Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Data Authentication in eDiscovery: Ensuring Integrity and Trust

The Role of Experts in Data Collection

In many eDiscovery cases, teams of experts handle the collection of traditional and modern data following a proven, standard process. These experts ensure the data is authenticated, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the evidence. However, there are instances where evidence such as text messages, social media posts, or chat applications involves just a few exchanges that are critical to the case. In these situations, simple workflows like screenshots, data downloads, or reviewing data in spreadsheets from various collection tools are often used.

Methods of Data Authentication

Regardless of the data acquisition method, authentication is essential and can be achieved in several ways:

  • Data Forensic Experts
    Forensic experts can authenticate data from collections, ensuring that the evidence presented actually occurred. Their expertise is invaluable in maintaining the credibility of the evidence.
  • Mutual Agreement Between Parties
    During the discovery process, both parties can agree that conversations, social media posts, etc., were indeed created by the custodian. This mutual agreement can simplify the authentication process.
  • Self-Collection
    Data downloaded from social media sites goes through a process where it is packaged in HTML or other formats, memorializing activities in a document form. Although this process requires authentication by the person downloading the data, legal teams can be confident that the data is user-created.

A Word of Caution: Ensuring Authenticity

One significant caution in data authentication is the potential for clients to provide seemingly real evidence that may not be authentic. An illustrative case is Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center, where a screenshot of a text message exchange was presented as “smoking gun” evidence. The issue was that the screenshot’s emoji was a newer version than when the incident occurred, indicating the exchange was fabricated. eDiscovery expert Doug Austin has written a comprehensive article on this topic.

Here’s how easy it is to create a “real-looking” text exchange. Does the below text message exchange look authentic?

Unless you are a trained forensic professional, it likely does look authentic. However, tools like ifaketextmessage.com make it fast and easy to create such exchanges. (Note: This is just an example and not related to the Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center case.

Importance of Verification

In most cases, both parties would agree on the authenticity of text messages and verify them with the other person’s device if the exchange wasn’t deleted. The critical point is to never overlook the verification or authentication of data received from the other party. Ensuring the integrity of evidence is paramount in maintaining trust and achieving fair outcomes in eDiscovery.

In our last edition in the blog series out this week, you will learn how to best review data, documents or a hybrid approach and using this data to tell the whole story.

You can also download our complimentary guide to learn how to benefit from eDiscovery technology to accelerate finding key evidence in texts and chat data.

Find out more about how CloudNine can help you tackle newer data forms with our cloud-based eDiscovery solution, CloudNine Review, and set a time to meet with us.

Streamlining Data Collection in Modern eDiscovery

As an eDiscovery software and services provider who has worked with hundreds of law firms, corporate legal and government teams over the past 20 years, we have learned ways to make the process of data collection for eDiscovery easier and more efficient.

Hiring experts to collect data across newer communications platforms like Slack, Teams, and WhatsApp and devices can be highly effective. Leverage your team’s experienced collection professionals or your software provider’s partners for their expertise.

Data Types to Consider

When collecting data, it may not be as difficult or expensive as you think. Consider these data types:

  • Chat applications: Slack, Microsoft Teams, Bloomberg, Line, WeChat
  • Email and eFiles: Traditional eDiscovery emails and electronic files
  • Text messages: Business-related texts on company and personal devices
  • Phone calls/voicemail/memos: Recorded on the same devices
  • 3rd party chats: Social media accounts, gaming devices, stock trading applications, etc.
  • Location: Geolocation data from smartphones, health devices, cell towers, call detail records, and various applications
  • User activity: Automatically generated activities, such as browsing websites or logging into systems
  • Social media: Posts, comments, replies, direct messages from personal accounts
  • Logs: Visitor logs, patient records, employee activities, cyber incidents

Starting with Custodial Interviews

To uncover the correct data, begin with custodial interviews. Ask questions about work and collaboration processes to understand what applications and platforms are used for business communications.

For example, in a recent case for a global transportation company, an entire department used WhatsApp for communication despite company policy restricting communication applications to text messages and Microsoft Teams. Be creative and intuitive in your questioning to identify all forms of communication.

Addressing Privacy Concerns

The “privacy hurdle” will often arise during custodial interviews and data collection. Custodians may hide forms of communication due to privacy or incrimination concerns. Assure custodians that only specific conversations will be reviewed to alleviate these fears. Targeted collections or data culling activities can ensure efficient data acquisition and processing. Consult with your collection professional or software provider for specific workflows.

Additional Considerations for Modern Data Collection

When dealing with modern data and eDiscovery, consider the following during collection and normalization:

  • Data processing and unitization: Does the collected data need processing and organization?
  • Email/modern attachments: Are there attachments in emails or chat conversations, or are they hyperlinks?
  • Custodian interviews and privacy: What workflows are needed to ensure private data stays private?
  • Document review workflows: Are you culling data natively before final document review of all data types? (The answer should be “yes”!)
  • Entity normalization: Are you linking custodians and contacts to their phone numbers, email addresses, and application identifiers?
  • Data identification: Have you identified all data elements to complete your story? Consider additional data such as:
    • Social media accounts
    • Cell tower data: Geolocation and timestamps
    • Financial transactions
    • User activities from workstations/laptops and smartphone artifacts
    • Call detail records from the cell carrier
    • Surveillance data
    • Time and billing applications
    • Hospital health tracking data

Whatever the case story demands, there is likely data somewhere to support your assertions. Work with your technology and service providers, leveraging their expertise in modern data management.

In our new blog series out this week, you will learn how to best authenticate text and chat data, the importance of verification, and the importance of native review workflows for modern data.

You can also download our complimentary guide to learn how to benefit from eDiscovery technology to accelerate finding key evidence in texts and chat data.

Find out more about how CloudNine can help you tackle newer data forms with our cloud-based eDiscovery solution, CloudNine Review, and set a time to meet with us.

