Dallas
Dallas Digital Forensics | LCG Global
Address:
306 Morton St. Richmond, TX 77469What Our Clients Say
Latest Blog in The eDiscovery Zone
AI with Integrity – Part 2: From Predictive to Prescriptive – Leveraging AI Without Sacrificing Governance
Artificial Intelligence is no longer just predicting what might happen; it’s starting to decide what will happen. This leap from predictive AI (which forecasts outcomes) to prescriptive AI (which recommends and triggers actions) is transforming industries.
Banks are freezing accounts before fraud occurs. Logistics systems reroute shipments in real time. HR tools shortlist or reject candidates without human review. These capabilities promise speed and efficiency, but they also introduce new governance and legal risks that organizations can’t afford to overlook.
At LCG Discovery & Governance, we’ve seen both the value and the vulnerabilities of prescriptive AI. The difference between innovation and liability often comes down to whether AI is deployed inside a governance-first framework.
AI with Integrity – Part 1: The Legal Implications of Machine-Generated Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping how organizations generate, process, and use information. Content such as automatically summarized documents, predictive analytics outputs, and generative AI artifacts (e.g., images, reports, transcripts) can, and increasingly do, serve as evidence in legal proceedings.
But this introduces a fundamental question: Can machine-generated outputs be trusted as evidence, and more importantly, are they legally defensible?
At LCG Discovery & Governance, we advise that while AI offers remarkable insight and efficiency, its outputs must satisfy rigorous legal conditions, namely authentication, chain of custody, reliability, bias mitigation, and expert scrutiny, before being admitted in court.
When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation (Part 5 of 5)
In the first four installments of “When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation,” we uncovered a sobering truth: when IT teams or other non-forensically trained/experienced personnel collect evidence using consumer-grade tools and ad-hoc processes, the courtroom becomes a minefield. Bad hashes (or no hash value validation at all), overwritten logs, incomplete exports, and overconfident administrators routinely hand opposing counsel the ammunition to call collections and data into question, at best, and are likely facing spoliation motions and Daubert challenges.
In this final article, we pivot from autopsy to action. What does a solidly defensible, litigation-ready preservation program look like in 2025? How do corporate legal, cybersecurity, and operations leaders transform “good-enough” backups into forensically defensible evidence flows, without blowing up budgets or business agility? The roadmap that follows weaves together international standards, such as ISO/IEC 27037, the Sedona Principles, emerging Rule 37(e) case law, and real-world cost data to provide a pragmatic blueprint for transitioning from risk to resilience.
