From Big Law to Legal Tech, Cat Casey Sees E-Discovery Renaissance
DISCO's first chief innovation officer says eager investors in legal tech, ballooning data created by lawyers' clients, and a greater need for advanced analytics are fueling e-discovery's renaissance.
May 08, 2019 at 09:00 AM
4 minute read
These days, individuals and businesses are leaving a larger digital footprint through the growing use of emails, apps and internet-connected devices. In response, e-discovery vendors are entering a new frontier of leveraging advanced technology and expanding their solutions beyond just e-discovery, said Catherine “Cat” Casey, DISCO's first chief innovation officer.
On Tuesday, Casey joined the e-discovery company after nearly three years at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher where she served as global director of the firm's e-discovery and practice technology team. She said she left Gibson Dunn because the legal market was reaching an “inflection point” with advanced technology and she wanted to shepherd a company through the “next chapter of e-discovery.”
The 15-year e-discovery veteran joined DISCO because of the company's use of advanced technology and its trajectory. Her hire comes roughly four months after DISCO announced it raised $83 million in investments. At the time, DISCO CEO Kiwi Camara said the company intended to expand its solutions beyond e-discovery with CaseBuilder, a workflow product.
Casey discusses how the eagerness among investors for legal tech, the ballooning data created by lawyers' clients, and a greater need for advanced analytics are ushering in the new chapter in e-discovery.
The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Legaltech News: Do e-discovery platforms have to expand their capabilities beyond e-discovery to stay relevant to lawyers' needs?
Catherine “Cat” Casey: It's a natural evolution. If you look at people's roles that are in e-discovery, they don't actually say e-discovery, they are involved with case management, data governance. As data becomes more central and pivotal to business … those sort of practices and procedures are expanding into dealing with how to structure data [and] how to manage that data.
It's a need of the legal industry to have that one-stop solution that will handle all aspects of lawyers' day-to-day [needs]. Step one is CaseBuilder, but there's a long path forward. I think companies understand attorneys need an ally as they navigate their evolving role to help them embrace technology. It's less about staying relevant for the provider and more about one-sizing the solution that is offered for the attorney and matching what they need.
What are those new needs lawyers are facing now?
Those evolving needs are an ability to look into a variety of data, whether it's from applications, laptops, an Alexa or Fitbits. Attorneys need tools and guides to navigate the evolving way people are communicating.
Do you see more e-discovery providers offering more solutions outside of e-discovery?
Yes, I think because the needs of attorneys are evolving because there is so much data and if a legal technology company wants to continue to evolve and adapt with the needs of an attorney they will have to adapt.
What's driving that new appetite for change in legal?
What I've seen in the last 18 months [is] the individual proprietary tools that are being invested in. You see a massive injection of capital into the cloud-based providers. There's an appetite for better and faster [technology] that has never been seen before and is in part being driven by the massive amount of data even in small cases.
Historically, how we have done things won't be enough [to understand a lot of data]. You have to use advanced technology, and I feel the interest is driven by understanding that the needs of attorneys and buyers of e-discovery have become bigger and more complex and more challenging. And the companies that can [meet those needs] are the ones you are seeing getting a lot of funding because there's a lot of consultants scouring across the e-discovery space and picking the providers that are best positioned not just to merge but to continue innovating and match the evolving obligations that law is facing.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow I Made Partner: 'Your Coworkers Are One of the Most Valuable Assets You Have,' Says Laurel Roglen of Ballard Spahr
Can a Law Firm Institutionalize Its Culture? Boies Schiller’s New Chairman Will Try
How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Stay Focused on Building Strong Relationships,' Says Joseph Yaffe of Skadden
How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Collaboration Actually Makes the Job Fun,' Says Zachary Lerner of Troutman Pepper Locke
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250