2024 CLOC Las Vegas
Join Integreon at CLOC! Integreon is excited to be a sponsor at CLOC Global Institute in Las Vegas at the ARIA Resort & Casino on May 6-9. Our team of experts will be at booth #205 and would welcome the opportunity to connect, answer questions, and share insights. A must-attend for legal operations professionals, CLOC Global Institute 204 promises to attract a diverse global audience from various sectors, including in-house legal operations, Legal Service Providers, technology partners, law firms, and academia. Discovery Lab Session – May 8th at 3PM PT Pinyon Ballroom 2 Leveraging the Power of GenAI to Create True Transformation and Disruptive Innovation Looking at the contracts space, the ongoing integration of GenAI into legal solutions signifies a transformative shift and unlocks unprecedented possibilities. This evolution has the potential to revolutionize the entire landscape of how key contracting processes and functions are executed. Join legal-tech veterans and thought leaders Integreon, ContractPodAi, and The Contract Network to discuss how leveraging GenAI for contracts will usher in a new era of unprecedented efficiency, accuracy, and overall effectiveness. Gabriel Buigas, EVP Legal & Compliance Solutions – Integreon Atena Reyhani, Chief Product Officer – Contract PodAi Jim Wagner, Co-Founder & CEO – The Contract Network Connect with Integreon Integreon will be on site all week and would welcome the opportunity to connect. Contact our legal operations experts before the event to set up a meeting or stop by booth #205 to learn more and connect with us in person. To set up a meeting, please reach out to Tom Cohen SCHEDULE A MEETING LEARN MORE
Strategic Benefits of an Outsourced Administrative Support Model
In the ever-evolving, intensely competitive corporate landscape, the quest for operational efficiency has given rise to a strategic model that’s reshaping the very fabric of business functions — outsourced administrative support. For those responsible for overseeing corporate profitability without eroding quality or service, outsourcing is a highly attractive and effective solution. What is Outsourced Administrative Support? Outsourcing is the practice of having certain functions handled outside the company by a third-party provider instead of using an in-house department and/or employees. When it comes to administrative tasks ranging from executive assistance and expense management all the way to office maintenance, outsourcing can be a transformational approach. By entrusting certain functions to an experienced outside vendor, businesses are running leaner and more efficiently. And, in many instances, gaining efficiencies through access to enabling technology, including genAI, without having to make the investment. Cost Efficiency: Slimming Down the Bottom Line One of the most compelling and obvious advantages of outsourcing administrative functions is the clear financial benefits. Reduced Overhead Costs Outsourcing admin tasks translates to direct savings in overhead costs. The need to maintain office space, equipment, and additional staff is considerably reduced. Furthermore, outsourcing companies are structured to absorb these overheads as part of their service cost, often providing a more cost-effective solution than in-house options. Access to Specialized Skills Not only can an outsourcing provider cost-effectively scale to meet the ebb and flow of workloads, but they can also provide access to specialized skills at a fraction of the cost of recruiting, hiring and training in-house. By leveraging the expertise of outside professionals for administrative duties—be it data analysis, executive assistance, PowerPoint support, document processing, or IT support—companies secure a level of proficiency that would be timely and expensive to develop in-house. Increased Focus on the Core Business Outsourcing enables companies to avoid getting bogged down in administrative tasks. Employees can concentrate on their core competencies and supporting the company to be more competitive, responsive, and profitable. Time-saving Benefits Administrative tasks are notorious time-drains for core team members. By outsourcing these functions, companies reclaim precious time. This time can then be channeled into strategic initiatives that directly contribute to the company’s mission and bottom line. Enhanced Productivity Focusing on what you do best often leads to a boost in productivity. For companies choosing to outsource, this means their resources are directed towards initiatives that add the most value, driving greater productivity and efficiency across the board. It also increases employee satisfaction by freeing up more time to focus on meaningful work. Scalability and Flexibility: Adapting with Ease In a rapidly changing business environment, flexibility and scalability are critical. The ability to appropriately staff – quickly and cost efficiently – is a true competitive advantage. Adjusting Resources as Needed Outsourcers can provide scalable support, rapidly adjusting resources to accommodate changes in workload or business scope. Whether a company is experiencing a spike in their demand for services or a lull, outsourcing allows them to easily adapt without the complexities of internal resource management. Handling Seasonal Demands Effectively Many businesses experience fluctuating workloads due to seasonality. With an outsourcing model, companies can ensure that their administrative functions seamlessly scale up or down to meet changing skillset demands without over-stretching or under-utilizing their internal workforce. Quality and Expertise: Superior Support Outsourcing administrative support does not just reduce costs and free up time; it can also lead to enhanced quality and efficiency in operations. Access to a Skilled Workforce Outsourcing providers are often specialists in their field and dedicate considerable resources to training their employees. This means companies who use these services can benefit from a highly skilled workforce without the burden of recruitment, training, and professional development. Improved Service Quality The focus that dedicated outsourcing agencies place on