You are here: Home / Archives for client

When Is A Local Resource Not A Good Option For E-Discovery Services?

January 25, 2012 By Leave a Comment

It is not uncommon to read posts, tweets and emails within the litigation support industry with a firm, corporation or vendor urgently seeking “local” resources at a distant location, whether it be here in the United States or at points around the globe.  While sometimes it is simply a matter of practicality, more often than not it is a desperate attempt to satisfy a client who refuses to acknowledge the terms “travel” or “remote” as part of a polite conversation.  Why might this be?  Well, historically these terms have often resulted in unexpectedly large invoices due to high hourly fees and premium airfare requirements.

One should note that there are a number of locations in the world where there simply is not enough local demand to support a legal technology business.  Many legal systems outside of the US and UK do not have discovery and disclosure requirements, thus there a few resources to support such services.  Not only can this be noted for global finance centers such as Shanghai, Zurich and Dubai, but many regions in the United States where there is not a demand for electronic discovery services.  Some scanning and reprographics shops have taken the initiative to invest in the appropriate software, but unfortunately may not have the in-house knowledge and experience to execute the requirements of a project successfully.  This leaves critical decisions for the corporation and firm involved in a case – blindly search for an unknown vendor with unproven skills or leverage a relationship with a specialist that has a range of direct experience and experience?  At what point does cost – or perceived cost – outweigh potential risks such as spoliation?

There are, however, a growing number of options to the historical norms within the industry.   Boutique companies such as Global EDD Group are bridging the gap between organizations and their growing national and international electronic discovery needs by leveraging proven experience, low operational expenses and an extensive network of resources to offer clients legal technology services around the globe at price points typically associated with local vendors.

So, the next time you have a cross-border or geographically-dispersed matter with e-discovery requirements, take a moment to evaluate all of the options available to you and your client.  You might be very surprised at the robust options available for high quality remote/onsite services.

 

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: From The News, Global EDD Group Tagged With: , , , , , ,

How Siri Could Make Collaboration Mobile – Telecom – Unified Communications/messaging – Informationweek

November 30, 2011 By Leave a Comment

What might a voice-activated collaboration client do? Siri’s current ability to make calendar entries, send text messages, and take dictation hint at the possibilities. For example, the standard way of sharing comments is Facebook’s wall metaphor–a comment stream threaded beneath an anchor topic. In the context of enterprise collaboration, the topic is likely to be a PowerPoint deck or meeting agenda. While it’s possible, although rarely pleasant, to read heavily formatted content like a slide deck on a smartphone, typing a comment is onerous, even with a client optimized for the smartphone’s small display. Wouldn’t it be nice to dictate your thoughts instead?

Of course, this text-to-speech example just hints at what innovative developers might do with a cloud-based speech-recognition engine. Siri already understands context, in that prior requests inform subsequent answers. Ask “Find me the nearest Mexican restaurant,” and Siri replies with a list based on your current location. Follow up with “No, make that pizza,” and Siri remembers both the context (restaurants) and location. Imagine if this same logical power could be applied to any application. Say you’re a sales rep and your manager has shared a spreadsheet with regional sales estimates. If you have updated figures for your territory, instead of hunting and pecking changes on the tiny touchscreen keyboard, wouldn’t it be nice to say, “Siri, change the sales estimate for the Northwest region from 750,000 to 900,000″ and have the update applied, along with a comment field indicating who made the change? Similarly, when reviewing a project manager’s task schedule on the road from your phone, wouldn’t it be nice to update it with a simple voice command? “Siri, change the completion date for software pilot testing to Feb. 9.”

Natural-language control of computer systems is not new; it’s been a staple of science fiction since Star Trek. But Siri, with its merging of client-side language processing and server-side meaning interpretation, has raised the bar on what’s possible. While talking to a laptop, with its expansive keyboard, never made much sense, talking to your phone couldn’t be more natural. Instead of having conversations with friends or colleagues, let’s just have a conversation with the device itself. Siri ushers in the era in which speech recognition doesn’t let devices just take dictation but actually engage in conversation–tell it what we want, react to the response, and modify our request–and use speech as a software UI.

The future of smartphone collaboration lies in vocal, not tactile, interaction. Siri blazes the trail.

via How Siri Could Make Collaboration Mobile – Telecom – Unified Communications/messaging – Informationweek.