Efficient Text and Chat Data Discovery Starts with Information Governance (IG)

When it comes to ensuring that data is preserved and available for litigation, investigations, or government inquiries, it all starts with establishing and codifying clear data governance policies and procedures.

When updating policies for corporate data governance, consider the following focus areas:

  • Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) or Company Issued Device (CID) policies
  • Corporate communication applications – Slack, MS Teams, Bloomberg, Confluence, Jira, etc.
  • Ephemeral messaging apps
  • Privacy considerations around BYOD and CID
  • Compliance guidelines
  • Business value of each communication channel

Let’s take a high-level look at each area to show the need for further examination.

Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and Company Issued Device (CID) Policies

One of the largest issues in corporate data governance is the use of new communication applications without proper authorization. Employees often use their devices for communicating internally and externally, which can lead to unintentional confidential data leaks.

Additionally, gaining access to potentially responsive data on these devices during investigations or litigation can be challenging. When creating either a BYOD or CID policy, consider your company’s potential for litigation, internal investigations, or compliance issues.

For highly regulated organizations, BYOD policies may pose compliance risks, as all communications need to be in company-sanctioned applications. Training for all employees, especially executives who heavily use messaging apps, is essential to avoid non-compliance issues. Small to mid-sized businesses might have more relaxed BYOD policies, but education on business versus personal communications is still necessary.

One solution is Mobile Device Management (MDM) platforms, which can help partition corporate versus personal communications and processes. MDMs allow organizations to better access mobile devices and enable IT to monitor, manage, and secure devices, whether they are employee or corporate-owned.

Corporate Communication Apps

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the global workforce has shifted from in-office communications to chat applications like Slack, MS Teams, and Bloomberg. Manfred Gabriel, Partner at Holland & Knight LLP, explained: “The matters we handle for our clients now frequently include data types beyond email and business documents. We are seeing a rise in corporate chat and collaboration tools, such as Microsoft Teams or Slack. Messaging apps like WhatsApp and iMessage are also increasingly collected for the custodians, because business conversations continue to migrate away from email.”

This shift creates downstream issues when this data is subject to litigation or internal investigations. Depending on the organization and the communication app, a technology upgrade may be needed to allow for easier data export for eDiscovery. For instance, Slack only allows data exporting if the customer has the Business+ license or better. Microsoft Teams users face similar challenges, as a Premium version of Teams is needed for less restrictive data exporting.

These considerations should be determined by the staff responsible for exporting, reviewing, and producing this data. Many decisions to use these platforms were reactive and implemented quickly due to the pandemic. If you haven’t already, now is a good time to audit what is currently being utilized and develop a consolidation and information governance (IG) plan around it.

Ephemeral Messaging Applications

Ephemeral messaging applications, where content disappears after a certain time, typically do not serve business purposes and should be banned from approved communication applications unless cleared by the legal department. Understanding the downstream impacts of these applications is crucial when putting together your IG plan.

Privacy, Compliance, and Business Value

These elements should align with your current IG policies but also consider their impact on platforms like Slack, MS Teams, Bloomberg, Jira, Confluence, Zoom, GoTo Meeting, etc. Ask yourself: “What are the impacts of using these applications, and are there business or compliance reasons for keeping this data?” Privacy guidelines should be tailored to device usage, especially with BYOD.

By addressing these areas, you can modernize your information governance policies and ensure efficient text and chat data discovery, making the process smoother and more compliant.

In our next blog of this series, you will learn how to ease the data collection challenge, especially with regard to modern data. You can also download our complimentary guide to learn how to benefit from eDiscovery technology to accelerate finding key evidence in texts and chat data.

Find out more about how CloudNine can help you tackle newer data forms with our cloud-based eDiscovery solution, CloudNine Review, and set a time to meet with us.

The Growing Data Challenge in eDiscovery: Navigating the Modern Data Explosion

What’s today’s biggest eDiscovery dilemma? The proliferation of modern data, including text and data from chat, social media, and communication apps, is adding even greater complexity to the already daunting task of finding evidence.

We create massive amounts of data daily, whether we know it or not. Access to smartphones, tablets, computers, wearable devices, smart cars, and many other electronic devices results in an always-on recording of our daily activities. Coupled with that, we are using smart devices, social media, and chat apps to communicate with one another, with email and phone calls taking a back seat to forms of short message, instant interaction.

Often, this data is largely ignored as evidence, and for good reason. It is voluminous and often too expensive to collect everything for a case. However, consider these staggering statistics on Microsoft (MS) Teams alone:

  • Over 1 million organizations use MS Teams, including 91% of the Fortune 100 companies (2024).
  • In one year, over 6 billion chats are sent in MS Teams (2024) and over 17 billion in Slack (2023).
  • Texting has become a preferred form of communication for both personal and business communications, with over 27 billion text messages sent daily (2023).

When putting together the strategy for your case, you may overlook or consciously leave out texts and chat data, as they seem too challenging to collect. Yet, eDiscovery professionals are beginning to support the notion that this type of data can no longer be ignored as opposing counsel and judges are asking for it to be entered as evidence.

Elizabeth Gary, Associate at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, highlighted this at a recent conference in New York: “In courtrooms today, communications occurring via chat apps and other newer platforms are viewed as not duplicative to emails. As a result, parties are being compelled to produce this data.”

“In courtrooms today, communications occurring via chat apps and other newer platforms are viewed as not duplicative to emails. As a result, parties are being compelled to produce this data.”

– Elizabeth Gary, Associate at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Why are email and electronic documents still the primary evidence pool in most cases when there has been a tremendous uptick in the use of smartphones, chat applications, and a myriad of other apps to communicate at the workplace?

Simply put, the perception of costs, difficulty, and uncertainty around the data volumes and variety are making many legal teams stop short of collecting all of the data.

However, as modern communication channels continue to evolve and dominate, it’s becoming increasingly clear that eDiscovery must adapt to these changes to ensure thorough and effective legal processes.

