Category Archives: Law Firms

Workflow Woes: How Paralegals Can Create and Maintain Effective eDiscovery Processes

paralegals eDiscovery Workflows

Workflow Woes: How Paralegals Can Create and Maintain Effective eDiscovery Processes

JD Supra Readers Choice Top Author 2020Written by Jim Gill
Content Chief, Ipro

I have heard stories from paralegals about the challenges they face in trying to establish effective and repeatable workflows at their firms around Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and moving it through the discovery process. Today’s eDiscovery Blues was inspired by one of these stories, where the attorney had always organized documents with binder clips, and when it came to emails, the paralegal had to print those out, so they could be organized as well.

Hopefully by now, in 2020, litigation support teams understand how to leverage technology to save time, ensure accuracy, and pass on savings to their clients, even when working with a combination of ESI and hard copy documents (read this excellent Case Study with Whitney Farrell at PPS&C on how they were able to do exactly that); but it still raises the issue of workflows not being regularly reviewed or even created in the first place. On a recent Ipro webinar about creating workflows, a poll showed that a majority of the audience were working on a case-by-case basis when it came to process.

Brittany Thaler is an expert on eDiscovery workflows: she worked as a paralegal for 13 years, taught in Everest College’s paralegal training program, and is currently on the Ipro training team. “In my former life as a paralegal,” she says, “that was my task: Create a workflow, create a template, create a chart of what litigation looks like from complaint to appeal with all the tools we have available – whether that was with or without discovery tools – and when to begin trial preparation.” She continues:

“The key to making a good workflow isn’t the creation part. It’s how it actually functions in the real world. Be mindful that eDiscovery is changing the way a traditional discovery is being governed. Keep up on those changes and modify your workflows accordingly.”

Workflows shouldn’t be written and then left to gather dust. They need to evolve. That’s why it’s a good best practice to schedule a regular workflow evaluation every 6 to 12 months, to see how your teams are using the workflows and templates you’ve provided. What’s working, what isn’t working? Are they even being used?

From this you can get input from everyone involved – paralegals, litigation support, and attorneys – so that you can build repeatable processes that don’t require your team to reinvent the wheel with each case, but instead ensure accurate and efficient outcomes each time.

For more on how paralegals can create an effective eDiscovery workflow,
Listen to this webinar: Becoming the Indispensable eDiscovery Practitioner

Becoming the Indispensable eDiscovery Practitioner from Ipro Marketing on Vimeo.

 

eDiscovery Software Gives Distributed Legal Teams the Agility & Collaboration They Need

distributed eDiscovery teams

eDiscovery Software Gives Distributed Legal Teams the Agility & Collaboration They Need

JD Supra Readers Choice Top Author 2020Written by Jim Gill
Content Chief, Ipro

For the past several months, the legal community has had to quickly adapt to the reality of working remotely in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Luckily, we live in a day and age where distributed eDiscovery teams can, for the most part, continue the work at hand, through the use and adoption of technology.

We’ve all become accustomed to communication through video chat platforms, and have even come to rely on these interactions, not only for teams within an organization, but for connection with the larger legal community (shout outs here to Ari Kaplan’s Virtual Lunch Series and David Cowen and his Cowen Café Series for their efforts on this front).

But more than Zoom calls keeping legal departments connected, even when they are truly “in-house” — like our eDiscovery Blues hero, Rick Compliance and his team above – it’s important to remember the eDiscovery software and both it’s security and agility which allows legal teams to not only stay in touch but continue their work.

Aaron Swenson, Product Director at Ipro, shared, “I think today, more than ever, problems that have always existed are magnified with teams becoming distributed practically overnight: the problems of agility, consistency, and collaboration. Before, co-located teams were able to walk over and talk about how to review a document or architect a review. Which seemed great, but a byproduct is that it limits consistency and review power to only the team that’s co-located. Today’s data is created by globally distributed teams, scaling up without boundaries. Approaching this problem, where review is a team sport without physical boundaries, is a perspective I think isn’t just a necessity today, but something that will give those firms embracing it competitive advantages over the long term.”

Which is why it’s so important to leverage eDiscovery technology that gives team members secure remote access for data ingestion and processing, as well as enabling collaboration with internal and external stakeholders.

