This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The practice of e-discovery has always incorporated considerations of new and emerging technologies as well as related attorney competence. This focus on the cloud came to a head in the 2014 Brown v.
In so holding, however, the Court declined to resolve the logically antecedent question of whether the discovery rule applies to the three-year copyright statute of limitations, finding “that issue is not properly presented here, because Warner Chappell never challenged the Eleventh Circuit’s use of the discovery rule below.”
My poster child for this proposition has long been the 2014 Delaware case of James v. National Financial , in which a lawyer facing sanctions for e-discovery misconduct offered these words in this defense: “I have to confess to this court, I am not computer literate. I need a secretary to help me turn on the computer.
E-discovery, $1.4 E-sign, $1.2 Some other observations from Blijd: The first investment in what might be considered exclusively a legal tech product was in e-discovery in 1995, involving an undisclosed round by Open Text. The data reveals that, from 1984 to 2020, legal tech funding totaled $12.3
Here are my prior years’ lists of the most important developments: 2020 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013. legal tech companies go public: alternative legal services provider LegalZoom (Nasdaq:LZ), legal technology company Intapp (Nasdaq:INTA), and e-discovery company DISCO (NYSE:LAW). Given this paucity of U.S.
My poster child for this proposition has long been the 2014 Delaware case of James v. National Financial , in which a lawyer facing sanctions for e-discovery misconduct offered these words in this defense: “I have to confess to this court, I am not computer literate. I have not found presence in the cybernetic revolution.
Here are my prior years’ lists of the most important developments: 2020 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013. legal tech companies go public: alternative legal services provider LegalZoom (Nasdaq:LZ), legal technology company Intapp (Nasdaq:INTA), and e-discovery company DISCO (NYSE:LAW). Given this paucity of U.S.
Although Goldsmith’s lawyers pleaded the discovery rule ( id. Under the discovery rule of accrual, Goldsmith could have recovered damages for all infringements, no matter how old, as long as she filed suit within three years of the date that she discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, of the existence of her claim.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content