In our new five-part blog series out this week, you will learn how to best manage modern data in eDiscovery.

You can also download our complimentary guide to learn how to benefit from eDiscovery technology to accelerate finding key evidence in texts and chat data.

Find out more about how CloudNine can help you tackle newer data forms with our cloud-based eDiscovery solution, CloudNine Review, and set a time to meet with us.

From Artificial Intelligence to Change Management: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Future Lawyer Conference in Boston

By Rick Clark

The Future Lawyer 2024 Conference was held in Boston, MA, and hosted by Ropes & Gray LLP in their Prudential Tower offices. This two-day event hosted private practicing attorneys the first day and corporate in-house personnel the second day.

The law firm day topics hovered mostly on how Generative and Predictive AI are gaining more steam in the legal industry, with the corporate agenda track more focused on change management. What was surprising to me? The general sentiment that Generative AI is still under development but will eventually create incredible solutions for a wide array of legal processes. Potential AI applications are outlined below.

The conference was emceed by Zach Abramowitz, Founder of Killer Whale Strategies, kicked off the conference with opening remarks about the exciting growth of AI in the legal industry. His first and most powerful statement was on just one application of AI, “Legal Ops isn’t outsourcing their legal research questions”: the use of AI in Lexis Nexis and Westlaw has made it easier for in-house teams to do their own legal research rather than traditional outsourcing, and not enough teams are taking advantage of this new way of getting traditional legal work done.

In her keynote, International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) CEO Joy Heath Rush emphasized the value of “Innovation and the Race to be Second.” She highlighted at this conference that coming in second is still a win, contrasting it with the failure of those who merely follow the crowd like lemmings. She discussed the legal industry’s precedent-driven culture, noting that innovation isn’t limited to technology but can also mean improved processes. To innovate effectively, she advised defining success, setting realistic quality levels, valuing quick wins for hypothesis testing, reviewing, and iterating, and accepting limited failure to encourage safe innovation. Her key message: race to be second when it makes sense but avoid being a lemming.

Building an Innovative Legal Workforce

In the “Building an Innovative Legal Workforce – Hiring Strategies and Skills for Private Practice Firms” panel, industry experts shared their insights on fostering innovation within law firms. Josh Rosenzweig of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP emphasized that innovation is about differentiation and driving change across departments. Steve Gluckman of Skillburst, a digital learning company for law firms, highlighted that innovation stems from culture and doesn’t always require a technological component or grand initiatives. Amy Tenney Curren from Morrison & Foerster LLP underscored the importance of a growth mindset and broad thinking, while Madelyn Mateo from Skadden Arps LLP pointed to the necessity of creating a safe space for sharing ideas to encourage a culture shift.

When discussing how firms can empower employees to share innovative ideas, the panel agreed that an open and safe environment is crucial. Gluckman noted that client expectations are evolving, with clients demanding efficiency, effectiveness, and advanced technology and soft skills. Curren added that junior attorneys should be equipped with knowledge beyond traditional lawyering, including business acumen and relationship-building skills. Rosenzweig suggested that firms should also focus on improving operations to meet client needs.

Looking to the future, the panel discussed the evolving landscape of law firms with innovation and hiring. Curren observed a growing interest in technology among law school graduates and the need to adapt to the changing workforce, especially with GenZ. Gluckman proposed eliminating the “lawyer/non-lawyer” terminology to foster a unified firm culture. Mateo emphasized the importance of agility and iterative processes, while Rosenzweig highlighted the value of leveraging external partners to bridge gaps in workforce and technology.

Regarding new job skills, Mateo mentioned the need for expertise in product and project management, data understanding, and implementation. Rosenzweig emphasized the role of Customer Success Managers to support attorneys with technology platforms. The panel also discussed change management as a crucial component of professional development. Curren stressed the importance of aligning change management with the firm’s business strategy, while Gluckman advocated for microlearning and continuous education.

In closing, the panelists shared key insights for building an innovative legal workforce. Rosenzweig advised seeking curious candidates and aligning innovation teams with firm culture. Curren emphasized the importance of intentional planning and identifying champions. Gluckman encouraged embedding innovation throughout a company’s culture, and Mateo highlighted the value of ideas from all levels. Moderator Toby Franklin concluded with a reminder to be intentional about skill development and to look outside the organization for new perspectives.

ABC’s of Legal Products

In the “ABC of Legal Products” session, panelists delved into the evolving landscape of legal services, focusing on Alternative Legal Services Providers, Building New Solutions, and Meeting New Client Expectations. Thomas Hansteen, Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer of legal tech company Etain, moderated the discussion with insights from Joe Davis, Management of Knowledge Management Solutions at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Peter Hitson, Director of Legal Project and Practice Management at Carlton Fields, LLP , Kyle Dumont, Sr. Director of Transformation and User Experience at Morgan Lewis & Backius LLP, and Jesse Klee, Practice Innovation Manager at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.

Defining Innovation in Legal Products

Joe Davis emphasized the distinction between the practice and business of law, stressing that legal products should elevate the practice of law and enhance client relationships. Peter Hitson added that products should either simplify lawyers’ work or add client value to drive profitability. Kyle Dumont highlighted the importance of a firm’s brand perception in determining the products needed, while Jesse Klee discussed the balance between addressing business technology issues and maintaining focus on core legal practice.

Triggers and Processes for Implementing New Technology

The panelists debated the buy vs. build approach to legal technology. Hitson mentioned that while traditional sales processes are common, there’s a shift towards proactively defining business requirements before seeking solutions. Dumont noted the importance of understanding organizational culture and making a compelling case to stakeholders for any change. Klee warned against over-collaboration, suggesting a focused initial team for tech rollouts. Davis pointed out that sometimes existing technology can meet needs without new acquisitions.