Filed Under: Tech Bytes Tagged With: , , , , ,

Expand Your E-Discovery Data Collection Services Via Partnership

November 29, 2011 By Leave a Comment
Global EDD Group - Data Collection & Digital Investigation Services

Global EDD Group - Data Collection & Digital Investigation Services

Creating or maintaining a Data Collection and Digital Investigation team is a major investment for organizations of all sizes.  Beyond the initial cost of the specialized hardware and software required for this line of service is the ongoing labor cost for the trained specialists who undertake the technical tasks associated with each project.   While clients may demand data collection services in support of processing and hosting agreements, it often may not make good business sense to invest in a large or full time Data Collection and Digital Investigation team as it can be a burden on operating budgets.  As a valuable alternative, Global EDD Group provides Data Collection and Digital Investigation Services as outsourced subcontractor, enabling industry vendors to provide the services at a competitive price point without losing control of the client management or post-collection services.  Quite simply, the technicians from Global EDD Group provide services on your behalf under your direction via the Preferred Partner Program.

The Preferred Partner Program from Global EDD Group

Global EDD Group partners with service providers and law firms that are dedicated to providing their client’s with the highest quality discovery and document management services.  The Preferred Partner Program (3P) enables service providers and firms to seamlessly expand their suite of services and geographic footprint by integrating, referring or reselling Global EDD Group services.

Advantages of Partnering with Global EDD Group:

♦  Vast Experience with Complex Paper & Electronic Discovery Projects
♦  Driven to Exceed End Client Expectations
♦  Facilities in Asia, Europe & North America
♦  Mobile Collection & Processing Units
♦  Advanced Foreign Language Services
♦  Partner Retains Client / Project Management Role


Benefits of 3P:


♦  Extremely Competitive Flat Rate & Bulk Pricing Model


♦  Generous Discounts & Commissions Exceeding Industry Average


♦  Strict No Competition / No Solicitation Policy


♦  Increased Profit Margins


♦  Leverage International Strategic Alliances




Please contact us to learn more about Global EDD Group’s Preferred Partner Program.


Related articles



Enhanced by Zemanta

		

		
Filed Under: From The News  Tagged With: , , , , , , ,  

	

		


				
iReview Global: One Platform for Early Data Assessment and Full Linear Review

		
		
October 11, 2011  By  Leave a Comment 
		

			


The iReview Early Data Assessment system processes and ingests electronic data for use within web-enabled review module, providing the client robust capabilities to determine the relevancy of the provided data set.  The unique design of the Preview System allows Global EDD Group the ability to provide the client with predicable pricing, detailed data analysis, reduced review expense, streamlined work flow and increased efficiencies.


Key Functionality




    

  • De-Duplication, De-NISTing and Date Range Filtering
    • 

  • Automatic Concept Clustering
    • 

  • Email Threading
    • 

  • Dynamic Full Text and Concept Searching
    • 

  • Advanced Clustering of Search Results
    • 

  • Batch Tagging and Categorization
    • 

  • TIFF On-The-Fly for Redaction
    • 

  • Robust Reporting
    • 

  • Full Production Module
    • 

  • Seamless Migration to Full Review System
    • 





Key Benefits


    

  • Reduced Full Review Costs
    • 

  • One Platform with Similar Interfaces for Preview and Full Review
    • 

  • SaaS Model with No Upfront Investment or Long Term Licensing
    • 

  • Predictable Pricing with No Per User Fees
    • 

  • Secure Repository for Multiple Use Data Sets
    • 



Further information on the iReview Global Discovery Platform from Global EDD Group  is available by clicking here.


iReview Global Discovery Platform

		

		
Filed Under: Global EDD Group, Tech Bytes  Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,  

	

		


				
Lawyers warned about negligence in e-discovery | Law Times News

		
		
September 27, 2011  By  Leave a Comment 
		

			


In the high-tech world of electronic discovery, lawyers need to take old-world steps to avoid negligence claims, say lawyers who practise in the area.


Susan Wortzman has seen lawyers negligently collect too few or too many records.


A panel of lawyers tackled e-discovery negligence at a conference on Sept. 19 organized by Sedona Canada and sponsored by the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario Bar Association, and The Advocates’ Society.


Susan Wortzman, co-founder of e-discovery law firm Wortzman Nickle Professional Corp., noted she has seen lawyers negligently collect too few or too many records, both of which can be fatal to a case. “If you over-collect, the problem you will face is that you are left with so much data.


You can use all the fancy tools you want to cull it but if you collect a million records and you’re successful in culling 75 per cent of it, you still have 250,000 records to review, and that is a lot of records.


Now you need lawyers to sit for days, months, and maybe years, and the costs are going to become exorbitant.”


Glenn Smith, a founding partner at Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP, said there’s a risk of negligence right at the inception of a file if lawyers fail to exert the type of supervision that seems routine in other areas of practice.


“If you allow a client to self-collect the evidence, you may already have a negligence problem. It’s like having the client go through the filing cabinet without you there. You wouldn’t do that in hard copy but you somehow allow it to happen today.”


In the event of mistakes, judges won’t look kindly on parties who failed to adequately supervise collection or put safeguards in place, Smith said.


