Reduce, re-use, recycle: Our favorite environmentalist catchphrase has found a significance of its own in the e-discovery and document review space. A need for efficiency, cost savings and sanity has led to an organized effort to re-use data in e-discovery, recycle final work product and to drastically reduce the overall amount of data that is collected and reviewed. The most obvious way this has been accomplished is by re-using data and work product from one litigation or investigation matter in another, provided the subject matter and data collected are interrelated.
We could stop here, content with the ways technology and experience are making our job a bit easier. Or we could think outside the realm of efficiency and look to broaden the scope of our mandate. Does the data we collect over the course of litigation need to be used solely for the same purpose for which it was collected? Are there ways that we can use data collected for litigation to benefit our organization as a whole? Are there benefits to be had outside of the litigation world?
Law Firms, Beware of Hackers Targeting Client Data
Sherry Karabin, Law Technology News
When hackers can’t get hold of a company’s data directly because there are too many security blocks, Jackson Lewis shareholder Ralph Losey said they may try through a back door such as the entity’s law firm.
In an entry on E-discovery Law Today, Losey said cyber security should be considered the No. 1 job for all litigation attorneys who handle confidential electronically stored information.
LDOs no longer feel the need to bring work in house; the work will get done where it is most efficient to do so
Brad Blickstein, InsideCounsel
In December 2013, InsideCounsel published the Sixth Annual Law Department Operations Survey, a project on which we have been collaborating since its inception. When we launched the survey in 2008, law department operations was a much less mature function that many barely knew existed. In the years since, however, the operations function has gained respect and many general counsel expect their “LDO” (an abbreviation that did not exist when we started) to deliver process, efficiency and cost savings to the law department.
The rise of the LDO, such as it is, has been caused primarily by two big changes in the legal function. First, the crash of 2008 led to more cost pressure than ever before—in many cases for the first time ever. Time will tell to what extent the “new normal” has staying power, but increased cost pressure has created an environment where law departments value process, technology and procurement, all of which are in the sweet spot of LDO. (read the article)
Our tech survey finds benefits — and security risks — in the BYOD movement.
Alan Cohen, Law Technology News
Bright spots among the survey results include a healthy uptick in IT budgets for a sizable number of law departments. Fully 20 percent of respondents saw their IT capital budget rise by more than 10 percent over the prior year, while less than 3 percent saw it decrease more than 10 percent. In all, capital budgets rose for 26 percent of law departments, remained stable for 60 percent, and decreased for 14 percent (operating budgets saw a similar pattern, increasing for 34 percent of respondents, while remaining flat for 49 percent and decreasing for 17 percent). (read the post)
Catherine Dunn, Corporate Counsel
Recently, CorpCounsel.com sat down with Baron to discuss big-picture trends, including what clients are putting on their wish lists. Whether you’re an e-discovery pro or a novice who needs to learn fast, here are some key takeaways:
1. WHY ANALYTICS MATTER
Because, in short, “The volumes of data keep going up,” says Baron. But it’s not just that the volume is increasing, it’s that the forms of media involved in discovery are getting broader, including instant messages, audio messages, text messages, and recordings of conference calls. Attorneys “still need to find the proverbial needle in a haystack, and it’s getting harder and harder to find it,” says Baron. “Or, it takes more time to find it.” (read the article)
There are several variations in standards for establishing when a pre-litigation duty to preserve evidence is triggered
Maragaret Koesel, Tracey Turnbull, InsideCounsel
There is no consensus among state or federal courts on the standards that govern preservation and spoliation issues. Yet, whether and when a company has a duty to preserve evidence is among the first questions that come to mind for inside counsel considering spoliation issues. Generally, a company has no duty to preserve evidence before litigation is filed, threatened or reasonably foreseeable unless there is a statutory or regulatory mandate, a contractual obligation, some special circumstance, or an organization has voluntarily assumed an obligation to retain some document, data or thing. That means, unless a company has notice of a probable or pending litigation or a government investigation, it generally has the right to dispose of its own property, including documents, electronically stored information or tangible things, without liability. (read the article)
LEDES Adds Activity and Expense Codes for E-Discovery
Evan Koblentz, Law Technology News
E-discovery activity and expense codes are being developed by LEDES, the Legal Electronic Data Exchange Standards organization, following the group’s work on e-discovery billing codes last year.
Such codes can be used by law firms, corporate counsel, technology vendors, and their clients to itemize and evaluate e-discovery work in a uniform manner.
“We’ve been approached so many times about needing a way to cohesively bill e-discovery services using the codes billing process. (read the post)