Having worked in India at an LPO for nearly 6 months now, I have seen the use of technology in almost every aspect of legal work. I have been lucky enough to be part of a team which embraces and pushes technology to continually improve efficiency. Recently this technology push has started to expand into areas where I did not have much prior experience. Specifically, we have had the opportunity over the past several months to apply what we have learned to data breach reviews.
I think that everyone can agree that data breaches are becoming a large part of the legal conversation over the past several years. And with large data breaches often comes increasingly stringent requirements for notification to those individuals affected. Because of this, there is a growing sector of the legal review industry that is dedicated to reviewing this information. Before working at an LPO I had no idea this field was as large as it is. I also did not realize the opportunities for technological applications that this type of work would present.
From the data breach reviews we have ran at LO2 I personally feel that the use of technology is just as important, if not more important, than technology applications in traditional document review. Part of the importance of technology in data breach comes from the nature of the information which is being reviewed. For example, most sensitive information follows a similar pattern. Social security numbers are always the same amount of numbers arranged in a similar pattern; bank accounts also follow a specific arrangement. This consistency has allowed us to structure searches in the documents which are able to more quickly identify those documents which have potentially sensitive information easily.
The uniformity of the information being searched for also allows us to build in more complex search strings and patterns which may not always be available when searching for more nuanced text. Even the structure of names allows for more targeted searches as they follow similar patterns. One other tool we have utilized is batching similar document types. Not only is it helpful to batch documents by their format, but also using document names allows for us to easily spot important documents which contain PII or PHI and then review an entire group at once. In my opinion noticing similarities in documents and then having attorneys review them in clusters is one of the best ways to improve efficiency as they learn the documents and can understand where to search others that are similar.
While PII allows for elegant search strings and batching, these tried and true technological methods are not as easily applied when looking for PHI. For finding PHI it is important to understand the nature of the documents you are reviewing. For this purpose, we employed several random and targeted searches to pull examples of documents which contained PHI. Once this was complete and we understood the relevant documents then we were able to employ similar techniques in grouping similar documents and building more advanced search strings.
As I discussed above, one of the main tools we used was dividing up the work by document format. An important step of any review is to understand what documents will pose the most difficulty. We found that often the documents with the largest amount of sensitive information would be Excel files. Because of this, they were segregated out from day one with their own search string pattern and batches. This allowed us to create a more efficient workflow and to utilize the strengths of the team to their full potential to meet deadlines. One thing to consider is the platform one is using. For example, with the platforms we usually use there is an option for reformatting large sets of data so they can be uploaded directly to the tool instead of an attorney have to manually enter each individual piece of information. This not only saved time, but also improved overall efficiency and morale as any attorney would suffer a productivity decline from entering hundreds of lines of PII. Not only that but finding technological solutions like this also decreases human error and increases the overall quality of the final work product.
Given the importance and sensitivity of the data for breaches, I have found the use of technology by the team immensely useful. It has provided a more accurate reflection of what data was lost than ever could have been accomplished in a traditional manner. It also meant that the efficiency was improved and produced something the team could be proud of. This type of work has really opened my eyes to how others could learn to implement technology on even non-traditional reviews. I think the main thing to remember is when you are facing a new type of legal work to not be afraid to use tools and tricks you have implemented before and see what works and what doesn’t. There is always some piece of technology or a different workflow that can help.
[Technology + Labor Arbitrage] > Labor Arbitrage
A Leading Provider of Technology-Enabled Legal Innovation, Contract Extraction, Contract Analysis and Document Review Solutions.
Legal Outsourcing 2.0, as the name suggests, is the next generation of Legal Process Outsourcing. We provide technology-enabled solutions and services to law firms and corporations.
There are essentially two differentiators in how we go about doing that. We apply the latest innovative technologies, including natural language processing and machine learning, to solve problems and create efficiencies. We also have experienced US-licensed attorneys, who have been employed by Am Law 100 law firms on staff at our production facility in India at all times.
The technology piece creates efficiencies – the American legal presence ensures quality.
All communications with the production team are with US-licensed attorneys to ensure there are no miscommunications. We are unique in providing our services by using a blended legal team which combines a rich mix of US legal talent on site at our India processing center with an experienced Indian legal team. In fact, we have more US licensed, Am Law experienced attorneys than any other LPO with a production facility in India.
The ratio of our American lawyers to Indian lawyers working on site in India at Legal Outsourcing 2.0 is less than 1 American lawyer to 50 Indian lawyers. The ratio of American lawyers to Indian lawyers on site in India at other LPOs ranges from 1 American lawyer to 250 Indian lawyers, to most LPOs in India not having any US legal talent on site at all.
Law firms produce more revenue the more hours they bill.
Traditional LPOs charge a lower hourly rate, but their business model is the same hourly business model as a traditional law firm. That business model creates a disincentive to adopt new technology and create efficiency. Our business model is different. It can be summed up by this equation:
[Technology + Labor Arbitrage] > Labor Arbitrage
The result: our solutions are better, faster and less expensive
We obtain superior results by complying with the highest industry standards.
Our quality management practices have been certified as compliant with ISO 9001:2015.
Our information management systems, designed to keep information assets secure, have been certified as compliant with ISO 27001.