That way, whether your legal team is in-house, in-office, in-kitchen, in-hotel, or in-the-backyard, the work of eDiscovery continues securely, defensibly, and seamlessly.

Read more of Ipro’s original legal comic “eDiscovery Blues” every Friday!

 

More Cases, Less Effort: How eDiscovery Technology Enables the Small & Mid-Sized Law Firm

eDiscovery Mid-Sized Law Firm

More Cases, Less Effort: How eDiscovery Technology Enables the Small & Mid-Sized Law Firm

Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton (PPS&C) LLP was formed in 1998 by four partners who specialize in Labor and Employment litigation.  Now with 29 lawyers devoted to defending and advising employers, Paul Plevin is recognized as one of California’s top management-side labor and employment law firms, representing employers in discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, trade secret, union-management, and other employment-related matters throughout California and, increasingly, nationwide.

Whitney Farrell is a paralegal at PPS&C, and one of five people who act as a small eDiscovery department within the firm. Along with two members of the IT department, this team knows the benefit of Ipro solutions and work cohesively when starting the process of eDiscovery.

As Whitney puts it, “We are a mid-sized firm, and Ipro is great for our needs, being instrumental in allowing our five paralegals to quickly intake documents on the fly. With the ability to work harmoniously between programs, we utilize Ipro’s eDiscovery tools daily. Then, for the two or three times a year as we prepare for arbitration or trial, we can tie everything together in TrialDirector.”

Leveraging Technology to Streamline the eDiscovery Workflow

Ten years ago, Paul Plevin used Adobe to manage case documents, then moved to an earlier Ipro product, eScanit, along with Concordance, but the firm was growing, and so were document counts. They needed a complete suite of products that would allow them to process, review, and produce documents.

As Whitney stated, “Litigation moves fast, and Ipro continues to keep up with the pace. Now our paralegals are able to streamline the intake process and speed through any processing jobs, allowing our attorneys to review as soon as possible.”

She continues, “Ipro’s processing engine allows us to all work within the controller at one time, which has helped tremendously with workflow. Previously, we had workstations set up in a separate office, so we would have to physically change locations to process any jobs. Now, with a single, centralized controller on all of our computers, we are able to work from our desks. This has greatly improved our workflow, and we all process so much faster now. Attorneys also love Ipro for desktop and responded positively when we transitioned from our previous vendor. Now, the staff are able to perform document review quickly and easily.”

Scaling for a Variety of Cases and Clients

Case size can vary greatly depending on the matter, and the need to scale becomes vital. For example, union arbitration cases are relatively small, often with only a few hundred documents, and come and go quickly. At the same time, staff may get a special request to look at a plaintiff’s emails in their entirety (e.g. 10 years of emails, 150k+ documents), which will exponentially grow the database.

During a complaint involving a hospital – which was originally filed in December of 2013, when they were still using Concordance – PPS&C decided to migrate to Ipro solutions. Moving 10k documents was seamless, and attorneys were able to manage the case quickly, as well as now being able to import documents into TrialDirector for the trial.

“The fact that we were able to easily switch software in the middle of an ongoing case, which we then won, says a lot,” according to Whitney.  “This same case was recently called back on appeal, and when we opened the case in the software, it was all still easily accessible, and we were ready to move forward immediately.”

Not only does Ipro provide the power and scalability to handle large electronic datasets, transferring files sent via email, file transfer, or hard drive, it also has the flexibility to deal with legacy files. In one recent case involving a professor who had been at his university for 25 years, Paul Plevin received boxes of paper documents dropped at their offices. But with Ipro, they were able to scan them directly, utilizing the powerful processing engine, and immediately prepare the attorneys for review.

“A One-Stop-Shop”

When asked what she likes most about Ipro, Whitney responded, “Everything I need is in one place, and all the products work so well together. It breaks everything down into a straightforward, three-step process: processing, administration, and review. Ipro is truly a one-stop-shop. And the post-processing Quality Control (QC) module – which we always use whether the dataset is a single page or a thousand emails – allows us to keep clean, clutter-free, accurate databases, keeping attorneys from wasting time with bad data, and instead, has them quickly moving into review.”

“And besides the software,” Whitney adds, “Ipro’s tech support and training teams are amazing. I’m always able to get the help I need to solve any problem. Ipro makes our process quick and effective, allowing us to save time and take on additional cases without additional effort. It was so easy to make the switch, our attorneys love it, and we haven’t looked back.”

