological summary of the key events in this topic. I can also see who is communicating about it. And, if I want to learn even more about those communicants, I can click into our communications widget where I see not only who these folks are and what the particular discourse was, but we see sentiment in here as well. I also have the ability to add a note or a transcript here if I'm collaborating with others in my case or just for my own purposes of preparation. And as with all things in LighthouseIQ, we also have the ability to use AI with natural language query to ask a question of the dataset. It is really a whole ecosystem that will let you interact with your data. And there you'll see, and I've typed in, did Jane Hopper express concern about JUUL's compliance with youth prevention playbook for international marketing? And again, I will see that an answer is returned for me that helps me get additional insight into that from this deposition. This is just a little bit of what you can see in LighthouseIQ. Hopefully you get a flavor of what's possible with IQ Answers and IQ Case Strategy.

Introducing LighthouseIQ: A next-generation intelligence platform and AI application suite designed to provide legal and compliance teams with earlier insights, regulatory defensibility, and significant cost savings.Learn more about LighthouseIQ.Transcript:In every matter, there's a moment that changes everything. The moment information turns into understanding the moment, every decision becomes clearer, faster, the moment you connect with confidence. At Lighthouse, that moment is what we build for.We innovate with purpose to empower legal teams to act with clarity and confidence.We deliver value today while shaping what comes next, and now we take the next step together. Hello and welcome. Thank you for joining us today.I'm Stacy Ibarra, chief Marketing Officer at Lighthouse. We are thrilled to have you join us for the announcement of our battle tested platform that is truly groundbreaking, one that will drive significant new business value for you. A true game changer.Lighthouse has taken advantage of advancements in AI and large language models to provide you with a solution that gives you continuous innovation insight the moment you need it, with no limits to speed or scale, it is secure, trusted, and already regulator approved. Here's what you can expect in today's webcast.First, you'll hear from Lighthouse CEO Ron Markit, Ron Mul unveil how Lighthouse is bringing the power of AI to you in a way that is grounded in real workflows and real results. We'll share a demo that shows how we deliver insight the moment you need it. I'll also speak with two of our clients who are already putting this into practice on complex matters, under real deadlines and real scrutiny.And we'll close by sharing how you can experience this firsthand through an opportunity to trial one of our applications. And with that, I'll turn it over to Lighthouse, CEO, Ron Marcus. Thank you Stacy, and thank you all for joining us.I'm Ron Markezich, CEO of Lighthouse. Before joining Lighthouse three years ago, I spent 27 years at Microsoft.The bulk of my time at Microsoft was helping build and scale Microsoft 365. I joined Lighthouse because I saw a huge opportunity to create more value for the eDiscovery industry. Through both great expertise at Lighthouse and an awesome AI based technology platform that existed.Lighthouse is a pioneer with large language models and ai. Before AI became headlines everywhere. Over the last three years, we've been putting that AI foundation to work, refining it, pressure testing on real matters, and deliberately building towards this moment.Today we're announcing availability of LighthouseIQ. LighthouseIQ is where intelligence meets performance.It's a purpose-built eDiscovery intelligence solution made up of two core layers IQ applications designed to address your specific business needs and IQ fabric as the foundation that weaves everything together. LighthouseIQ is built to accept data from any source system because you always own your data. In LighthouseIQ, we're committed to meeting you exactly where your business needs require.LighthouseIQ is designed to help legal teams understand their data faster, act smarter and save money. LighthouseIQ embeds intelligence and all you do to make new opportunities possible Today, LighthouseIQ includes four applications designed specifically for eDiscovery workflows. These applications work seamlessly together and are already proven on some of the world's largest and most complex matters.These are not chatbots. They're production grade AI powered applications.IQ Answers allows you to ask anything of your data set and receive immediate accurate answers. IQ Case Strategy helps you create sharper strategies and smarter actions because we know inside alone doesn't win cases Action does. IQ Review delivers reliable relevance and high quality classification at scale and speed across your entire data.Corpus IQ Priv generates precise privilege identification and logging given you confidence in your outcomes. This is intelligence that works at the moments you need it. IQ Fabric is the foundational element of LighthouseIQ that weaves everything together into one solution.The power of IQ Fabric comes from three innovative capabilities. Processing standardizes at massive scale preserves fidelity and handles every data format cognition so you can quickly and accurately interpret content.Surface key insights and deepen understanding of your data. Orchestration connects workflows and coordinates tools and teams to power seamless execution. Together these capabilities turn raw data into real actions at any scale and speed your business demands.Enough of me talking. Let's show you. I want to introduce Cassie Blum, a senior director at Lighthouse who has been bringing LighthouseIQ to life for clients.Thanks, Ron. Today I'll show you how LighthouseIQ transforms your entire workflow. For this time together we'll focus on trial and deposition prep from high level research to comprehensive interview kits.I wish I had time to show you all of LighthouseIQ, but today we're gonna focus on IQ Answers and IQ Case Strategy. Let's just dive right on into LighthouseIQ answers. I am trying to get an early assessment of what's in my data.Specifically how did one of my custodians interact with the subject matter at dispute? So I have custodian Jane Hopper that I would like to know what her involvement was with that campaign. So I'm gonna type in this question.What was Jane Hopper's involvement with Jules Youth marketing strategy and appeal to miners? And when we talk about how it analyzes your data, LighthouseIQ Fabric is doing something proprietary that's a little different from other tools on the market that helps with both its accuracy and its scale. The way in which specifically that we chunk the data for analysis is unique to us in that we make sure with our proprietary chunker that we are not cutting through sentences or themes that we are leaving those intact for when we are doing the underlying query.The other thing that it's doing for you is it's surfacing follow up questions for you. So you'll see here I have additional lines of inquiry I can undertake now as a result of what has surfaced in this original question that I queried. So now if I click ask in these, it will run that question for me.And similarly, I now have those results returning to me