their services often translates to a higher quality of work. Companies that outsource can expect greater efficiency, fewer errors, and better customer service, all of which are critical to maintaining a competitive edge. Efficiency through Technology Because efficiency of delivery is core to an outsourcing provider, they often have made the investment in identifying, testing, and implementing technology solutions. This includes the use of genAI which enables significant productivity gains. Companies can reap the benefits of enabling technology without incurring the up-front cost and ongoing maintenance. Conclusion: The Strategic Advantage of Outsourcing The shift towards an outsourced administrative support model reflects a world where strategic agility often separates the good from the great. By embracing the flexibility, expertise, quality, and cost efficiency that outsourced models offer, companies position themselves not just to cut costs, but also reconfigure their internal structure and resources to align with their strategic goals. For COOs, HR managers, and corporate service leaders looking to optimize their operations while maintaining quality and responsiveness, outsourcing administrative support can be the decisive step towards a more dynamic and successful business model. Administrative Support Let us lift the administrative burden off your shoulders During the day, let alone a week or a month, there are countless administrative tasks needed to help your department and business run smoothly. Focus on your priorities and leave the administrative heavy lifting to Integreon. Contact Us »
LINK Live! in Los Angeles
Collaborate and Connect at LINK Live! March 28th, 2024 Join Integreon for LINK Live! in Los Angeles on March 28th! This exceptional LINK members-only event will explore groundbreaking legal tech advancements like GenAI, revolutionizing workflow and contract management, and optimizing org design through effective outsourcing, all aimed at futureproofing your legal department. Integreon will be on site and would welcome the opportunity to connect and talk about all of the latest advancements in legal ops. Don’t miss this extraordinary event — registration is limited, so sign up today! REGISTER HERE
Integreon Announces New Chief Technology Officer
Appointment furthers commitment to lead the outsourced legal, creative, and business solutions industry in the application of enabling technology. March 5, 2024 – (AUSTIN AND LONDON) – Integreon, a trusted worldwide provider of legal, creative, and business outsourced services, announced today that John Wei has joined the company as its Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and Executive Vice President (EVP), aligning Integreon’s technology capabilities with its strategic business objectives. This also includes advancing both client delivery and company-wide efficiencies. John is a seasoned technology professional who joins Integreon from Comerica Bank, where he served as CTO and Senior Vice President. John has also held senior leadership positions at several companies, including Emergent Holdings, DXC Technology, and Hewlett Packard (HP). In these roles, John developed broad-based leadership experience in areas including profit and loss accountability, growth strategy, digital transformation, architecture, and operations. “John’s background in leading technology strategies for multiple high-profile companies makes him an excellent fit for Integreon and his innovative insights will add immediate value for our clients worldwide,” said Subroto Mukerji, Chief Executive Officer at Integreon. “We are eager to continue expanding our services with innovative, cutting-edge technologies that will help our clients’ businesses thrive in this ever-evolving market, and John’s industry expertise will advance those efforts.” John brings extensive technical expertise in areas including artificial intelligence, machine learning, cyber security, and regulatory compliance. Additionally, he has a depth of experience applying technology within complex fields such as financial services, technology services, and software product development. “Integreon is a leader in GenAI and is actively working to integrate this technology with its expertise in a manner that is effective and straightforward for its customers,” said John. “The company is uniquely positioned to revolutionize the way AI is used in the legal, marketing, and financial services sectors, which traditionally rely heavily on manual processes for managing unstructured data like emails and documents. With the company’s all-in embrace of GenAI, supported by a seasoned leadership team, I am eager to move forward its technology-driven approach to delivering enhanced value.” John is a Board Director at the Asian Pacific American Chamber of Commerce (APACC) and a member of the IBM Financial Services Cloud Council and the Harvard Business Review Advisory Council. He holds a Master of Science in Computer Information Systems from the University of Detroit Mercy and has completed undergraduate studies in Electrical Engineering at Technische Universität Berlin. John is a Harvard Business School alumni and graduate of the PLDA program. About Integreon Integreon is the trusted, global provider of legal, creative, and business outsourcing services to corporations and law firms seeking to expand their capabilities and transform their performance. The company’s 3,500+ professionals provide expert support across a range of managed services—from creative design, content delivery, and administrative support to legal and compliance. With global delivery centers on three continents, Integreon delivers round-the-clock service in 50+ languages and is deeply committed to client success, consistently delivering innovative, tech-enabled solutions that improve agility and efficiency to drive business performance. Integreon is owned by EagleTree Capital, a leading New York-based middle-market private equity firm with over $5 billion of assets under management. For more information about Integreon’s range of services, email [email protected], visit www.integreon.com and follow Integreon at LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.
