‘Tis the season of giving and if you’re a legal professional, Logikcull has some gifts for you: Five new resources designed to make your life easier, simpler, and better informed. And, as always, they’re offered to you for free, whether you’ve been naughty or nice.
As 2017 comes to a close, we look back at some of the biggest cases and controversies from the past year. And the lessons gleaned from the past year have largely revolved around data. That is, lawyers’ ability to navigate and make sense of data—or not. Over the course of a tumultuous year, legal professionals confronted the specter of cybercrime, a shifting of judicial views on how (and how hard) evidentiary penalties should be imposed, and the fact that the demise of a client’s case -- or a fruitful career -- can arise from a simple failure to understand how modern tech works. The Supreme Court, in the high-profile Goodyear decision, even got in on the action.
Join the Honorable Frank Maas, recently retired from the Southern District of New York, and a panel of experts this December 7th, 11am Pacific, 2pm Eastern, as they offer practical guidance from the most important cases and developments of 2017. Register here.
Covering everything from million-dollar sanctions to embarrassing privilege waivers to a self-inflicted production disaster so significant it wound up in the New York Times, this Logikcull white paper surveys nine ground-breaking, headline-making decisions from 2017. This isn’t a rehash of cases to be covered in our upcoming webinar—it’s a valuable resource all on its own, offering legal professionals engaging summaries of key cases and concise, applicable takeaways to apply to their own practice.
Featured cases include:
-Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Holding Funeral Home: When misunderstanding technology means that even when you win, you lose.
-Irth Solutions, LLC v. Windstream Communications, LLC: In which a clawback agreement is no match for a completely botched privilege review.
-Mueller v. Swift: What Taylor Swift can teach lawyers about destroying evidence.
-TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LCC: The Supreme Court upends decades of patent litigation, and frees litigators from Eastern Texas.
The discovery process can easily become unhinged if not properly managed, resulting in discovery that is expensive, risky, and overly complex. It can also be used to strong-arm parties who have fewer resources, less expertise or who are otherwise ill-equipped to handle large amounts of information.
A well-crafted ESI agreement can help reduce these risks, making sure that discovery plays out predictably and to your advantage. This white paper gives you the tips and guidance needed to do just that. Read the paper here.
Lawyers are often told they need to run their firms “like a business.” That is, to think entrepreneurially, to focus on metrics, to invest in new opportunities—all while diligently serving their clients.
But what companies should lawyers look to when attempting to “run their firms like a business”? Those that are changing whole industries, redefining the ways we interact and do business, and experiencing rapid growth and success.
In short, lawyers looking to innovate in their practice can benefit from looking to tech companies—not to emulate them, but to learn from them. The metrics used by “Software as a Service” companies, or SaaS companies, can provide important lessons for attorneys looking to make their law firms more competitive and more profitable. In this paper, we lay out just what those metrics are and how you can apply them to your practice. Get your copy now.
When it comes to knowledge of eDiscovery, there is a growing divide among legal professionals. On one side, there are those who know the discovery process in and out—the pros and cons of different eDiscovery technologies, the varying utility of document types, the burdens involved in the discovery process. And they know how to weaponize discovery against their opponent.
The principal ammunition in this form of litigation warfare? The document dump. A document dump, simply defined, is the act of responding to a request for information by producing an excess of data, in an attempt to overwhelm the other party’s resources or bury disadvantageous documents under a mountain of unnecessary information.
But document dumps are avoidable, if you know what steps to take. In this white paper, we explain just what legal professionals can do to keep themselves from being buried under a mountain of discovery. Learn how here.
Bonus: Some Very Special Stocking Stuffers