with document IDs, with highlighting and with citations in the particular record. Now let's switch to IQ Case Strategy. This is the stage of your case where mistakes and miss data cannot happen.It's critical for your frontline litigators to be armed with all the proper data and insights for your matter. So continuing to inquiry Jane Hopper's data set, I'm now inside of the deposition summary for this particular custodian. You'll see here that I not only have a summary, but I have several other important artifacts that are gonna help me navigate my trial prep.I have topics that have also been surfaced, and so if I look at these topics, I can click into them and I can see a chronological summary of the key events in this topic. I can also see who is communicating about it. And if I want to learn even more about those communicants, I can click into our communications widget where I see not only who these folks are and what the particular discourse was, but we see sentiment in here as well.I also have the ability to add a note or a transcript here if I'm collaborating with others in my case or just for my own purposes of preparation. And as with all things in LighthouseIQ, we also have the ability to use AI with natural language query to ask a question of the dataset. It is really a whole ecosystem that will let you interact with your data.And there you'll see, and I've typed in did Jane Hopper express concern about JUULs compliance with Youth Prevention Playbook for international marketing? And again, I will see that an answer is returned for me. That helps me get additional insight into that from this deposition.This is just a little bit of what you can see in LighthouseIQ. Hopefully you get a flavor of what's possible with IQ Answers and IQ K strategy, iq, priv, and IQ Review are incredibly powerful as well. We'll have clients here in a bit that have used all four applications who will share more.We'd also love to follow up to show you the full set of LighthouseIQ capabilities when you have time. But for now, I'll send it back to Ron. Thank you Cassie.I always love seeing how LighthouseIQ can empower our clients. What makes LighthouseIQ different is not just the technology, it's the expertise behind it. We have a seasoned team of eDiscovery professionals.Lighthouse averages under 8% annual attrition, which is excellent for any industry, but that also means our teams remain consistent and committed to your business to serve your needs. That expertise shows up for clients every single day because we know technology alone does not deliver successful outcomes. Lighthouse also remains committed to Relativity as a core part of our platform, relativity is a common review platform for the clients we serve.Our strategy is not to disrupt what already works. It is to enhance it. We will continue our strong partnerships in tight integration with Relativity.Ensuring LighthouseIQ delivers intelligence fully integrated with Relativity. We built LighthouseIQ to support the most complex client needs while also scaling seamlessly to small matters so you can trust one platform for all of your eDiscovery work to earn that trust. LighthouseIQ is modern by design as we keep innovating, incorporating both Lighthouse technology and leading innovation from across the industry.So the platform is always improving and you are not locked in to any one single software provider. It's built for early intelligence so you don't have to wait for documents to move through an entire workflow before gaining insight. You can get intelligence immediately because we serve some of the world's largest and most complicated matters.It was important to ensure LighthouseIQ has unlimited speed and scale. There are absolutely no limits on the number of documents in your matters or meeting your aggressive deadlines. We also know how important it is for LighthouseIQ to be secure, trusted, and accepted by regulators.So we made this solution defensible by design from the beginning. As I mentioned earlier, LighthouseIQ has been battle tested on some of the world's largest and most complex eDiscovery matters. To date, we've analyzed over 1.4 billion documents with LighthouseIQ, including multiple matters exceeding 25 million documents.In fact, we have had a recent matter with 33 million documents analyzed by LighthouseIQ in hours not days. There are no limits to our scale and we will help you meet the most aggressive of your deadlines. And yes, LighthouseIQ has been accepted by the FTC and DOJ, but don't just take it from us.Stacy will come back and speak with a couple of our clients about their experience with LighthouseIQ. Welcome back Stacy. Thanks Ron.We've been fortunate to have industry leaders involved in the development of these products. They've helped guide and shape LighthouseIQ. They've been generous enough to share their time to tell us how they've used LighthouseIQ.I had a chance to sit down with Robert Keeling at Redgrave. He's been in the industry for over 20 years and brings a lot of experience. Hi Robert.I know you're a super busy guy. You've got lots going on at Redgrave. I really appreciate you taking the time to come talk about LighthouseIQ with us today.Oh, thank you. Happy to do so. We have, several matters ongoing with you guys where we're using the LighthouseIQ tool in real time, so I'm excited to talk about it.I know, I think you were coming in earlier with your phone already talking about a matter with one of our, our team members. Yes. I happen to be, on a call with one of your colleagues right before this about about a matter that I'm working with you guys on.so yes, look, looking forward to our discussion. Tell us a little bit about your role at Redgrave. Yes, I'm co-managing partner at Redgrave.and in my practice I work with clients across a range of industries, on their litigations and white collar matters. specifically I partner with Merits counsel and we handle the discovery, both the document review, the privilege review process, and more technical aspects of discovery, for our clients, to try and make the discovery process as efficient and as effective as possible. Great.Congratulations on your new title, by the Way. Thank you. I appreciate it.Why don't you tell me a little bit about your experience using IQ proof? Obviously using the tool to identify privileged communications is really effective and we've had a lot of success. But equally effective is using the tool to help identify what documents are not privilege.And that can really make a review much more efficient, much more effective. For example, we can take documents that they may hit on common privileged generic terms like, like privilege or, or, or legal, but we then look to see, well, what does the Priv IQ tool say about these documents?And if the tool is saying these documents are are not privileged or unlikely to be privileged, we don't review those documents. and instead we'll just have them go out the door without human review, which significantly decreases the overall cost of the radio. Why don't you tell me a little bit about using the tool for priv logging?Yes, we've been working with the Lighthouse team, for IQ for logging now for over two years. and at present, the the technology I would say is rather remarkable. It is, at least as comparable to human review, for creating log entries.I personally think it's superior to human review when that review is set up to have a dropdown or so-called pick list