Thomson Reuters: Achieving compliance with your law enforcement and third-party subpoena response process
This article originally appeared on Thomson Reuters Westlaw Today on February 12, 2024. View the original article here. Robert Daniel and Mark Grant of Integreon, Inc. explore areas legal operations professionals should consider in responding to law enforcement and third-party subpoena requests while ensuring legal compliance and protecting user privacy. Legal operations serve as a center of strategic planning, vendor management, knowledge management and legal practice outsourcing for corporate legal departments. As such, the legal operations team becomes a catch-all for any task possessing a legal component that does not involve active litigation. Third-party subpoena response and law enforcement response are two examples. Data is being created at an alarming rate and is playing an increasingly significant role in the resolution of lawsuits and law enforcement investigations. Organizations must navigate the complex landscape of responding to law enforcement and third-party subpoena requests while managing the unpredictability of request volumes, ensuring legal compliance, and protecting user privacy under deadline pressure. This article explores areas legal operations professionals should consider when striking a balance between meeting their legal obligations to their customers while ensuring transparency and accountability at each stage of the response process. Understand legal obligations The legal operations function commonly sits within a corporation’s in-house legal department. The type of information request, jurisdictional requirements, request volumes and deadlines often can influence the experience level of the legal operations team members required to complete the response task as well as the size and physical location of the team. Legal operations teams play a crucial role in interpreting and understanding the legal obligations placed upon organizations when it comes to responding to law enforcement and third-party subpoena requests. They must thoroughly analyze and apply relevant laws and regulations, as well as adhere to response deadlines to ensure compliance. They also must consider the ways in which an information request may impact a company’s response or overall obligation to respond. For example, legal and jurisdictional nuances can alter what could be considered an otherwise standard response to a law enforcement request. A third-party subpoena requesting a substantial amount of data may be found to be unnecessarily burdensome and trigger an objection to the requestor or a request for reimbursement of expenses associated with the time and resources it takes to compile a large production response. Establish clear response policies and procedures To manage law enforcement requests and third-party subpoenas effectively, legal operations professionals should establish clear policies and procedures that detail the steps and criteria for responding to such requests. The use of standard operating procedures (SOPs) will ensure consistent and transparent handling of requests and help protect user privacy while meeting legal obligations. Quality Assurance (QA) or Quality Control (QC) processes should be incorporated in the guidelines to assess the accuracy and consistency of data production as well as ensure compliance with company policies and procedures. Policies and procedures that do not facilitate speed and/or accuracy of review should be reassessed. A workflow assessment also can prove beneficial in identifying duplicative steps that reduce efficiency or add little to no value to the response process. Protect user privacy Legal operations professionals should prioritize protecting user privacy and work to minimize the disclosure of sensitive information. They should carefully consider the scope and necessity of the information requested by any requesting parties, ensuring that only the data most relevant to an information request is shared and only within the limits prescribed by the law. Customer data found to be privileged or not relevant to the request must be redacted or removed from the production response. When the production response is shared with the requesting party, ensure that data is encrypted, and password protected regardless of how data is transmitted. Inadvertent production of personal information could cause a privacy event creating a need for disclosure and correction. Collaborate with legal counsel Collaborating closely with internal or external legal counsel to navigate the complexities of third-party subpoena responses and law enforcement requests provides valuable expertise, ensuring that the organization’s actions align with legal requirements and to mitigate risk associated with non-compliance or unauthorized disclosure. If teams processing these requests are outside of Legal, close oversight and approval of processes and procedures is needed. Either internal or external counsel should review and provide guidance on response procedures to ensure adequate and legal production of client/customer data. Subpoena Processing and Compliance Factsheet Law Enforcement Response Factsheet Request tracking and transparency Maintaining transparency and accurate records throughout the process is essential. This is particularly true when responding to law enforcement requests, as the actions prompting the information request are criminal in nature. It is recommended that legal operations