Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Investigative Discovery: Using Technology to Build Case Strategy
Lovells is known in the industry as a forward-thinking law firm with proven experience in using technology to provide clients with the best service possible. Clients come to Lovells for discovery design that delivers on the promise of controlling the high costs and exorbitant time commitments of preparing for litigation. We work to accurately match technology to each unique legal situation based on a variety of factors, such as our clients' role in the litigation, the complexity of the issues and the amount of information being reviewed.
During a recent assignment, we were asked to assist a client in evaluating potential litigation involving conspiracy and fraud claims arising out of a complex multi-party transaction. For the task, the client arranged for us to have access to approximately 35 gigabytes of e-mail data restored from a critical time period. With the equivalent of approximately 2 million pages needing review, we immediately faced two contradictory challenges. First, how to effectively review a large body of data in a short time while keeping staffing tight and costs down. Second, and equally important, how to leverage our existing knowledge of the issues to identify and drill down deep into significant documents, test our legal theories and strengthen the strategic recommendation our client was seeking.
For Lovells, this was a perfect scenario for leveraging new discovery technologies. Based on experience with traditional electronic discovery practices, we knew that document-by-document review and coding of these materials could cost as much as $4-5 million and, with existing staffing, take almost 1 year. That scenario was simply too costly and too slow to recommend. Instead, we set a goal of targeting review on the most information-rich documents, cutting costs to $1 million and narrowing review time to only 3 months. To assist us in reaching this goal, we turned to some trusted advisors and a couple of new faces to help us identify and select the best software solution.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.