The discussion turned to what triggers the search for new technology. Klee observed that many initiatives originate from attorneys’ experiences with technology but finding time for strategic planning amid daily work is challenging, as Dumont noted. Hitson recommended engaging with staff to identify challenges directly. Davis highlighted the difficulty of promoting new solutions without initial success, especially in a remote work environment.

Funding and Measuring Success

When it comes to funding and measuring the success of technology implementations, Klee mentioned that budgets often come from IT or specific departments, with metrics like usage and feedback being crucial. Dumont suggested using Internal Net Promoter Scores to gauge success. Hitson emphasized the importance of showing ROI, particularly in the context of alternative fee arrangements. Davis pointed out that attorney satisfaction is a key indicator of a solution’s success, often assessed through direct feedback.

Building vs. Buying Solutions

Finally, the panelists discussed preferences for building or buying solutions. Davis and Hitson preferred buying, noting the practicality of hybrid low-code options. Dumont described it as a spectrum, emphasizing outcome over process and the importance of providing value to clients. Klee expressed a desire to build more but acknowledged the practicality and lower risk of buying, especially with gaps in internal expertise. Dumont concluded that leveraging contractors and automation for iterative development can be effective, reinforcing that law firms should focus on their core competencies.

Overall, the session underscored the need for strategic, client-focused approaches to innovation in legal services, balancing the benefits of building and buying technology solutions while keeping an eye on culture, practical implementation, and measurable success.

Enhancing Litigation with Generative AI: Efficiency, eDiscovery, and Future Prospects

In the “Enhancing Litigation with Generative AI: Efficiency, eDiscovery and Future Prospects” session, Shannon Kirk, Managing Principal at Ropes & Gray, and Maribel Rivera of ACEDS explored the transformative impact of Generative AI (Gen AI) on litigation. Kirk highlighted that Gen AI is set to revolutionize budgeting and staffing in litigation, particularly in document review, which constitutes up to 80% of litigation costs. She raised concerns about how Gen AI will complicate ESI (Electronically Stored Information) protocols and the potential misuse of productions by opposing parties through AI.

Rivera noted the judiciary’s lack of familiarity with eDiscovery technology and their apprehension towards Gen AI and deepfakes. Kirk added that standing orders now often require certifications on the use of AI, which is not yet clearly defined. She shared insights on piloting various platforms for document review, pointing out that while auto-review can be more efficient, large document reviews still face significant cost and choke points—challenges she expects will soon be addressed.

Kirk reminisced about the evolution from manual document review in warehouses to current technologies like TAR (Technology-Assisted Review), predicting that AI will be the next major iteration. Rivera emphasized that attorneys are increasingly becoming storytellers through the use of AI.

When asked if Gen AI will leapfrog TAR or if both will coexist, both experts affirmed that there is room for both technologies. Kirk concluded by stressing the importance of developing ESI protocols and advocating to judges for the necessary adjustments to accommodate these advancements.

Navigating Generative AI and Predictive AI in the Legal Landscape

In the “Navigating Generative AI and Predictive AI in the Legal Landscape: Practical Insights Beyond the Hype” session, industry leaders discussed the practical applications and future potential of AI technologies in legal practice. Chris Haley, Vedika Mehera, James Ding, Dan Rabinowitz, and Nordo Nissi shared their expertise on how AI can be leveraged to enhance efficiency and accuracy in legal tasks.

Nordo Nissi of Goulston & Storrs highlighted the use of Generative AI (Gen AI) for case management tasks, such as analyzing deposition transcripts to identify specific issues and creating custodian profiles. Vedika Mehera, Orrick Labs emphasized AI’s role in legal research, summarizing depositions, and connecting ideas and concepts. James Ding, Draftwise, pointed out that in transactional law, AI helps in summarizing, extracting, and generating contract content, promoting consistency and efficiency. Dan Rabinowitz of Pre-Dicta explained that Predictive AI is uniquely used to predict behavior in court, like how Google serves ads based on user behavior.

Choosing AI Solutions and Implementing Them

The panel discussed how to identify and implement AI solutions. Mehera noted that innovation teams need to work closely with attorneys to build solutions tailored to specific challenges, breaking down big ideas into manageable steps. Nissi suggested examining write-offs to see if AI could help mitigate them. Ding emphasized that solving clients’ problems is key to success, while Mehera added that Gen AI has universal applications. The importance of internal champions was underscored by Nissi, who recommended using prompts like branded swag to remind teams to use the AI platforms. Rabinowitz highlighted the need to reassure attorneys that AI augments rather than replaces their expertise, enhancing case strategy.

From Identification to Adoption

The transition from identifying to adopting AI solutions was another focal point. Nissi stressed the need for internal champions and consistent reminders to encourage platform use. Rabinowitz and Ding both emphasized the importance of showing how AI can solve specific problems to drive adoption. Mehera mentioned that excitement about AI can motivate learning and adoption, while Ding predicted that the advancements in technology over the next five years would be astonishing. Haley added a powerful reminder: “If you don’t like change, you will like irrelevancy even less.”

Looking Ahead: The Impact of AI on Legal Practice

The session concluded with reflections on the broader impact of AI. Haley remarked that while this isn’t the first technological revolution in the legal industry, the principles that got us here will continue to guide us, albeit in unpredictable ways. He also stressed the value of conferences and events in helping legal professionals stay ahead of the curve. As the panelists agreed, AI’s potential to transform the legal landscape is immense, and staying informed and adaptable will be crucial for success.

Change Management for Corporate Legal Teams

In the second day keynote session “Navigating the Winds of Change: Effective Change Management in Corporate Legal Teams,” Kyle Pankratz, VP of Legal Strategy at MasterCard, discussed the critical need for change management within legal departments. Pankratz emphasized that legal teams often function as a “black box,” inherently resistant to change due to their traditional nature and fear of the unknown. This resistance makes effective change management essential for any transformation initiatives.