document all law enforcement request types, response actions taken, and any disclosures made to ensure accountability and facilitate audits or investigations if necessary. Some companies collect these data points and make them available to the public in the form of transparency reports. Such reports build trust with users and stakeholders and enhance the organization’s credibility in managing such requests. Counsel should review and ensure the response process and any associated reporting adhere to the responding company’s privacy policies. Provide ongoing training Regular training sessions should be conducted to ensure all employees understand their roles and responsibilities when dealing with third-party subpoenas and law enforcement requests. The laws governing the response process change frequently, and ongoing training will ensure any changes in obligations are met as well as facilitate consistency in productions across response teams. Considering the use of an alternative legal service provider (ALSP) Ensuring timely compliance can come with increasing costs, as scalable resources often are needed to address the unpredictability of request volumes and response deadlines. Collaborating with an ALSP can provide capacity to manage these ever-changing aspects of the process and can reduce strain on a legal department’s budget. Legal departments should consider the following when deciding to engage an ALSP: Experience — How long has the ALSP provided relevant types of services? For how many industries have they provided them? Do they have legal and/or
Case Study: GenAI-enabled deposition summary analysis
Benefits of shifting to agenAI-enabled deposition summary delivery model Client Personal injury law firm. Challenge Firms’ traditional approach to deposition summaries lacked the ability to scale, standardized processes, centralized quality control, and a tech platform designed for large-volume hosting and review. Solution Analyze the cost, resources, and time required for deposition summary using three different delivery models to determine and quantify impact. The following provides the evolution and an overview of each of the three models for handling deposition summary. Results The efficiency gains and cost savings realized from a tech-enable deposition summary model. Takeaway Compared to more traditional models, incorporating genAI technology to handle deposition summaries reduces the time to complete by 66% and cost by 75%-90% depending on attorney and paralegal hourly rates while also providing standardized prompt protocol and human QC from a senior Integreon reviewer. Integreon document review services Technology-enabled, unparalleled expertise, and cost predictability. When faced with litigation, disputes, arbitration, investigations, or due diligence, there are many unknowns. Your review processes and cost should not be a source of concern. Corporations and law firms around the world choose Integreon as their go-to review services partner. With 3,500+ employees and delivery centers on three continents, Integreon can handle any size review project anywhere. We can deploy onshore, offshore, or multi-shore resources using a “follow the sun” model to meet your deadline and budget needs. Integreon’s range of review services include: • ECA and Search Term Optimization• First and second-level review• Audio, media, and chat review• Redactions • Privilege review and privilege log• Unitization & Objective Coding• Witness & deposition preparation, trial support• Chronologies, summaries & dramatis personae • DSAR Support• Law Firm Process Optimization and Improvement• eDiscovery Consultancy and eDiscovery Services (powered by our trusted partners)
Law360 Pulse: A Model for Optimal Legal Tech Investment Strategy
This article originally appeared on Law360 Pulse on February 21, 2024. View the original article here. In a 2023 survey,[1] litigation support company U.S. Legal Support asked lawyers and legal professionals what legal tech trends emerged during the year and how they expect their use of technology to change in 2024. Predictably, the survey noted significant growth in the use of generative artificial intelligence tools within the legal industry, predicting further expansion this year. Legal organizations are being challenged by the pace of change, struggling to work out the right investment strategy. The answer to this challenge is to get back to basic principles. The model for optimal legal department efficiency is not difficult to articulate. It is based on an understanding of where workloads belong, according to the basic functions and priorities of a corporate legal team. The model does not depend on generative AI, nor indeed on any particular technology or tool. Generative AI offers the exciting prospect of helping to shift some types of work from one part of the model to another — but without changing the basic construction of the model. Let’s call this model, which categorizes workloads, the Matrix.