According to Wortzman, lawyers may have to do battle over this issue since clients are often anxious to avoid the costs associated with bringing in a third-party vendor to do collection when they feel they can do just as good a job.


“One of the ways that we have dealt with it is by saying, ‘OK, you can do the collection yourselves, but we’re going to send someone along to see the protocol and understand in writing how exactly you’re going to do that collection.’


“If someone ever has to testify, you don’t want your own IT person or the client’s IT person being put on the stand and subject to cross-examination on all types of issues. There’s huge exposure there.”


via Lawyers warned about negligence in e-discovery | Headline News | Law Times News.

		

		
Filed Under: From The News  Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,  

	

		


				
UBS Reports $2 Billion Loss by Rogue Trader – NYTimes.com

		
		
September 15, 2011  By  Leave a Comment 
		

			


UBS said on Thursday that a rogue trader in its investment bank had lost $2 billion, a fresh blow to the beleaguered Swiss bank.


Police in London have arrested an European equities trader, Kweku Adoboli, in connection with the case, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation, who was not authorized to speak publicly.


The incident raises questions about the bank’s management and risk policies at time when the firm is trying to rebuild its operations and bolster its flagging client base. The case could also bolster the efforts of regulators who have pushing in some countries to separate trading from private banking and other less risky businesses.


The revelation about the rogue trader comes as the bank tries to regain its financial footing. Last month, the bank announced it would shed 3,500 jobs, following poor second-quarter results. In an internal memo, UBS said the unauthorized trading could drag down earnings in the third quarter, adding that “no client positions” were involved in the “unauthorized trading.”


via UBS Reports $2 Billion Loss by Rogue Trader – NYTimes.com.

		

		
Filed Under: From The News  Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,  

	

		


				
‘E-Discovery Evolution’: Costs of electronic discovery are growing | Post Gazette

		
		
August 16, 2011  By  Leave a Comment 
		

			


These days, attorneys say that e-discovery can eat up between 50 to 80 percent of a litigation budget, a staggering cost that threatens to overshadow the merits of litigation and compound the tensions between bar and bench.


And as the cost of e-discovery keeps growing, so, too, grows the number of problems created by these growing costs, and the possible solutions to these problems. There’s also no shortage of disagreements on those problems and solutions:


• Some say recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were a help, others say they don’t go far enough.


• Some say the courts need to catch up with the times and get more involved in e-discovery disputes from the get-go, while others say it will simply take time for case law to develop.


• Defense lawyers say plaintiffs use discovery as a bargaining chip to elicit settlements from large companies with lots of data. Plaintiffs lawyers say the justice system has long provided for open discovery.


What everyone seems to agree upon is that electronic discovery continues to be the tail that wags the dog in many cases, that these issues will only become more prevalent, that e-discovery is now a strategic aspect of litigation and that every litigator should have some degree of knowledge on the subject — or at least know who to turn to when they don’t know something.


Cozen O’Connor member David J. Walton, co-chairman of the firm’s e-discovery task force, said he doesn’t want to be known as an e-discovery lawyer, but rather a litigator who happens to know about e-discovery.


Clients roll their eyes when they hear the term, he said. Litigators have to sell clients that e-discovery is a strategic part of every case because they can’t blow their whole litigation budget on discovery.


“I’m afraid not to know it because it dominates every part of a case,” Mr. Walton said.


Part of the problem with e-discovery, many lawyers say, is the fear and anxiety it creates. Will a judge issue sanctions against the client or even the attorney? Will a client’s privileged information accidentally get turned over? Will clients be taxed costs if they lose the case?


via ‘E-Discovery Evolution’: Costs of electronic discovery are growing.

		

		
Filed Under: From The News  Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,  

	

		


				
Case Study: SharePoint as an Email Management Solution

		
		
August 16, 2011  By  Leave a Comment 
		

			


When I discuss this solution at conferences or with peers, invariably the initial reaction is something like this: “Are you crazy? Why would you use SharePoint when you could use a commercially available product for archiving?” I must admit there were times over the two years we took to develop this solution, in partnership with Handshake Software, that I did feel a little crazy; however, we never lost sight of our goal. As you are about to see, this effort was about much more than merely archiving email.


The Email Conundrum


What are a typical law firm’s business practices and the challenges they face? Law firms do not sell widgets; we aid our clients in the form of legally sufficient document content and trial services. Clients have complicated issues that rarely translate easily from one case (aka matter) to another. The need to evaluate the circumstances and risks weighted against the desired outcomes varies for every client’s needs. Depending on the type of case, the jurisdiction(s) involved and other attorneys (opposing and co-counsel) the outcome(s) can vary dramatically from case to case and often represents a compromise between the parties based on the facts and circumstances as they unfold. The primary means of client communications and delivery method for intermediary and final document products is email.