for all options of the prologue in including after the reline. And so what we've done is we worked with the Lighthouse team to have the IQ footprint tool create log entries, for real matters, that have gone out after QC from us, but otherwise without the involvement of a large contract attorney team, which has really replaced a substantial pain point for the discovery process, privilege logging is oftentimes one of the most expensive and tedious parts of discovery. And having a tool like IQ for PRIV replaced that, at least on the human side has, is really I think a significant game changer for us and has led to a lot of efficiencies for our clients.Love to hear your experience with IQ Review and also what difference it made in knowing that this approach has been approved by the FTC and DOJ. I have deep experience with the IQ four review tool. It is the tool of choice when we're working with Lighthouse on second requests, both before the DOJ and the FTC.the FTC and DOJ routinely approve use of IQ four review on second request matters, and we've had good success employing them across very large billion dollar. Second request matters that have been very complex and detailed where we've had to comply on tight timelines. I know you've used IQ Answers in the past.I'd love to hear your experience with that and outcomes that you've been able to achieve. So IQ Answers has been really helpful for us in several matters. For example, we had a matter where we had to respond to very detailed interrogatory requests, and we did, I had very detailed responses.after submitting them though, the receiving party threatened to go to the court on us because they said that we had not cited any documents in our responses. So very quickly we worked with the Lighthouse team and the IQ Answers tool and used the IQ Answers tool, to essentially identify documents relating to each of our interrogatory responses. We basically fed the interrogatory into the tool and our answer, and it provided numerous documents that would support our answer.We then, supplemented our interrogatory responses with the documents identified by IQ Answers and avoided any, court involvement or a motion to compel. So it was a very successful, use of the tool. That's great.It's so great to hear how our clients are using and benefiting from LighthouseIQ. CJ Mahoney, a partner at Cleary Gotlieb has also been using the LighthouseIQ tools. Hi cj.Hey Stacy. It's good to see you. Well, you've had a good year this year with the bills in the playoffs and Miami and the national championship.It's been pretty good. just made partner this year too. But, Miami's probably the most important one of those three things Partner's pretty important to you.So why don't you introduce yourself and tell us a little bit more about your role and the matters you handle at Cleary. Sure. I have been the head of Cleary's eDiscovery Group for a number of years now.I have been at Cleary for about 20 years leading a team of over a hundred attorneys. We handle very large antitrust matters, litigations, other types of government investigations. We are dealing with really large data sets.And so our partnership with Lighthouse is incredibly important to us. Together, we've built a lot of great, tools and especially AI tools to help us, manage a lot of the challenges of these matters. So tell me a little bit of how you've used IQK strategy.Yeah, so, case strategy is really important for us at the start of matters. Prior to, a tool like this, we didn't really have an efficient way to get to key documents early that might make a difference in how we approach the case From a strategic perspective. With case strategy, we now have a much more efficient solution than manual review and boole and search terms to arrive at a really precise, useful population of key documents that helps us understand how to proceed in the case.A big example for me from the past few months is a contract dispute. our client had a dispute with one of their customers regarding cancellation of a contract. Our client felt that they had damages under the contract for the cancellation, but they wanted us to test their theories of damages.They also wanted us to use information from their dataset to help substantiate their damages claimed and arrive at a calculation using, case strategy. We were able to ask a number of prompts, arrive at some really good reporting and a population of around 6,000 documents to, review to substantiate that claim and to arrive at a damages calculation that's backed up by data. We actually benchmarked that against older standard processes and what a review would've looked like without case strategy and found that we would've had to review at least five times the amount of documents.So the savings are huge, but it's not just about the savings. We are actually able to find information that we probably would not have found without search terms. And, today's a huge day for us because just today, this matter settled, thanks to the work we did in case strategy.Our client was able to obtain really favorable monetary settlement. and as importantly, they were able to avoid, the court process in order to get that settlement. What a fantastic outcome.Yeah, it was really great. Would love to hear your experience with IQ Answers and how it's helped you solve big problems. We used IQ Review to arrive at a really precise production set.we were able to achieve nearly 90% precision. so much better than you would expect from traditional human review. But it does leave the issue of, okay, I've got this corpus of responsive documents.I now need to know what's in there as I'm making productions. We were getting pressure from the government regulator to make productions very quickly. So we were trying to identify portions of that responsive set, that could go out without any worry that we are producing concerning documents without fully understanding them.We ran these prompts over potential productions and we're able to identify many documents that were potentially concerning and hold them back from production. While we considered their importance, this was extremely meaningful to the client because although we eventually have to produce those documents, we really want to be able to understand and tell their story to the opposing party at the time of production. Thank you so much for your time, cj, thank you for the partnership.Well, thank you for the partnership. always happy to speak about our great experiences with Lighthouse. Thank you Robert and CJ for sharing your experience with us.As you heard, LighthouseIQ has already been battle tested on some of the largest and most complex matters in the world. The perspectives you just heard bring that proof to life and show what is possible when intelligence is brought forward and paired with experience. To understand the value of LighthouseIQ, we want you to experience it firsthand.The best way to do that is through IQ Answers, which we are making available through a risk-free trial for qualified clients. This allows you to see how quickly you can surface insight, gain clarity, and move forward with confidence on your next matter. There is no risk and immediate value.You can begin uncovering meaningful insights in minutes to get started. Visit IQ Answers.com. Well again, thank you for spending time with us today.We are excited about the benefit you'll receive from LighthouseIQ and we look forward to partnering with you.

