EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: Law Prospector released

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Law Prospector released

I just received this press release for an outstanding sales tool - a sales tool which I have had the privilege to preview and have lusted after for the past few months.

Ken Lopez is a really sharp guy and offers a product that should really level the playing field in an already highly competitive market.

Check it out this week at legal tech NYC.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 2, 2009

LawProspector Software Invigorates Litigation-Related Sales for Law Firms and Litigation Support Firms

NEW YORK, NY—To coincide with the start of LegalTech NY, LawProspector announces the public release of its revolutionary LawProspector software. Built for litigation support sales teams and business development teams at major law firms, LawProspector offers an unprecedented view into the current and future litigation activities of tens of thousands of attorneys, hundreds of law firms, and thousands of corporations and their in-house legal departments.

Never before has there been such near-instantaneous access to critical data about the litigation marketplace. Litigation support sales professionals are using LawProspector to uncover sales leads in minutes that used to take hours, days and months of research. Law firm business development teams and competitive intelligence staff are using LawProspector to strategically evaluate lateral hires, to monitor existing client litigation activities and to measure the litigation activities of competing law firms and potential clients.

LawProspector changes the status quo by dramatically minimizing the need to conduct tedious and time-consuming docket research into individual cases. Instead, LawProspector subscribers are able to search tens of thousands of active cases with one simple search. Searches may be run by case, attorney, law firm, corporation, court, type of case, stage of case and many other factors or any combination of these factors. Any search may be saved as a report that can be rerun (with automatically updated data) or emailed to a team daily, weekly or monthly.

“LawProspector grew out of a litigation support sales team that I was running, and it changed the way that we ran our sales organization,” said Kenneth J. Lopez, Founder of LawProspector. “Since we could now time our calls to both in-house and outside litigation counsel so that they corresponded to a known need for our services, we saw our results grow by 400%.”

“I could not be more excited about this launch, because I know what it will mean for business development across the industry,” said Lopez. “I have done the research that our product replaces and know what a time saver and sales accelerator LawProspector is for law firms and litigation support firms alike. As someone who sought out any tool that could help provide key sales data only to come up empty-handed, I see LawProspector as nothing less than an industry-changing product. I so deeply believe this that we filed a patent for LawProspector last week.”

To enhance the user experience for current subscribers, LawProspector also announces a major new feature release. Immediately available to SuperUser subscribers are LawProspector Dashboards. These Dashboards offer snapshot views and trend analysis of the litigation industry, all updated in real-time. Through cleverly crafted charts and graphs, subscribers are able to quickly see courts that are currently busy, law firms with the most upcoming trials, corporations facing litigation imminently, patent litigation trends by court and other detailed views of the industry that offer a groundbreaking look into the litigation marketplace.

About LawProspector

LawProspector is a firm founded by a group of attorneys working in the litigation support field. The firm developed its LawProspector software-as-a-service (SaaS) product in early 2008 and immediately began signing up subscribers. LawProspector operated in private beta for a year and refined its tool with feedback from current subscribers. Current subscribers include top 100 law firms and litigation support firms with revenues ranging from one million to hundreds of millions of dollars. LawProspector expects its subscriber base to grow from hundreds in 2009 to thousands over the next few years. Subscribers pay a monthly subscription fee that is a fraction of the cost of a single researcher conducting similar research manually.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sedona Principles 2nd ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.
2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.
3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.
5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.
6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.
7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.
8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.
9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.
10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.
11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.
12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.
13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.
14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.
Copyright © 2007 The Sedona Conference®. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.
Go to http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.