Want to learn more about how Ipro helps small and mid-sized law firms
use technology to compete with the AmLaw 200?

Listen to this webinar with PPS&C’s Whitney Farrell and and Wilson, Turner, Kosmo’s Justin Peña

How 3 Law Firms are Using eDiscovery Technology to Their Advantage

How law firms are using eDiscovery technology

How 3 Law Firms are Using eDiscovery Technology to Their Advantage

It’s been the same story ever since the Cartwright Power Loom or the McCormick Thresher: Technology enables the more efficient execution of the task at hand. eDiscovery is no different. There are numerous solutions out there, each designed to alleviate some particular pain point along the EDRM. But it’s not often you get to hear directly from the people on the front lines on how they’re leveraging technology to more effectively manage their legal teams’ workflow.

Here are 3 eDiscovery practitioners on how Ipro is helping them overcome those challenges.

Bare Bones to Fully Loaded

Stacie Hauza, Deputy Paralegal Administrator/Litigation Support Coordinator at Bredhoff & Kaiser, was working with older eDiscovery software, which was, “very bare bones without any analytics, and there was no way to batch documents, so we couldn’t conduct full-scale reviews.” It was clear that in order to take on the growing complexities with incoming cases, a new solution was needed.

“By adding Ipro for enterprise,” Hauza continues, “we could easily create review passes for review teams and gained the ability to process data in-house, run large-scale reviews utilizing keywords for search term reporting, as well as analytics like near-dupe, clustering, email threading, and TAR, all within a user-friendly interface.”

Not only are they able to review document collections faster, they can also manage incorrect productions from opposing counsel. Hauza recalls one case where an opposing party produced emails in PDF format without extracting any attachments. “With Ipro’s powerful processing engine, I was able to extract the attachments embedded in the PDF, giving us quick access to the full document family which should have been produced. And with Ipro’s OCR functionality in the review module, I was able to fix bad PDF production text on-the-fly after processing. We also had the ability to QC the opposing party’s work after they attempted to re-produce, where it became clear they were just reviewing and stamping in native format using Adobe. If they would have had Ipro for enterprise, their production would have been easy!

Discovery to Trial

Because so few civil cases go to trial, most legal technology focuses on document collection, processing, and review. But even if a case ultimately doesn’t end up in the courtroom, attorneys still have to prepare case strategy and potentially present evidence in mediation or arbitration. Having a solution that can carry things all the way through the process can increase efficiency a great deal.

Carey Granda, Trial & Technology Training Manager at Snell & Wilmer, says “By using Ipro, one of the biggest problems we’ve solved is time spent on task, while efficiency with case creation and productions has greatly improved from our previous document review tool. The combination of industry resources put together in a way that makes sense offers a one-stop tool for users working towards greater efficiency from eDiscovery to trial.”

Victoria Stevens, Senior Paralegal at Wilenchik & Bartness, has had similar success with technology that goes beyond traditional document review. “Collecting documents from their native source significantly reduces (and often eliminates) discovery disputes,” she says, “but Ipro can do so much more than that. She continues: “We use it to tag documents for each witness, which ultimately will be used to prepare for depositions and create affidavits with corroborating evidence for motion practice and trial presentation with Trial Director by Ipro. And the ease of using Ipro to ingest data and then have immediate access to key documents to search, tag, redact, make notes, and ultimately produce for opposing counsel has been such a time-saver — it’s a must-have tool for our attorneys and their litigation practice. Tasks that would take hours (sometimes days) now take a fraction of that time. Our clients save money, and the legal team can focus on more substantive issues and get to the heart of the case.”

A Technology Partnership

It’s no secret that lawyers aren’t technology experts, so it can be frustrating when they’re presented with software that takes a lot of time to learn. That’s why selecting an eDiscovery solution that can get users up and running quickly is important. As the Trial & Technology Training Manager at Snell & Wilmer, Carey Granda “loves hearing from users about Ipro’s intuitive interface, which provides them a DIY approach that wasn’t possible with our former product. This frees me up to handle more consultation with eDiscovery and advanced training guidance instead of teaching people how to use the software.”

And because each case has its own unique challenges, even easy-to-use technology can only take you so far. That’s where having an experienced technology partner can make all the difference.