One of the primary obstacles to implementing change is the ad hoc approach often taken by legal teams. Pankratz argued that this is not a sustainable strategy. Instead, he proposed a method based on empathy, enthusiasm, and execution. By empathizing with team members, demonstrating genuine enthusiasm for the changes, and executing plans efficiently, leaders can ease the transition process. This approach helps to secure early buy-in from the teams affected, which is crucial for maintaining momentum throughout the rollout. As more team members adopt the changes, a positive feedback loop is created, encouraging even greater participation.

Pankratz illustrated his point with a powerful example: a video showing a lone dancer gradually joined by a crowd, symbolizing how initial buy-in can lead to widespread adoption. This example highlights the importance of getting a few people to commit early, as their participation can inspire others to follow.

In summary, effective change management in corporate legal teams requires a strategic approach that considers the audience and culture. By clearly demonstrating the value of the changes and addressing the challenges they solve, leaders can successfully kick off new initiatives and guide their teams through the winds of change.

Change Management in Corporate Legal Teams

In the session “Operating the Change: Navigating Change Management in Corporate Legal Teams,” industry experts shared their insights on adapting to cost structures and implementing new technologies within legal departments. Sam Breen, Legal Counsel Privacy at Philips North America, Frank Yu, Assistant General Counsel at GoDaddy, Martin Petraitis, Executive Vice President and Sr. Deputy General Counsel at Advance, Katya Fisher, Chief Legal Officer at Construction Group, and Derek Mogck, Head of Legal Operations at Munich Re America Services, Inc., provided a comprehensive overview of how their teams navigate change.

Derek Mogck emphasized the importance of aligning technological advancements with the specific needs of the legal department through a process of diagnosis and design. This approach ensures that any new initiatives are strategically relevant. Martin Petraitis highlighted the challenges faced by small legal departments with limited budgets. He pointed out that a tech-forward Chief Legal Officer (CLO) can play a pivotal role in forming committees to explore how AI can enhance processes. Petraitis also underscored the significance of involving legal operations in building contract lifecycle management (CLM) systems and suggested seeking advice from external sources who have undergone similar implementations to gain early buy-in.

Katya Fisher shared her perspective on the future of CLM, suggesting that the focus should shift to plug-ins and integrations rather than completely replacing existing technologies. She argued that incremental enhancements, such as those provided by Microsoft Outlook, can often be more beneficial than disruptive overhauls. Frank Yu agreed on the utility of CLM as a central repository and anticipated the evolution towards a more advanced 2.0 version.

When it comes to upskilling legal teams and driving technology adoption, Mogck introduced the WILL framework: Why, Interest, Look, and Lean In. He advised starting with understanding the strategic alignment (“Why”), identifying team members’ interests (“Interest”), learning from other teams’ experiences (“Look”), and embracing new technologies proactively (“Lean In”). Yu added that effective change management involves recognizing the various personality types within legal teams and addressing their specific concerns. Understanding that change management is essentially pain management can aid in crafting effective change proposals.

Sam Breen cautioned against the “lift and shift” approach, which can obscure the challenges (“pain train”) associated with implementing changes. Instead, a transparent and well-structured approach is necessary to ensure a smooth transition and adoption of new technologies.

In summary, navigating change management in corporate legal teams involves strategic alignment, incremental technological enhancements, comprehensive upskilling, and a keen understanding of team dynamics. By following these guidelines, legal departments can effectively manage change and drive innovation.

In the recent panel on “Maximizing Legal Efficiency: Strategies for Flexibility and Innovation,” industry leaders Kiran Mallavarapu (Executive Vice President, Legal Operations at Liberty Mutual Insurance), Sara Ann Ludwiszewski (Legal Shared Services at Salesforce), Kate Corrie (General Counsel at Comply360/Vistair), Colleen E. Freeman (VP Global Litigation at UnitedLex), and Shannon Moesaa (VP Commercial and Healthcare Compliance Counsel at Karuna Therapeutics) discussed the crucial role of innovation and technology in modern legal departments.

Focus on Innovation and Technology

Kate Corrie emphasized that legal departments must look beyond their own scope and consider the broader organization to keep pace with change. As business operations increasingly rely on mobile technology, legal teams need to ensure they can respond flexibly and efficiently to business objectives. Colleen Freeman highlighted the rise of remote work, which has amplified the role of Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs) as partners to in-house legal teams. ALSPs help vet new technologies, saving time and resources for in-house departments. Sara Ann Ludwiszewski shared how Salesforce’s legal operations leverage their platform for comprehensive project management, from intake to completion, while enabling management to track project statuses effectively. Shannon Moesaa noted the importance of aligning legal innovations with corporate goals, citing the use of chatbots to manage requests as an example of leveraging emerging technologies for flexibility and efficiency.

Prioritizing Innovation

When it comes to prioritizing innovation, Shannon Moesaa suggested focusing on low-hanging fruit and initiatives that simplify processes, such as setting up online forms to reduce time spent on requests. Creating roadmaps for infrastructure development, spanning one to three years and beyond, helps guide these efforts. Sara Ann Ludwiszewski pointed out that prioritization often depends on who is requesting the technology or service, with requests from the C-suite typically taking precedence.

Innovation in Corporate In-House Departments

Kate Corrie defined innovation as creatively solving problems, sometimes using existing resources rather than adopting new technologies. Understanding the tools already in place can often lead to effective solutions. Shannon Moesaa added that it’s essential to understand problems from various perspectives—legal, compliance, business—and start with small tweaks. Sara Ann Ludwiszewski noted that sometimes innovation involves identifying and discontinuing practices that no longer serve the organization effectively.

Adapting to Change

Colleen Freeman underscored the importance of agility in regulated industries, where compliance requirements frequently change. Leveraging tools and processes, such as Generative AI, can aid in updating policies and procedures swiftly in response to new regulations.