[2] No-Touch No-touch workloads are fully automated: They do not require any handling by legal professionals. The classic example is purchase order processing on standard terms. A less dated example would be the chatbot. Properly designed, an AI-powered chatbot can automate a huge range of activities that traditionally required a live interface between business client and legal professional. Scenarios include the selection of a standard legal document for a particular transaction, and user Q&A resulting in the delivery to a client of a FAQs sheet on a given legal topic. The power of the generative AI tool is to make the client engagement experience natural and intuitive. Low-Touch According to the Matrix, low-touch workloads are of low to mid complexity and either semi-automated or outsourced. Outsourcing means shifting the workload as efficiently as possible away from the corporate legal department. Traditionally, the work might have been outsourced to a law firm, but because law firms offer specialist expertise on tap, that would be the most expensive form of legal support. Low-touch work should be in the least expensive category. Historically, this is the category where we have seen the biggest concentration of corporate inefficiency. Until the emergence of alternative legal service providers, or ALSPs, low-touch work was either outsourced to a law firm, sucked up by the in-house team or staffed by the department, hiring more employees or using interim contractors. ALSPs emerged to provide a more cost-efficient model for this category of workload, offering process simplification and standardization coupled with tight management of a frequently offshored team of legal professionals. Depending on the type of work involved, technology has become an increasing feature of the ALSP value proposition — think e-discovery, for example. I’m going to say something controversial: Generative AI is introducing confusion into the marketplace. Legal departments are reading and hearing that the technology can drive radical levels of automation, scale and speed into workloads that previously demanded in-house or external resources. The idea is that the technology can take over work that people were handling, so the race is on to invest in use-case development to operationalize this capability. The point of confusion is that many corporate legal teams believe that they should be licensing the generative AI tools and working on the design and build of the solutions. If they are doing that for low-touch work, they are making a mistake. Building a generative AI solution for low-touch work is not a one-time event. The tool will require ongoing quality control, for starters. But there is another big issue to consider. The industry is just at the beginning of the generative AI revolution. There are so many tech vendors to choose from, and indeed the optimal design features of the tools are still taking shape — for example, with selections being made about the best large language model menu options that should be used to provide the foundations of the solution. So here is the point: Law departments building their own solutions are being asked to place a bet on the right technology, and then to make the necessary resourcing investments for the ongoing process management and continuous improvement. These commitments might make sense for high-value workloads, but not for low-touch matters. For low-touch workloads, in-house teams should rely heavily on their technology and service partners to bring generative AI to the table and ensure that the work is managed to high standards, low prices, maximum efficiency and continuing improvement. Why? Because then the legal department can start focusing on fully automated solutions — no-touch work — and on how to innovate around its core activity. This is the paradox. By being drawn into investments of time, money and energy focused on building generative AI use cases for low-touch work, legal departments are actually diverting attention away from the areas where they should really be innovating. Core The Matrix describes the core workload as being the principal focus of the in-house team. There are two perspectives to consider: the company itself, and the lawyers who make up the department. From the company’s point of view, a legal department is worth having if the business requires similar types of legal support on a sufficiently frequent basis to warrant employing its own lawyers rather than instructing external counsel. The advantages of the in-house team go beyond simply saving money, though, because the employee can build relationships internally and develop institutional and industrial knowledge that may be hard for the external lawyer to match. And from the perspective of the lawyer, a major attraction of an in-house role is precisely that ability to build deep connections with the business client and establish levels of commercial influence that few external advisers could aspire to. So we can develop our definition of core workload along the following lines. The type of work should: Be valuable to the business
Blueprint for Successful Second Request Document Review
The question, “Have you worked on a second request?” is often met by a sigh or a knowing glance and accompanied by a story that shows herculean strength or the agony of defeat. Or both. Because of the sheer number of documents that require review in a short period to an exacting standard, everyone who has worked to support law firms on a second request, as a matter manager on the client side, as a project manager for data or review vendor or as a reviewer has a story. Crucially, for corporate clients and their legal teams, the outcome carries significant repercussions and, therefore, requires a high degree of expertise and precision in effectively responding to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Antitrust division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). What is a second request? When a company is going