“The Ipro Support Team is hands down the best in the business,” says Victoria Stevens, Senior Paralegal at Wilenchik & Bartness. “If you have an issue with production, they are relentless in getting it resolved, while teaching you to make your job in-house easier. Even beyond support, Ipro is a cutting-edge company with a team that listens to its clients’ needs and concerns by delivering a cost-effective, accessible approach to eDiscovery. Ipro makes my life easier. Every. Single. Day.”

 

For a deeper look at Ipro for enterprise and how it can help your legal team
Check out our latest product webinar!

Is eDiscovery Existing in a Post-Sanctions World?

eDiscovery Sanctions

Is eDiscovery Existing in a Post-Sanctions World?

The short (and obvious) answer is no. Rule 37(e) isn’t going anywhere. But recent case law indicates a trend where sanctions seem to be harder to come by, which may play into what concerns in-house legal teams as they consider the technologies they may need.

A recent infographic, General Counsel: From Lawyers to Strategic Partners (released by Raconteur with data from Walters Kluwer) showed 66% of corporate legal teams saying “Data Breaches and Protection of corporate data” was a top issue keeping them up at night. Sanctions didn’t even make the list.

Recent case law from 2019 supports the lack of sanction fear, as several cases showed that even when evidence was deleted (sometimes knowingly), courts aren’t doling out sanctions in the same way since the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) went into effect.

As a refresher, Rule 37(e) of the FRCP lays out the threshold for sanctions as follows:

If Electronically Stored Information (ESI) was lost because:

A party didn’t take reasonable steps to preserve it when they should have (i.e. because they knew litigation was imminent)

  • and if the lost ESI can’t be restored or replaced by simply doing discovery again
  • and if there was an intent to deprive the party of information by the loss of the ESI
  • and if the lost ESI actually affects the outcome of the case

…then the court may consider sanctions.

The following examples show that consider is a key word, even when they find the threshold has been met, as in case 3.

United States et al. v. Supervalu, Inc. et al. Nov. 18, 2019 (C.D. Ill. 2019)

Three days after a subpoena, a district pharmacy manager for the defendant sent out an email stating, “Throw away all your competitor’s price matching lists and get rid of all signs that say we match prices.”

The plaintiff alleges there are inconsistencies in both the number and timing of the subsequent litigation holds and accordingly asked the Court for an in-camera review of the three litigation holds which were eventually sent. The plaintiff also believes that the defendant failed to preserve price matching materials responsive to the government subpoena from approximately 80% of their pharmacies nationwide.

But the Court denied sanctions, stating, “Upon reviewing the record, the Court is unable to conclude that Defendants acted in bad faith. If the evidence at trial shows otherwise and bad faith on the part of the Defendants is established, the Court can revisit the issue and consider one or both of the sanctions requested by the Relators or another appropriate sanction.”

Mafille v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. May 21, 2019 (N.D. Okla. 2019)

In this case, the plaintiff’s computer was wiped after her termination as part of standard retention policy. When the plaintiff filed for spoliation sanctions, the Court found that the plaintiff’s computer contents were uploaded daily onto the defendant’s LAN server as part of a company policy. So even if her computer were destroyed, the contents could potentially be retrieved if discovery were done on the LAN server. Also, the defendant requested which documents were vital for the plaintiff’s case so they could attempt to retrieve them from the LAN server, but the plaintiff never identified any such items.

Univ. Accounting Serv., LLC v. Schulton. June 7, 2019 (D. Or. 2019)

In this case, the defendant admitted, “I recognize fully that was in violation of the subpoena,” and later said of one particular piece of data, “I deleted the file as fast as I could, because I was petrified at its existence, because it’s exactly the type of damning information that UAS wants to catch me with.”

In US District Judge Michael H. Simon’s Ruling, he states that the Rule 37(e) sanction thresholds “have been satisfied.” Yet, even after meeting the threshold conditions, the judge didn’t order case termination sanctions, but instead chose a permissive inference spoliation instruction against the defendant.

No Sanctions, Why Worry?

Without the specter of sanctions haunting the dreams of in-house legal, does this mean they’ll finally get a good night’s sleep?

Only if they have the processes and technology to manage the exponential growth of data sizes and new file types, which continues to be one of the biggest challenges for corporations, particularly for in-house legal teams who are tasked with mitigating risk involved with enterprise data. To do this, the ability to manage data in a flexible and scalable manner is vital.