In summary, the panelists agreed that the key to maximizing legal efficiency lies in embracing both technological advances and strategic innovation. By prioritizing initiatives that align with broader business goals and starting with manageable changes, legal departments can enhance their flexibility and responsiveness, driving greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Conclusion

As you can see, the two-day conference covered a lot of ground from artificial intelligence, legal operations, eDiscovery, and change management. Typically, I attend eDiscovery conferences where the content is near-exclusively focused on how to modernize processes in AI and data discovery. It was enlightening to be exposed to many other aspects of legal technology, including leading innovation and change management initiatives, and the practical application of GenAI for legal.

Do you want to attend an upcoming legal innovation conference and live in the New York City area? CloudNine and Integreon will be hosting an ILTA Roadshow at Morgan Lewis on July 23 on large scale review and handling modern data, and will also be attending the Master’s Conference in New York July 24-25. Contact us if you would like to learn more and receive a complimentary pass to either event.

The 2024 Masters Conference in Chicago: A Comprehensive Recap

By Rick Clark

Since the inaugural Masters Conference in Washington DC in 2006, I have cherished how these conferences create a space for community engagement, learning from timely educational content, and exchanging ideas on how to improve how legal work gets done. While I’ll share my professional takeaways, I want to begin by expressing my gratitude for the Masters Conference legal community.

I don’t know exactly what it is, but I always return home from these single-day conferences feeling like a better person. The day’s conversations and networking events enable me to form deep relationships that positively impact me personally and professionally. Perhaps it’s the shared experience of navigating the complex world of eDiscovery, or our collective work ethics. Regardless of the reason, these events inspire me to be a better employee, technologist, and person.

Special thanks to Kelly Twigger, Jill Rorem, Daryl Greene, Cat Casey, and the entire Masters Conference team.

Professional Insights and Sessions

On the professional front, I learned a great deal, including insights from a session that delved deeply into the world of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI). Most sessions I attended revolved around the impacts and management of modern data.

The first session I attended was “Navigating the Hybrid eDiscovery Terrain: A Closer Look at Automation and Resource Efficiency.”

Panelists:

Ryan Merholz – GeorgeJon – Technical Services
Chris Bojar – Barack Ferrazzano LLP – Director of eDiscovery
John Evans – Perkins Coie LLP – Digital Forensics Consultant
Mira Edelman – Dish Network – Senior Corporate Counsel
Paul Noonan – United Airlines – Managing Counsel – eDiscovery and Information Governance

Key Takeaways:

Chris Bojar: Automation is more manageable with a small team, but implementing automated workflows in an eDiscovery review platform can significantly reduce human errors. Ticketing systems help standardize request requirements, while Software as a Service (SaaS) enables easy scaling and cost savings. By leveraging cloud infrastructure, firms avoid the expense of maintaining peak usage hardware.

John Evans: Data volumes and types have expanded significantly, making automation crucial. Forensic tools have become more effective in processing data, and web capture technologies have streamlined data collection through automation.

Mira Edelman: Integrations offer new automation opportunities, especially for in-house teams. Ticketing systems foster collaboration between IT and legal departments. Automated tasks through matter management systems improve efficiency. Companies need integration plans when acquiring others with different systems to maintain healthy operations. Manual processes should be deployed temporarily until full integration is achieved.

Paul Noonan: Rogue corporate communication platforms pose challenges in data collection. Automated processes in preservation, collection, and processing are essential. Connectors enhance automation, and insourcing helps control and automate preservation and collection tasks. Interoperability among eDiscovery platforms is beneficial as different platforms excel in various areas.

The second session I attended was an overview of what could be a master’s program class on Large Language Models. I took a few notes and takeaways, but there is MUCH more for me to learn here. The session was titled “LLM’s Unmasked: A Deep Dive into Legal Industry Realities.”

Panelists:

Dr. Igor Labutov – LAER AI – Founder & CEO
Sanjay Manocha – LAER AI – Chief Growth Officer

Key Takeaways:

Sanjay Manocha: Building AI models with written instructions and document examples can automate review and data extraction across enterprise data. This involves using AI to maintain factual accuracy in responses, whether via email or chat, and validating results through prototypes.

Dr. Igor Labutov: During pre-training, a lack of content can lead to hallucinations or incorrect information in LLMs. To leverage LLMs reliably, pretraining must ensure world (refers to the accuracy of the AI’s responses based on real-world facts and information.) case (based on case data), and legal knowledge (based on general legal knowledge) accuracy. The correctness of responses depends on the data embedded in the LLM. Challenges include scalability to millions of documents, validation difficulties, error accumulation, lack of transparency, and limited reasoning capabilities.

To evaluate LLM solutions, create datasets, measure retrieval performance (precision/recall), and assess the engine’s end-to-end performance. LAER AI’s approach involves leveraging multiple data sources and models for more accurate outcomes.

Another insightful session covered “The Data Explosion and Attorneys’ Ethical Duty of Technical Competence”

Panelists:

Jenny Schroeder – Disco
Alisa McLellen – Disco
Dennis Garcia – Microsoft
Daniel Kelly – Sidley Austin LLP
Tony Baskin – Perkins Coie LLP

Key Takeaways:

Dennis Garcia: Competence has improved, especially with the technology adoption surge during the pandemic. Younger employees and user-friendly platforms help bridge the skill gap, enhancing overall competence.

Tony Baskin: Advanced review platforms allow attorneys to engage directly with data, reducing communication gaps and enabling more hands-on involvement. States are introducing new ethical guidelines to ensure technical competence.

Competency Areas:

Data Security
Electronic Discovery
Technology for efficient practice management
Technology used by clients
Technology for courtroom presentations

Dennis emphasized the importance of embracing change despite initial challenges, while Tony encouraged seeking better, more efficient methods for tedious tasks.

Final Thoughts

I am profoundly grateful to the eDiscovery community and events like the Masters Conference for keeping me up to date with technology and workflow trends in managing modern data. These conferences not only enhance my professional skills but also provide an opportunity to connect with incredible industry professionals. Thank you all!