Hear what Robert Keeling, Partner at Redgrave, has to say about LighthouseIQ in this interview with Lighthouse CMO, Stacy Ybarra. We have, several matters ongoing with you guys where we're using the LighthouseIQ tool in real time, so I'm excited to talk about it. Yes, I'm co-managing partner at Redgrave in my practice, I work with clients across a range of industries, on their litigations and white collar matters. specifically I partner with merits counsel and we handle the discovery, both the document review, the privilege review process, and more technical aspects of discovery, for our clients, to try and make the discovery process as efficient and as effective as possible. Obviously, using the tool to identify privileged communications is really effective and we've had a lot of success. But equally effective is using the tool to help identify what documents are not privileged. -. And that can really make a review much more efficient, much more effective. IQ Answers has been really helpful for us in several matters. For example, we had a matter where we had to respond to very detailed interrogatory requests, and we did, had very detailed responses. after submitting them though, the receiving party threatened to go to the court on us because they said that we had not cited any documents in our responses. So very quickly we worked with the Lighthouse team and the IQ Answers tool, and used the IQ Answers tool, to essentially identify documents relating to each of our interrogatory responses. We basically fed the interrogatory into the tool and our answer, and it provided numerous documents that would support our answer. We then, supplemented our interrogatory responses with the documents identified by IQ Answers and avoided any, court involvement or a motion to compel. So it was a very successful, use of the tool.