Sending a legal hold notice is pretty straightforward. Gaining meaningful and speedy insight into petabytes of data from multiple file types for investigations and subpoenas is much more complex, and forward-looking legal teams are putting their technology to work doing just that.

 

Written by Jim Gill
Content Writer, Ipro

A first step in this process is to use Ipro’s Pre-Litigation Data Checklist as a guide to effectively manage enterprise data in order to avoid potential data pitfalls in the middle of a matter.

Download the Ipro Pre-Litigation Data Inventory Checklist

Ipro Pre-Litigation Data Checklist

Should Mobile Devices be Imaged for eDiscovery? Recent Case Law Provides Insight

Mobile Devices Imaged for eDiscovery

Should Mobile Devices be Imaged for eDiscovery? Recent Case Law Provides Insight

Deciding whether mobile devices should be imaged can be difficult when it comes to eDiscovery. They contain a large variety of file-types and data intermingled with a lot of private information, which may be privileged. Extracting specific information can be difficult and imaging an entire device can be costly. So the question remains: To image or not to image? But not really. That’s why we have case law.

On the surface, it seems that imaging an entire device would fall beyond the usual scope of a matter as it’s defined under FRCP Rule 26. Specific relevant data would be the obvious choice over everything on a single device. Which is exactly how a magistrate judge saw it last year in Henson v. Turn (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2018), when the court denied requests by the defendants to inspect personal devices of the plaintiffs, collecting web browsing history and cookies in the process, on the basis that the data sought was neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case.

But in a recent ruling by Special Discovery Master Hon. Rebecca Westerfield (Ret.) in the class action suit In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2019), the court determined that imaging a sample set of the plaintiffs’ mobile devices was proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26. So what sets this case apart from Henson v. Turn?

The Case:

In re: Apple concerns the plaintiffs’ claim that Apple used operating system updates to “throttle” and hamper device performance regarding certain of its iPhone 6 devices, allegedly impairing “the integrity, condition, quality, and usefulness of the Devices without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent.”

Each side brought forward forensic experts. The plaintiffs’ expert, Mary Frantz, Managing Partner of Enterprise Knowledge Partners, LLC, asserts that “Apple’s internal databases such as collected historical diagnostics, support, and potentially archived cloud of backup files would be a preferred and sufficient method to determine historical performance,” and that, “there is no difference between what would be found on any specific Devices and what could be found via iTunes and iCloud analysis (which Apple could test without a forensic inspection).”

Apple’s expert, Paul D. Martin, PhD, Computer Science—who has over a decade of experience in technology and forensics, including with performance testing and benchmarking of computer and other technological programs—explained the word “performance” can have a broad variety of meanings for a device. “To assess performance conditions,” Dr. Martin asserts that “it is important to perform tests on a device that is configured in a way that matches, as closely as possible, the configuration of the user’s device. Configuration depends both on the hardware and on what is installed on the hardware, including operating system, applications, and data.” He also adds that, “each user controls the state of his or her Device to the extent that it deviates from the basic iOS configuration,” which, along with, variations of installed software, specific device usage patterns, and network or Wi-Fi variations, will impact performance. Which is why he concluded, “the best record of what is installed on a particular Device is the Device itself.”

The Ruling:

Special Discovery Master Westerfield ruled against the plaintiff on the issue of imaging, stating that “other types of discovery would not provide sufficient information on the issue at hand,” and that “the defendant’s privacy concerns could be addressed through a robust protective order containing the following:

  • “The plaintiffs would select a neutral forensic expert to produce a mirror image of the computer’s hard drive in a timely fashion
  • “That expert would execute a confidentiality agreement and also abide by the protective order in place in the action
  • “Only that expert would be authorized to inspect or handle the computer or the mirror image (the plaintiffs and their counsel would not inspect or handle the mirror image
  • “The expert would not examine any non-relevant files or data on the computer, or anything designated as privileged or work-product protected information
  • “That expert would produce a report based upon his or her inspection that describes the files found and any relevant file-sharing information
  • “And that expert would disclose his or her report only to the defendant’s counsel, who could then lodge objections to the report based on privilege.”

