Close
Enter your
text here

Information Governance

Welcome to LegalTech West Coast 2015!: eDiscovery Trends

Today is the start of LegalTech® West Coast 2015 (LTWC) – nearly a month later than usual and in a new locale (San Francisco!) and eDiscovery Daily is reporting about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  Today and tomorrow, we will provide a description of some of the sessions related to eDiscovery to give you a sense of the topics being covered.  If you’re in the San Francisco area, come check out the show – there are a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and at least 58 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 23 hits.  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

10:30 AM – 11:45 AM:

Laying the Foundation: An Information Governance Framework

Effective information governance involves multiple functions within an organization and requires a top-down, overarching structure that enables an organization to make decisions about information consistent with an organization’s mission, vision, and strategy. With such a structure, organizations can make proactive policy decisions about what information is important to the organization, how to keep and manage it, and how to defensibly dispose of it. This interactive panel discussion will offer practical steps to developing an information governance framework, including the strategic and tactical challenges that may arise during the process.

Speakers are: Jae Kim, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Rambus Inc.; Jon M. Talotta, Partner, Hogan Lovells; Brett Tarr, Counsel, Litigation & E-Discovery, Caesars Entertainment.  Discussion Leader: Laurie Fischer, Managing Director, Huron Legal.

Analytics: The Revolution will be Visualized

Many generally understand the concept of analytics, but don’t know how to apply these technology advancements to the practice of law. Data mining technology, and the visual representation of mined data, offer a paradigm shift for how legal teams can uncover key facts. These technologies can quickly and effectively reveal the small subset of critical data in a universe of hundreds of millions of emails, effectively circumventing comprehensive review or greatly accelerating the review process.

Attendees will learn about common analytical and visualization technology and how to apply these tools to speed fact-finding and reduce e-discovery costs.

Speakers to include are: Amy DeCesare, Assistant Vice President, Litigation Management, Allied World; David Houlihan, Principal Analyst, Blue Hill Research; Caroline Sweeney, Global Director, E-Discovery & Client Technology, Dorsey.  Discussion Leader: Jason Ray, Managing Director, FTI Technology.

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM:

Taking TAR to the Next Level: Recent Research and the Promise of Continuous Active Learning

Three years ago, Judge Andrew J. Peck and Maura R. Grossman introduced Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) to a standing-room-only crowd at LegalTech. Since then, TAR—with its promise of substantial reductions in review costs—has entered the mainstream of high-volume discovery, both in the U.S. and abroad.

In 2015, the grand challenge is to make TAR even more accessible and effective, while addressing  the real-world limitations of first-generation TAR products. Our panel, featuring TAR pioneers Maura R. Grossman and Gordon V. Cormack, will talk about their groundbreaking research on TAR protocols, including methods such as Continuous Active Learning, (“CAL”), which have been shown to identify relevant documents more quickly while significantly reducing review costs.

Discussion topics include:

  • How does CAL work, and how does it differ from other TAR protocols?
  • Which seeds are more effective in TAR training, random or judgmental, and why?
  • Are subject-matter experts required for TAR training or can review teams do the job just as well?
  • What savings can you expect from Continuous Active Learning compared to traditional linear review?
  • What are the courts saying about TAR and CAL?

Join us for an informative hour on the future of TAR for 2015 and beyond. Be among the first to learn about the latest research comparing TAR protocols. Also, pick up a free copy of the new book, TAR for Smart People, How Technology Assisted Review Works and Why It Matters for Legal Professionals.

Speakers to include: John Tredennick, CEO and Founder, Catalyst Repository Systems, Inc.; Gordon V. Cormack, Professor, David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo; Maura R. Grossman, Of Counsel, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Emi Ohira, Attorney-at-law (California), Patent attorney, Japan and President, DSA Legal Solutions, Professional Corporation.  Discussion Leader: Erin E. Harrison, Editor in Chief, Legaltech News.

2:00 PM – 3:15 PM:

Retention, Defensible Disposition, and How Analytics Can Help with Both

One of the challenges “big data” poses to an organization is the need to identify and retain the information of value that must be kept for legal or business needs and to defensibly dispose of that which is no longer required. Some organizations are using data analytics to help with these processes. The most promising use of analytics in information governance is its potential for automatic classification of data, which can aid in data clean-up, classification of existing information, and classification of information at its creation. This panel will discuss the principles of defensible disposition as well as the promise and difficulties involved in using analytics to aid in retention, disposition, and reducing downstream costs.

Speakers to include are: Keith M. Angle, Global Head of Records Management and Associate General Counsel, AIG; Pallab Chakraborty, Director of eDiscovery, Oracle; Keith Grochow, SR IT Technology Analyst – Records, Genentech.  Discussion Leader: Jon M. Talotta, Partner, Hogan Lovells.

