Experts: E-discovery Might Be Pricey But Oh, So Worth It!

When it comes to e-discovery, it all boils down to being prepared. That’s certainly what Matt Berry, president of Lateral Data, a software development and data processing company, says.

With e-discovery solutions, technology used to collect records and data that can be later used as evidence in a case, preparedness definitely comes more easily. And since courts typically take a dim view of companies that fail to manage their records properly, the impact of e-discovery software can be quite tangible.

‘The availability of e-discovery technology solutions and service providers today has somewhat leveled the e-discovery playing field,’ says Berry. ‘Again, regardless of a company’s size, better preparation equals a better e-discovery outcome.’

Recently, e-discovery has been getting a good deal of attention. As businesses have moved from telephone to email as the prevailing method of communication, vast amounts of data have become available for attorneys seeking information that may support their case. This has led to high demand for e-discovery solutions,which reduce the time it takes to identify and manage information through the process.

‘For any company that will be involved in any type of litigation which will require production of electronic documents, e-discovery plays a very important role,’ adds Berry. ‘A key factor is being prepared, as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to meet and confer early regarding the production and preservation of electronically stored information.’

via Experts: E-discovery Might Be Pricey But Oh, So Worth It!.

Connecticut Law Tribune: E-Discovery: New Technology Can Prioritize Documents

The last few years have seen the acceptance of early data assessment tools designed to reduce the volume of data that is collected, processed, reviewed and ultimately produced. Subsequent successes in this area have led to wide, mainstream usage and their adoption continues to reduce costs in the most expensive segment of the process, document review.

These technologies prioritize documents based upon trained relevance ratings and allow lawyers to estimate the value of those documents and organize them in a way that optimizes the review process, while simultaneously giving the case team early access to key information. These applications represent one of the most transformative trends in e-discovery technology. Whether you are responding to a second request or reviewing documents for litigation, you should make it a point to familiarize yourself with what is happening in this area.

The past 12 to 18 months have been a time of gaining confidence in the use of these new technologies, but 2011 will be the year in which their utilization will become more prolific in the legal community. These software applications not only provide a way of substantively assessing the collected material by identifying which documents are most likely to be responsive and relevant to a case (and correspondingly, identifying more likely non-responsive material), but they can also provide the means to structure the review workflow in order to maximize benefits.

There are different terms used to describe the various applications, including prioritization, predictive coding and automated or suggested coding, and while many people use these terms interchangeably, there are significant differences in approach and outcome. The key distinction is how the documents are evaluated and scored/coded.

Predictive coding, automated or suggested coding processes typically result in a coding “decision” – i.e., this document is responsive or not, related to this issue or not. Prioritization, on the other hand, does not make a determinative call. Rather, it provides a numeric score for each document and the review workflow is created based on these scores (the higher the score, the more likely it is that the document is responsive). The intent of this article, though, is not to discuss the different technologies in detail but to highlight the benefits of prioritization technology.

via Connecticut Law Tribune: E-Discovery: New Technology Can Prioritize Documents.

LegalTech New York 2011 Wrap-Up: Products, Trends, and More

Technology announcements at LegalTech New York often provide a theme that is adopted over the course of the show. Last year, Thomson Reuters announced WestlawNext at the show and put the human element back into legal research. The “human element” echoed in the Exhibit Hall as vendors stressed their ability to facilitate human-computer interaction in e-discovery document review and software interface designs.

This year there was no overall technology theme or scheme to adopt. There was, however, consensus on avoiding certain buzzwords like cloud and “early case assessment.” Both terms are not descriptive and vary according to a speaker’s background and context. Cloud computing can be web mail, hosting services, online practice management, or Amazon EC2. And early case assessment depends on client requirements, court demands, and case law precedent.

We don’t need more inexact terms in these exacting times. We need more exact terms for the precise tools legal professionals use throughout e-discovery. As Sophie A. Ross of FTI Consulting pointed out to me, the same tools used to collect and process electronically stored information can be used to provide quality control in the document review process. But for want of better words to describe software as a service and advanced e-discovery technology, we’ll continue to hear about clouds and ECA — although they are both out of this world.

via LegalTech New York 2011 Wrap-Up: Products, Trends, and More.