through a merger or an acquisition, the FTC or the antitrust division of the DOJ, depending on who has jurisdiction over the matter, goes through a very detailed and thorough review to make sure that there are no antitrust concerns. The first step is producing a limited number of relevant documents, often called a first request. From there, the government will assess whether it will approve or disapprove the merger or acquisition or needs more information. If it requests additional information, this is called “the second request.” A corporation usually has two months to respond to and produce accompanying evidence for the second request, which means a large volume of emails and other documents generated by the business have to be reviewed and categorized for production – quickly. Navigating the intricacies of Second Request Document Review is a crucial competency for corporate legal departments, law firms, and litigation attorneys. This process calls for a meticulous approach to prevent costly legal pitfalls and ensure compliance with antitrust laws. This blog will provide a blueprint for a Second Request Document Review by outlining the essentials and actionable best practices. The Blueprint 1. Preparation Preparation is critical for a successful Second Request Document Review. Highly orchestrated planning supports complying with requests while maintaining the transaction’s momentum. Data Collection The client and counsel will work together to structure and organize the information needed to respond to the second request. Once they know where the information is, they will work with their collections vendor to collect data from various custodians. Define review population Once the data collection is complete (or complete enough), the data vendor defines the appropriate review population by working with counsel and the client on early case assessment activities and search term checks. Because of the time constraints, it may be necessary to start a review of some of the documents before all collections are complete. Protocol From there, counsel should create a document review protocol to train the document review team. The document review team will reference the protocol, accompanying queries, and calibration logs for guidance during the review. Depending on how the review is structured, there may be a need to have several document review protocols based on the timeframe, custodians’ seniority, and other essential factors. Time management A considerable part of the success of a second request project is time management. A best practice is having a timeline with built-in buffers. 2. The Team The ability of a document review provider to quickly assemble the right size team with the ability to scale as needed is critical. Additionally, an internal management structure that divides the team into small groups led by an experienced team lead allows for accountability and agility. Moreover, to ensure an efficient review process, the project manager must have up-to-date information about the status of the various workflows at any given time. That is why the lead project manager must delineate the roles and responsibilities of the project team from the outset. Finally, having an offshore review team that can provide round-the-clock resources allows for maximum efficiency and cost savings. Read Case Study » 3. Tech Tools Analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) are essential to ensure the document review is as efficient as possible. Using these tools reduces the number of documents that attorney teams look at and could include the following. Propagation of coding to duplicate documents and lesser included email threads Predictive coding methods such as Technology Assisted Review (TAR), Continuous Active Learning (CAL) Generative AI for privilege logs and to summarize documents 4. Workflows Paying close attention to workflow and process is critical once you have the people and technology in place. The project team needs the agility to deploy different workflows using the tools for different stages of the review as required. Here are just some questions that are relevant as the team considers workflow. Which teams are working on the first-level review? Where are they located? Are there documents that do not need review? A less-than-thorough review can jeopardize the entire process, so it is essential to establish cross-checks and validation steps. What types of QC checks are there? How much QC is counsel going to do? Will we use statistically significant sampling methods to ensure the review is on the right track? Ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive documents is paramount. Robust protocols must be in place to guard against exposure. Are we able to use AI to identify HIPAA and PII? Are there redaction propagation tools for HIPAA and privilege redaction that ensure consistency? Ensure that privilege logs are deduped in the first instance to ensure consistency. Do we need to generate an accompanying names list? Do we need to have titles for the individuals that are listed? Could we limit the titles to just those working for the client? Is there going to be one production or many rolling productions? How often? 5. Communication and Collaboration Win the Day While it may seem obvious, the element that ties together these best practices is the imperative of consistent communication. The dynamics between corporate legal departments, law firms, and litigation attorneys are to be nurtured, as clarity in