Hear what Christian J Mahoney, Partner at Cleary Gottlieb, has to say about LighthouseIQ in this interview with Lighthouse CMO, Stacy Ybarra. I have been the head of Cleary's eDiscovery Group for a number of years now. I have been at Cleary for about 20 years leading a team of over a hundred attorneys. We handle very large antitrust matters, litigations, other types of government investigations. We are dealing with really large data sets and so our partnership with Lighthouse is incredibly important to us. Together, we've built a lot of great, tools and especially AI tools to help us, manage a lot of the challenges of these matters. Case strategy is really important for us at the start of matters.Prior to, a tool like this, we didn't really have an efficient way to get to key documents early that might make a difference in how we approach the case. From a strategic perspective with case strategy, we now have a much more efficient solution than manual review and boole and search terms to arrive at a really precise, useful population of key documents that helps us understand how to proceed in the case. A big example for me from the past few months is a contract dispute. our client had a dispute with one of their customers regarding cancellation of a contract. Our client felt that they had damages under the contract for the cancellation, but they wanted us to test their theories of damages. They also wanted us to use information from their dataset to help substantiate their damages claimed and arrive at a calculation using, case strategy.We were able to ask a number of prompts, arrive at some really good reporting and a population of around 6, 000 documents to, review to substantiate that claim and to arrive at a damages calculation that's backed up by data. We actually benchmarked that against older standard processes and what a review would've looked like without case strategy and found that we would've had to review at least five times the amount of documents. So the savings are huge, but it's not just about the savings. We are actually able to find information that we probably would not have found without search terms. And, today's a huge day for us because just today, this matter settled. thanks to the work we did in case strategy.Our client was able To obtain really favorable monetary settlement, and as importantly, they were able to avoid, the court process in order to get that settlement. We were getting pressure from the government regulator to make productions very quickly, so we were trying to identify portions of that responsive set, that could go out without any worry that we are producing concerning documents without fully understanding them. We ran these prompts over potential productions and were able to identify many documents that were potentially concerning and hold them back from production. While we considered their importance, this was extremely meaningful to the client because although we eventually have to produce those documents, we really want to be able to understand and tell their story to the opposing party at the time of production.

Discover how LighthouseIQ applies machine learning to accelerate and improve image-based discovery.

Learn how Lighthouse AI enhances image analysis for construction litigation, risk, and compliance use cases.

Learn how Lighthouse helps legal and IT teams align for stronger Microsoft 365 data protection and governance.

Hear how a global law firm successfully transitioned eDiscovery in-house with Lighthouse support and technology.

See how Lighthouse helps organizations manage shared mailbox risks and compliance challenges during integrations.

See how Lighthouse helps organizations enhance IG posture by cleaning up redundant, obsolete, and trivial data.

Explore Lighthouse’s cutting-edge digital forensics capabilities that uncover critical insights from complex data sources.

Explore IQ Answers—built to uncover insights faster and improve decision-making across legal data.