E-Discovery Technology Professionals in High Demand for 2011 :: aplcs.com

More than 200 eDiscovery and litigation technology professionals will be hired by AmLaw200 firms over the next six months, according to The Cowen Group’s 2010 Salary Study.

“New litigation and resumed work on previously stalled litigation is driving the next wave of litigation support and eDiscovery hiring,” said David Cowen, president and founder of New York City-based The Cowen Group. “The demand for talent is surging and law firms, corporations and legal technology vendors need to prepare for this increase in demand.”

A dearth of qualified candidates means competition for experienced professionals is going to heat up. Increased competition typically leads to higher salaries as firms look to recruit new staff and retain their professionals, Cowen said. In 2011, a surge in the number of new positions at firms, corporations, and vendors coupled with a shortage of qualified professionals will drive salaries upward.

Experienced professionals will command higher salaries as lateral moves become less frequent and more strategic. Vendors will continue to be the venue in which talent is developed, and many hiring managers will turn to their ranks first when seeking experienced candidates. As always, marquee firms will have the gravitas, career paths, and budgets to attract the best talent in the industry. Those seeking to move to a top-tier firm should plan on building experience at a mid-level firm, top vendor, or possibly a major corporation—without that pedigree, candidates for those positions are simply not as competitive.

Mid-sized and smaller law firms may find it challenging to recruit qualified candidates if they cannot match the salaries offered by top-tier law firms. This will likely lead to the development or strengthening of strategic partnerships with litigation support and technology companies, Cowen said.

“The 205 new jobs we identified in the salary survey might be very conservative as the survey was taken by AmLaw 200 firms and does not include the hiring plans of corporate legal teams or legal technology companies,” Cowen said. “Human resource professionals and hiring managers will need to know what the average base salaries are at various levels in order to attract and retain the brightest technology professionals.”

via E-Discovery Technology Professionals in High Demand for 2011 :: aplcs.com.

The Ratio of Electronic Files to Paper in E-discovery | Technology News And Tips

Skip What Can Be Skipped: Not everything needs to be processed. In most cases the relevant material are just your basic MS Office documents. Program and system files which do not affect the litigation or deal should be eliminated from your estimates. Get more details from the attorney as he or she may not be aware that out of the entire 80 Gig hard drive just handed to you, perhaps only 5 Gigs are worth reviewing.

But, above all else, seek advice. Getting the DATA to PAGE conversion ratio is just the tip of the iceberg. Electronic Discovery as a whole has now become a necessity rather than a convenience. While electronic data was less than 20% of most litigations just a few years ago, that trend is now reversed with electronic files comprising 80% of the data that needs to be reviewed by an attorney. That means pitfalls abound. Protecting the forensic integrity of the data, keeping the chain of custody, mining relevant meta-data fields, and even the credentials of potential witnesses who’ve handled the data are important areas which can make or break a case/deal. Electronic data is here to stay, and dealing with them from a legal standpoint has become the life blood of litigation.

via The Ratio of Electronic Files to Paper in E-discovery | Technology News And Tips.

Should Law Firms Outsource or Insource E-Discovery Tools? || ESIBytes

Listen to Karl Schieneman, Director of Legal Analytics and Review with JurInnov talk with Stephanie Maw, Litigation Support Manager with Cincinnati based Keating Muething and Klekamp, PLL and Chris Olsson, CEO of Cricket Legal Technologies and a former E-Discovery Technology Manager for an Am-Law 20 law firm discuss the complex issues associated with this question. What it takes for a law firm to be able to sustain managing technology in e-discovery, the risks of owning software, when it makes sense, and other issues will be discussed.

Because this show was created from San Juan, Puerto Rico on a cell phone, there were a few technical problems with me losing contact with the show which required me to edit part of the show. It was still a very interesting dialogue and the only edits reflected dialogue involving me rejoining the call and asking what had happened while I was off. Like every E-discovery project, things sometimes don’t go perfectly. My guests were outstanding and carried on without me for the 5 minutes or so which I lost audio contact. Enjoy.

via Should Law Firms Outsource or Insource E-Discovery Tools? || ESIBytes.