Tech specs
1-2 of 2 reviews
What is our primary use case? We primarily use LAW PreDiscovery for litigation support services, such as production processing, importing native files, converting PDFs, bate numbering, batch printing trial exhibits, and archival scanning for corporate clients. What is most valuable? I've found the ability to customize exports and indexing in LAW PreDiscovery to be the most valuable feature. It allows us to meet our customers' specific needs effectively. What needs improvement? LAW PreDiscovery can simplify its interface and offer a cloud-accessible version tailored to customers. We often use other cloud-based document review software alongside LAW PreDiscovery to meet specific needs. This interchangeability allows us to handle specialized export requests more effectively. There also needs to be a more straightforward process for upgrading licenses without contacting support. For how long have I used the solution? I have been working with LAW PreDiscovery since 2006. What do I think about the stability of the solution? There are a few bugs sometimes, but, PreDiscovery is stable processing software. What do I think about the scalability of the solution? As for scalability, PreDiscovery can handle multiple users and licenses, which can be distributed across different individuals as needed. How are customer service and support? There's room for improvement in support. How would you rate customer service and support? Positive How was the initial setup? The installation and setup of PreDiscovery is not overly time-consuming but can be a bit complex due to its SQL Server dependency. What was our ROI? We've found that using LAW PreDiscovery has significantly improved our cost efficiency and streamlined our legal reviews. It allows us to process and scan documents in batches, which has saved us time and labour costs. It has been worth the investment for us, and we use it extensively, especially for traditional processing tasks like scanning indexing and batch conversion; it's important to note that learning LAW requires on-the-job training. While essential functions are easy to grasp, mastering its advanced features takes time and practice. What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing? LAW PreDiscovery licenses are pretty costly and are on a yearly subscription basis. Before committing to LAW, it's crucial to calculate and ensure that you'll see a return on investment. What other advice do I have? If you're a more prominent law firm or a litigation support vendor dealing with extensive document processing, LAW PreDiscovery could be a good fit. However, for smaller companies or law firms needing basic document review and processing, there are more affordable and pay-per-use cloud-based tools available. It's essential to consider your specific needs and budget before deciding to use LAW PreDiscovery. Overall, I would rate LAW PreDiscovery an eight out of ten. It meets our processing requirements effectively and helps us meet our customers' deadlines. Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
What is our primary use case? We use LAW PreDiscovery to perform required checks every time we receive KYC from our clients to see if they have any political affiliation or if they have any criminal background that we need to know about when it comes to laundering. Because I work for a census company. What is most valuable? Once you type in a person's name, it returns a list in which if there are any a hundred percent matches, they will show you as a hundred percent matches, and if not, they will show you, say, the person has the same surname or the same initial, surname, and a first name so has a lot of details and a lot of sources. It returns a comprehensive list of one hundred percent matched to the person's name. The sourcing and the detailed background checklist are the most valuable features of this solution. What needs improvement? They have a lot of these 100% matches with no details or sources for certain names that are very common in certain countries. It is difficult for us to determine whether or not it is that person. Also, some sources are usually in the country's native language, making translation difficult. We can rule out that person based on those details and the ones we have because they don't have a photo or a date of birth. While the sourcing is sound, I believe we require more details and sources. There are some matches that have no sources, and the language can be a problem at times. For example, because there is no photo or date of birth, you cannot rule out that person based on what you know. You must go to the person and confirm whether or not they have committed this financial crime or are associated with some political role. If these details, photos, dates of birth, and so on are not possible to include, I believe it would be much more efficient if multiple people could log in using the same email address, as we can in some other programs. For how long have I used the solution? I have been using LAW PreDiscovery for a year and a half. What do I think about the stability of the solution? In my opinion, LAW PreDiscovery is a stable solution. What do I think about the scalability of the solution? My problem is that we only have one email address and only one user can use it at a time. If someone else wants to do a world-check on the client, they must log out the first person who was using it. Having a large workload means that only one person can do the world-check because otherwise, they will have to log in again, all the time, every five minutes, type the password, and enter the confirmation code. The company can purchase more users, but I believe that having multiple users allowed to log in could be included in the license. Or simply the fact that you don't have to log out the other person once you log in. You are not required to log out of the different user. We have ten users in our organization. They are mainly in compliance and back office. Back office and compliance We are the only ones who use it. Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch? I've only used it for European IDs, and European IDs have these MRZ at the end, those numbers and letters that look like code, and that we also have on our passports and other documents. So far, I've only used the program that checks European clients with this MRZ, and LexisNexis is good because, we can check from people all over the world, not just MRZ. They do, however, have the option to check a passport with the MRZ, but we've noticed that it doesn't actually check the passport, Whatever you write here. This MRZ code contains your personal information, such as your date of birth and the expiration date of your passport. Your full name, nationality, and everything else that is written in your passport are also written in that code. We have noticed if you make a mistake in this code while typing it out, that mistake will be visible in this final form. Whatever you write in this MRZ, it doesn't actually check the passport against the entire world, it just gives you the information from what you wrote in that MRZ code. We have been working with Bamboo HR for six or seven months. The company's HR department uses this solution to send out all important announcements, and we can see our annual leave, sick leave, and salary, as well as the position of every employee in the company. Everything that is handled by HR, from announcements to annual leave, such as the company calendar, you can see who is on leave, who is in the office, who is working, and so on. I am using it for my annual leave because there are a number of days remaining in your annual leave as well as a number of days that have been placed on hold from a leave request. It calculates annual leaves. Because I was doing everything manually before, this is a good thing. And I use it for that, as well as to see who is in the office, who is working, who is on leave, who is on army leave, sick leave, who is working from home, and so on. What other advice do I have? I would recommend it for a small-scale business because only one person can use it, and there are not many details for many names and people. There are not many details that allow you to rule out the person. You will need to spend some time actually checking all of the sources, translating the sources, and determining how far, what the client's address is, and where the crime was committed, which may take some time. If you have a heavy workload, you wouldn't be able to complete the research properly. It's a good product to use but on a smaller scale. I would rate the LAW PreDiscovery solution an eight out of ten. Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