Case materials are generated with different applications, from a variety of data sources (both internal and external) which produce different file types by a variety of firm personnel on tight timelines. It is not unusual for law firms to support 50 to 100+ different data and risk management applications and dozens of enterprise and workgroup (practice) databases. This is what drives content diversity, increases storage/retention challenges and fractures training/support issues in law firms. In summary, it is challenging to systemically provide user context to content when it is spread out across so many systems for tens of thousands of clients and hundreds of thousands of cases. Hopefully this short summary lends some understanding to the issues we faced.


The firm organizes new business in a structure that tags all business entities with a unique client number and the transactions for each client with a unique matter number for that client. For example, 12345.67890 would indicate client number 12345 is Johnson Hospital and 67890 would be property acquisition matter for them. Just about everything we do for a client is tagged with this unique identifier, including accounting transactions, documents, physical records, critical dates, etc. This allows us to reach in to various systems and discretely withdraw content and data the user requests. Such client/matter tagging is typical of most firms in the legal industry. Extending this method of tagging client and matter metadata to email would quadruple the amount of content within our inventory.


continued @ Case Study: SharePoint as an Email Management Solution.

		

		
Filed Under: Tech Bytes  Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,  

	

		


				
Saving Time, Money and Face with E-Discovery

		
		
August 3, 2011  By  Leave a Comment 
		

			


E-discovery is becoming a mainstream process and technology at law firms that also seek to reduce attorney time and create a more efficient document review process. Severson & Werson, an Irvine, California law firm of 120 attorneys, offers an example of the technology’s use in a case that cleared a client and significantly lowered costs of managing evidence.


Severson & Werson represents a variety of clients but specializes in the construction industry. In a recent case, the firm received 250,000 documents relevant to a complicated trial from multiple international parties, with no time to review each one. The combination of large volumes of evidence and short turnaround is a not-uncommon scenario in the world of litigation today, attorneys say.


The case was brought to determine fault for expensive delays during the design and construction of a condo-hotel in California. The owner sought $9 million, and the contractor responded with their own claims of $5.8 million against the architect and Severson & Werson’s client, the project’s structural engineer.


ADVERTISEMENT


Using e-discovery, Severson & Werson was able to discover the relevant documents that led to the case being settled and proved their client wasn’t at fault.


Attorney Bruce N. Furukawa is technology partner in the Severson & Werson Construction group, primarily representing and counseling architects and engineers. Furukawa has negotiated and implemented e-discovery protocols and developed strategies for producing electronic documents in both federal and state courts. Furukawa described this case as typical in that everyone involved managed data according to their own processes. The client, for example, managed data in a controlled way. “Every time they got an email, they’d save it and print out attachments and delete the attachments. Another party saved everything. Another party saved everything intermingled with all their documents,” explained Furukawa.


The firm negotiated to upload the documents to a hosting provider that used kCura’s Relativity software, with the costs split three ways, between the owner, the architect and Severson & Werson’s client, the structural engineer. “By consolidating all the documents in the case, we saved costs on hosting by a third. We also agreed [each party] only had to pay for data you put into it.”


via Saving Time, Money and Face with E-Discovery.

		

		
Filed Under: From The News  Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,  

	

		


				
Becoming E-Discovery Ready – An Introduction to Litigation Software for E-Discovery

		
		
July 29, 2011  By  Leave a Comment 
		

			


 


Introduction


Litigation costs have been rising in recent years, attributable in part to an increase in the volume of documentary evidence and corresponding complexity of cases. This trend, fueled by the widespread use of e-mail communication in business and cheaper digital storage, is likely to set the tone for the future. The explosion in documentary evidence means trial lawyers are now spending significantly more time reviewing documentary evidence; and trial teams are growing larger as more support resources are now required for trial preparation.


However, the assumption that an increase in the volume of documentary evidence must necessarily result in a corresponding increase in the number of lawyers engaged in the case is fallacious. It is a fallacy because it is premised on the fact that trial preparation methods remain unchanged. More significantly, it fails to take into account the changing nature of documentary evidence (data in electronic form as opposed to physical paper files stored in filing cabinets) and fails to recognise the availability of new technologies designed to facilitate the trial preparation process.1


Just as technology has given rise to the document explosion, technology also offers a solution to litigation teams ready to adopt methodologies more befitting to digital information. Law firms tied to traditional hour-billing model may question the wisdom of deploying methods that promote fewer review hours and less lawyer involvement. In the long run, however, we believe that a competitive marketplace and more knowledgeable clientele guarantees that more efficient modes of production will triumph over less efficient ones. [Read more...]

		

		
Filed Under: Global EDD Group  Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,  

	

	
« Older Posts