To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is a software technology that enables the automation of digital tasks. With RPA, firms can create digital robots, or ‘bots’, that can learn, mimic, and then execute rules-based business processes. RPA automation enables users to create bots by observing human digital actions. The process is incredibly simple; you simply show your bots what to do, and then let them do the work. RPA software can interact with any application or system the same way people do – except that RPA bots can operate around the clock, nonstop, much faster and with 100% reliability and precision. However, the gap in AI education means that several misconceptions remain about RPA. Critically, it is important for knowledge workers to understand that Robotic Process Automation is unable to replace humans due to the lack of conscious reasoning. Simply put, it does not have a mind of its own. Therefore it is unable to
Offering tips to help legal professionals with e-discovery, Daniel Gold’s “E-Discovery Gold Nuggets” highlight the newest legal technology lessons and challenges. Originally a series of.
A Relativity Legal Education Webinar for CLE Credit brought to you by the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS)
He’s back on the bench! Join us for a mock e-discovery hearing on technology assisted review (TAR) where the
Honorable Andrew J. Peck, Senior Counsel at DLA Piper and retired United States Magistrate Judge, will be presiding.
Alicia Hawley, Discovery Counsel and Chair of the eDiscovery and Litigation Services Group at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP will face-off against
David Horrigan, Discovery Counsel and Legal Education Director at Relativity. They’ll debate the vital TAR issues of the day, and Judge Peck will opine on the arguments. We’ll also examine the jurisprudence of TAR, including Alicia Hawley’s recent work in Livingston v. City of Chicago and Judge Peck’s TAR decisions, including Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., and Hyles v. City of New York. Join us to get your CLE credit, and have some substant
First and foremost, the job market continues to favor candidates. There is simply not enough qualified talent to respond to all the work to be done in e-discovery. We are seeing this.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia illustrates how litigants may find themselves in trouble with the court and opposing counsel when they fail to properly preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery.
In
Zhang v. 328633 B.C. Ltd, et al., 2021 BCSC 650, the plaintiff, Zhang, brought suit for injuries sustained during an automobile accident that occurred in 2013. The bus on which Zhang was riding as a passenger was cut off by an unidentified vehicle, forcing the bus driver to stop abruptly and throwing the elderly Zhang from her seat. Zhang sustained multiple injuries.