About the Author

Rick Clark is VP, Strategic Partnerships at CloudNine and has 20+ years of experience in forensics and eDiscovery. Focused on innovation and education, he co-founded ESI Analyst, now CloudNine Analyst, as well as Wave Software and the Master’s Conference.

My Experience at the Washington DC Masters Conference

By Rick Clark

The Masters Conference in Washington, DC, on April 17th, 2024, was a bustling event with crowded sessions throughout the day. The agenda featured a diverse range of topics, such as Modern Data, Link Files, eDiscovery Case Law, and Artificial Intelligence, making it an exceptional experience for attendees. In this article, I will highlight my favorite takeaways from the sessions I attended, although the depth of insights was so rich that I must keep this summary brief. If you haven’t attended a Masters Conference recently or ever, I highly recommend making the trip to at least one this year.

The first session, with standing room only, kicked off the discussion on how Modern Data is becoming more necessary in eDiscovery and investigations.

In the session Modern Data and Devices in Transit, the panel discussed the new challenges and the updated solutions through collecting, processing, and reviewing modern data, from cell phones to X (Twitter) and everything in between. The discussion started with the decisions needed to collect a custodian’s data and get these data into review. The panel consisted of Kevin M. Clark with Right Discovery, Jason Voss with Converse Data, Nick Eglevsky with Blank Rome, Mable Tun with Freddie Mac, Alicia Clausen with Crowell Moring, and Amanda Strassner Merrill with Capital One. The challenges presented ranged from missing attachments/link attachments, quality control in data processing for review, collection considerations on devices, especially around privacy, and deriving context from a variety of data existing in a case.

The solutions for those challenges seemed to have some great technological and workflow remedies. For instance, Nick Eglevsky stated that the links found in emails (rather than attached documents) will require additional quality control measures to ensure the production requirements are met. Mable Tun weighed in with the need to have targeted collections or a step to cull out personal data from smartphone evidence due to privacy concerns. The consensus from the panel was that the modern data challenges can be met with reasonable and simplified workflows as technology and processes have caught up with the complexities of these data.

The second session I attended was the breakout session Data Privacy in the Age of Digital Transformation – Harnessing the Benefits of AI in Information Governance and Data Protection. This session was a great tag team style presentation with Charles Lavallee and Tom Skelly with Infinnium, discussed data governance and Mike Gaudet and Antonio Rega with JSHeld discussed the importance of privacy and data analysis. The main takeaways were:

  • AI in Data Privacy, Where to Begin? The integration of solid data management with effective Information Governance is crucial for ensuring the privacy, protection, and quality of data.
  • AI is increasingly playing a pivotal role in Information Governance, proving its worth in real-world applications such as policy management, cookie compliance, and privacy investigations.
  • Introducing Profiler.AI by Infinnium, the latest advancement in their robust IG solution, 4iG®. This innovation marks a significant leap in data privacy management and breach investigation, streamlining the process of identifying entities, reviewing data, and quickly generating notification lists by automating the association of PII to entities.

The session before lunch was a neat short discussion format with Robert Keeling from the host firm, Sidley Austin discussed the importance of diversity, equity (DEI) and inclusion in the law firm environments. DEI, Keeling stated, makes better lawyers and benefits the industry because the variety of cultures and experiences paint the complete picture. Teddy Benson, Director of Data Architecture and Platforms with Universal discussed important aspects of artificial intelligence including bias and how that can impact prompting results. His advice was to be as descriptive as possible with prompts being at least 100 words with a cap of around 150. Lastly, Maribel Rivera gave a mic dropping discussion on being the CEO of your personal brand. Her message was clear that no matter how big or little you are investing in your brand with online presence, professional networking and content creation, you are presenting your brand and spending more time growing and improving those three areas will present equally great opportunities.

The last call out was the breakout session with Kelly Twigger and Daryl Greene from eDiscovery Assistant. The caselaw update presented by Twigger was a great reminder that modern data is important to include in eDiscovery. The three cases discussed were*:

Hunters Capital v. City of Seattle:

The City of Seattle and several of its officials failed to preserve ESI related to the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). The City failed to issue litigation holds to the officials, and several of the officials had their city-owned phones reset at Apple Stores, deleting all prior text messages. Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter default judgment against the City, or, in the alternative, for an adverse-inference instruction. The Court found that the City had spoliated evidence and awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result.

Beacon v. BMW

Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon”) failed to timely disclose source code from its third-party vendor, Harman, which was necessary evidence for infringement. The Court found that Beacon had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) by not supplementing its infringement contentions in a timely manner but did not exclude the ESI.

Doe LS 340 v. Uber Techs., Inc.

The Court ordered Uber to disclose basic details surrounding its litigation hold, including the names and titles of employees notified of the hold and the dates of such notifications, in order for Plaintiffs to evaluate whether Uber has met its preservation obligations for Electronically Stored Information relevant to the litigation.

*Summaries provided by eDiscovery Assistant and their AI integration that generates a summary of their cases.

Overall, the conference provided a single day packed with days’ worth of great content and attracted many new attendees. It was a fantastic opportunity to meet new industry leaders and reconnect with familiar faces. I’m eagerly looking forward to attending the Chicago Masters on May 15th, hosted by Seyfarth Shaw, and I hope to see you there!

About the Author

Rick Clark is VP, Strategic Partnerships at CloudNine and has 20+ years of experience in forensics and eDiscovery. Focused on innovation and education, he co-founded ESI Analyst, now CloudNine Analyst, as well as Wave Software and the Master’s Conference.

How to Evaluate Technologies and Companies for Public Records/FOIA Requests

(This is the fifth and final blog in a five-part series on streamlining public records request response.)

By Rick Clark

When starting the journey in changing your processes around managing these requests, it can be like a hiker staring up a mountain from the base, but it does not have to be that difficult. Many eDiscovery platforms have standardized processes in data management and review for decades and there are eDiscovery providers, like CloudNine, who have created an easy path to success with not only the technology, but advice is streamlining processes with public requests.