SDM Westerfield also cited Herskowitz/Juel v. Apple, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2014) in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to deposit computers and devices at issue with a third-party vendor for forensic inspection, because the “data contained on Plaintiffs’ computers and devices is likely to be highly relevant, and admissible evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).”

The SDM noted the potential privacy intrusions in Herskowitz/Juel were not as widespread, because only a small number of devices were imaged. In response, the number of devices available for forensic inspection was limited to much less than the 115 devices Apple had requested.

Meet and Confer:

Cooperation is the name of the game when it comes to determining whether mobile devices should be imaged and other complex eDiscovery cases like this one. And the SDM drove that home by stating the importance of both parties continuing to meet and confer, ensuring the order is carried out as determined by the court.

In her ruling, SDM Westerfield writes, “Given the above direction and following Apple’s designation of specific Devices to be examined, the meet and confer process is likely to be more productive than the parties’ past efforts. In this regard, the parties and their experts are in the best position to meet and confer on a proposal that minimizes exposure of content and private information to Apple, the parties’ experts, and Apple’s outside and inside attorneys and provides an appropriate tailored approach to discovery from these Devices.”

Written by Jim Gill
Content Writer, Ipro

 

Ipro FRCP Cheat SheetNeed to brush up on your Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as they apply to eDiscovery?

Download Ipro’s FRCP Cheat Sheet!

Redaction Errors in Federal Opioid Case Reveal Importance of Legal Technology

legal redaction technology

Redaction Errors in Federal Opioid Case Reveal Importance of Legal Technology

For as long as humans have been writing things down, redactions have been a part of the process. In the beginning, they were used to integrate disparate stories and folktales, but these days, when we hear about redactions, it’s usually in regard to investigations and legal actions.

For the public—especially those who are hungry for conspiracy theories and secrets—redactions are a tantalizing hint at what’s not being said; however, for those in the legal industry, redactions are a part of everyday life. But this doesn’t mean they’re mundane! On the contrary, failure to redact documents or to make sure that redacted content is produced in its redacted format can be case ending (and job ending for the person responsible for the error).

The most common reason this happens, is because law firms are taking the “redact by hand” route instead of using tools that properly manage productions to ensure documents meet the expected production requirements (i.e. making sure the information meant to be kept private is hidden). By not using redaction technology, law firms are flirting with disaster.

Which is exactly where a law firm found itself, after exposing secret grand jury information in a court filing as a result of using Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat, instead of specialized redaction technology, which the partner said, “is specifically designed to avoid such issues. The failure to use this software was inadvertent oversight.”

At first glance, the filing appeared redacted, but a member of the press was able to defeat the redaction by simply copying the black-out boxes and pasting the text into a new document.

Ryan Joyce, VP of Strategy at Ipro, commented, “Time and time again we have seen the same headline—a law firm or government agency getting in trouble for not handling their redactions correctly. Why is this still an issue after all these years? Any software can draw a colored box over text, but only the right software will produce it correctly.”

But even when redactions are properly handled, a newly published study by the University of Zurich may make them a moot point. By using a combination of AI and over 120,000 legal records, researchers “were able to identify the participants in confidential legal cases, even though such participants had been anonymized.” And if that doesn’t give pause, they did so with an 84% accuracy rate after mining data for only one hour.

Still, even if anonymized information in legal documents can be defeated—by robots or gross oversight—the requirement to redact documents correctly isn’t going away anytime soon. Which means law firms should ensure they have the technology in place to properly handle redactions, along with the processes in place to ensure that technology is used. If they don’t, it could mean sanctions for the firm and unemployment for the individual who made the error.

How Ipro Can Help with Redactions

Tools like Ipro’s Production Shield (which is included in the enterprise and desktop eDiscovery solutions by Ipro) allow administrators to add another layer of protection for documents that should not be produced. When using Production Shield, such documents are identified during the validation phase of the export process, giving administrators the opportunity to correct conflicts and ensure only appropriate documents are produced.

In addition to Production Shield, Ipro ensures accurate redactions by:

  • Automatically re-OCRing the document to remove any text under the redaction
  • Running validations to ensure redactions are burned in and the text is correct
  • Creating layered redactions, so multiple production sets can be sent to multiple parties
  • Having 30 years’ experience in the legaltech industry – we know our redactions!

 Find Out More About How Ipro Can Ensure Accurate Productions for your Firm!

 

Written by Jim Gill
Content Writer, Ipro