Tag Archives: e-Discovery Team®

E-Discovery’s Legal Search Exact Recall – What To Expect.

01 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery’s Legal Search Exact Recall – What To Expect.

Tags

, , ,

In Legal Search Exact Recall Can Never Be Known – Part One, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team™

http://tinyurl.com/otvoewc

In legal search you can never know exactly what recall level you have attained. You can only know a probable range of recall. For instance, you can never know that you have attained 80% recall, but you can know that you have attained between 70% and 90% recall. Even the range is a probable range, not certain. Exact knowledge of recall is impossible because there are too many documents in legal search to ever know for certain how many of them are relevant, and how many are irrelevant. I will explain all of these things in this three-part blog, plus show you a new way to calculate probable recall range that I have recently come up with.

Difficulty of Recall in Legal Search

In legal search recall is the percentage of target documents found, typically relevant documents. Thus, for instance, if you know that there are 100 relevant documents in a collection of 1,000, and you find 80 of them, then you know that you have attained 80% recall. . . .

Why Are U.S. Employees The Weakest Link In America’s Cybersecurity?

27 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Cybersecurity, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Malware, Office Procedures, Technology, Trojans, Using Social Media

≈ Comments Off on Why Are U.S. Employees The Weakest Link In America’s Cybersecurity?

Tags

, , , , , ,

U.S. Employees Are Weakest Link In America’s Cybersecurity – Part One, by Ralph Loosey, e-Discovery Team®

http://tinyurl.com/kkltm9p

The Chinese army knows this vulnerability and attacks American employees every day to steal trade secrets and gain commercial advantage for Chinese businesses.

Criminal hackers can cause tremendous damage, whether trained in China or not. If a high level expert, such as any member of China’s elite Unit 61398, aka Comment Crew, gets into your system, they can seize root control, and own it. They can then plant virtually undetectable back doors into your systems. This allows them to later come and go as they please. . . .

A Double Treat – Two-Part Posts On Cybersecurity and Outsourcing From Ralph Losey.

19 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Virus, Confidentiality, Document Retention, Emails, Encryption, Heartbleed, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Malpractice, Malware, Technology, Technology, Trojans

≈ Comments Off on A Double Treat – Two-Part Posts On Cybersecurity and Outsourcing From Ralph Losey.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Importance of Cybersecurity to the Legal Profession and Outsourcing as a Best Practice – Part One, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team®

http://tinyurl.com/oalblet

and,

The Importance of Cybersecurity to the Legal Profession and Outsourcing as a Best Practice – Part Two, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team®

http://tinyurl.com/mjek896

It is worth taking the time to read the Comments for both Part One and Part Two. -CCE

How Not To Do E-Discovery.

15 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on How Not To Do E-Discovery.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Fears and Loathing (and Pain) in Seattle: a Case Lesson in How NOT to Preserve and Produce Email – Part One, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team®

http://tinyurl.com/l8ujksu

If e-discovery is part of your life, you need to read this blog. Ralph Losey is not the only expert showcased here, but he is definitely one of the best. E-discovery is an area of law that is constantly evolving. If you do not work in it frequently, it is easy to get lost. Blogs such as these will help. -CCE

A recent case in Seattle provides a text-book example of how not to do e-discovery. It concludes with a sanctions order against the defendant, and the defendant’s law firm, Payne & Fears LLP. The law firm was fined $10,000, payable to the court, due to the conduct of two of its attorneys. The defendant, Corinthian Colleges, was fined another $25,000. Knickerbocker v Corinthian Colleges, Case No. C12-1142JLR, (WDWA, April 7, 2014). . . .