Here are some questions to ask a technology company you are looking to work with to help solve FOIA and request management issues.

  • How can this product help me solve workload issues when fulfilling Public Records Requests?
  • How does the system help with the public requestors’ experience?
  • How does the platform offer customizable workflows to adapt to our agency’s specific needs and processes?
  • Can the system create a centralized repository of all requests, and track and report on metrics such as response times, request volumes, and outcomes?
  • Does the platform offer features for securely redacting sensitive information from documents?
  • What measures does the platform have in place to ensure data security and protect against unauthorized access?
  • Does the company offer any additional services or resources to help agencies improve their FOIA and request management processes?
  • How does the platform handle large volumes of data or complex requests?
  • Can the system generate audit trails or logs to track changes and ensure accountability in the request management process?
  • How does the pricing structure work, and what are the costs associated with implementing and maintaining the platform?
  • What kind of training and support does the company provide to help our team effectively use the platform?

These questions can help you evaluate the suitability of a platform for your agency’s needs and ensure that it can help you achieve your goals in managing FOIA and request management processes as a baseline.

Our “Ultimate Guide to Managing Public Records Response” takes a deep dive into why asking some of these questions is important and give further context to the technology, people, and processes in managing FOIA and public records requests. Download it today.

Find out more about how CloudNine can help you to streamline public records request response with our cloud-based eDiscovery solution and set time to meet with us.

About the Author

Rick Clark is VP, Strategic Partnerships at CloudNine and has 20+ years of experience in forensics and eDiscovery. Focused on innovation and education, he co-founded ESI Analyst, now CloudNine Analyst, as well as Wave Software and the Master’s Conference.

Improving Processes to Streamline Public Records/FOIA Request Response

(This is the fourth blog in a five-part series on streamlining public records request response.)

By Rick Clark

Managing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or similar public records requests in State or Local government agencies is a complex process that requires meticulous attention to detail and adherence to strict timelines. While having the right technology and skilled personnel is crucial, efficient processes are equally important to ensure compliance with transparency laws and provide timely responses to requests.

The first step in the FOIA request management process is the receipt of the request. Requests can be submitted through various channels, such as mail, email, or online portals, depending on the agency’s procedures. Once a request is received, it is reviewed to determine the scope and nature of the information being requested. The request is then assigned to the appropriate department or individual for processing.

The next step is the search and retrieval of the requested documents. This involves conducting a thorough search of the agency’s records, including physical files, electronic databases, emails, and other relevant sources of information. Once the documents are retrieved, they are reviewed to determine if any information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Exemptions may include classified information, personal privacy information, or other sensitive material.

If any exempt information is found, it is redacted from the documents before they are released to the requester. Once the documents have been reviewed and any necessary redactions have been made, they are approved for release by the designated authority within the agency. The agency then notifies the requester of the decision on their FOIA request and provides them with a copy of the requested documents, if applicable.

FOIA requires agencies to respond to requests within a certain time limit, typically 10 to 20 days. If more time is needed to process the request, the agency must notify the requester and provide an estimated completion date. The agency must also maintain records of all FOIA requests received, including the request itself, any correspondence with the requester, and copies of the documents provided in response to the request.

In the fifth and final blog of this series, you will learn how to evaluate technologies to speed public records request response.

Read the blogs #1-3 of the series here on reducing the time and cost of records requests response here.

Find out more about how CloudNine can help you to streamline public records request response with our cloud-based eDiscovery solution and set time to meet with us.

About the Author

Rick Clark is VP, Strategic Partnerships at CloudNine and has 20+ years of experience in forensics and eDiscovery. Focused on innovation and education, he co-founded ESI Analyst, now CloudNine Analyst, as well as Wave Software and the Master’s Conference.

Resourcing Your Public Records/FOIA Requests Response with a Lean Team

This is the third blog post in a series on streamlining public records request response.

By Rick Clark

When it comes to managing FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and similar public records requests, resourcing your team effectively is crucial. Even with a small team, you can achieve a lot by appointing an expert internally and implementing a few key strategies. Begin by identifying which departments receive the most FOIA requests. Assign a lead within each department to work closely with the FOIA Clerk or the person responsible for managing FOIA requests within your organization. For example, in a city with 100,000 residents, your FOIA team might include a clerk, the administrative staff for the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and any other relevant departments. The clerk should be the central point of contact for FOIA requests, but the leads in each department should be responsible for ensuring their department meets deadlines and provides the necessary information to the clerk in a timely manner.

Collaborate as a team to create a plan for sharing and retaining documents. By proactively publishing information that the community is interested in, you can reduce the number of FOIA requests over time. This not only saves time but also increases transparency and engagement with the community. Establishing clear goals can help drive improvements in your FOIA process. Consider goals such as reducing delivery times for responses, minimizing the internal time spent on each request, and increasing the overall efficiency of your team. Regularly review these goals and adjust your strategies as needed to achieve them.

Make the most of available technology to streamline your FOIA process. Ensure your team is fully trained in using any software or tools that can help reduce the time spent fulfilling requests. This might include data/document management systems, request tracking software, or other tools designed to improve efficiency and organization.

As data volumes and variety grow, it will be important to augment people and processes to accommodate the growing requests or press your software provider to enhance the platforms for more efficient data management.

By implementing these strategies and appointing an internal expert to lead your FOIA team, you can effectively manage public records requests even with limited resources.

Read our first blog post in this series, “Growing Challenges with Public Records Requests.”

To find out more about how CloudNine can help you to streamline public records request response with our cloud-based eDiscovery solution and set time to meet with us.

About the Author

Rick Clark is VP, Strategic Partnerships at CloudNine and has 20+ years of experience in forensics and eDiscovery. Focused on innovation and education, he co-founded ESI Analyst, now CloudNine Analyst, as well as Wave Software and the Master’s Conference.