The Seismic Effects of Mobile Device Data and BYOD Culture on E-Discovery

Data from mobile devices is either your current – or will be your next – biggest challenge. Whether you are collecting and reviewing for e-discovery or investigating for internal purposes, mobile device data remains tricky, hard to get and important. Complications range from increased encryption to legal and logistical issues with BYOD to keeping up with the newest operating systems and devices. With the mobilization of society and corporate culture showing no signs of abating, the effects of mobile data on legal disputes is becoming seismic. Join our experienced panel of legal practitioners and technical experts to learn strategies for dealing with the growing challenge of mobile device data in e-discovery. We’ll discuss:

  • Case law and regulatory drivers regarding mobile data
  • Planning and documenting mobile data policies
  • Coping with the logistical and privacy challenges of BYOD culture
  • Apps and the specific legal & technical challenges they present

Speakers to include are: Gareth Evans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Veeral Gosalia, Senior Managing Director, FTI Technology; Anthony Knaapen, Manager Litigation Discovery, Chevron Corporation; Christopher Sitter, EnCE, eDiscovery & Digital Forensics Senior Manager, Juniper Networks.

3:45 PM – 5:00 PM:

Protecting Information Assets: Data Privacy and Security

Special attention needs to be paid to information if it contains personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), or other sensitive data. There are legal requirements regarding the retention and disposition of much of this information, and there may be conflicting business needs to retain the information longer. At the same time, there are security concerns, especially for data housed in the cloud, concerns underscored by the abundance of recent breaches and cyber-attacks. This panel will discuss the development of a privacy policy and program as the first steps in developing preventive measures an organization can take to secure its most sensitive data. Additional topics will include data minimization and anonymization, data security programs, and breach response plans.

Speakers to include are: Andy Blair, Managing Associate, Dentons US LLP; Scott M. Giordano, Esq., Data Privacy Project Manager, Esterline Technologies Corporation; Jack Yang, Vice President, Visa Inc.  Discussion Leader: David Ray, Director, Huron Legal.

Disruption: Five Forces Shaping the Legal Landscape

From mobile and global work environments to alternative billing models to a perceived crisis in legal education, the legal industry is in the midst of a major transformation. Some changes are evolutionary, yet other developments may feel revolutionary for those unprepared for change. What are the five key trends that will disrupt the legal industry and impact how you do your job? What are the skills and mindset needed to adjust, innovate and thrive in this new legal landscape?

Attend this no-holds-barred, interactive discussion as leading legal minds and futurists outline the five key forces shaping the legal industry of tomorrow, and how you can remain ahead of the game.

Speakers to include are: David R. Cohen, Partner and Practice Group Leader, Global Records & E-Discovery Group, Reed Smith; Honorable John M. Facciola, United States Magistrate Judge, District of Columbia; Christopher Mooney, Corporate Counsel, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Christopher Sitter, EnCE, eDiscovery & Digital Forensics Senior Manager, Juniper Networks.  Discussion Leader: Sophie Ross, Senior Managing Director, FTI Technology.

In addition to these, there are other sessions today that might be of interest.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend LTWC this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

DESI Got Your Input, and Here It Is: eDiscovery Trends

Back in January, we discussed the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (DESI, not to be confused with Desi Arnaz, pictured above) workshop and its call for papers describing research or practice for the DESI VI workshop that was held last week at the University of San Diego as part of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law (ICAIL 2015). Now, links to those papers are available on their web site.

The DESI VI workshop aims to bring together researchers and practitioners to explore innovation and the development of best practices for application of search, classification, language processing, data management, visualization, and related techniques to institutional and organizational records in eDiscovery, information governance, public records access, and other legal settings. Ideally, the aim of the DESI workshop series has been to foster a continuing dialogue leading to the adoption of further best practice guidelines or standards in using machine learning, most notably in the eDiscovery space. Organizing committee members include Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and Douglas W. Oard of the University of Maryland.

The workshop included keynote addresses by Bennett Borden and Jeremy Pickens, a session regarding Topics in Information Governance moderated by Jason R. Baron, presentations of some of the “refereed” papers and other moderated discussions. Sounds like a very informative day!

As for the papers themselves, here is a list from the site with links to each paper:

Refereed Papers

Position Papers

If you’re interested in discovery of ESI, Information Governance and artificial intelligence, these papers are for you! Kudos to all of the authors who submitted them. Over the next few weeks, we plan to dive deeper into at least a few of them.

So, what do you think? Did you attend DESI VI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

When Collecting Emails, Make Sure You Have a Complete Outlook: eDiscovery Best Practices

I’m out of the office this week, taking the kiddos on a family vacation (can you guess where?). Instead of going dark for the week (which we almost never do), I decided to use the opportunity to give you a chance to catch up on cases we’ve covered so far this year with a couple of case law pop quizzes, sandwiched around a popular post from the past that you may have missed. Today’s post takes a look back at Outlook files and the different forms they take. How many do you know?

Most discovery requests include a request for emails of parties involved in the case. Email data is often the best resource for establishing a timeline of communications in the case and Microsoft® Outlook is the most common email program used in business today. Outlook emails can be stored in several different forms, so it’s important to be able to account for each file format when collecting emails that may be responsive to the discovery request.

There are several different file types that contain Outlook emails, including:

EDB (Exchange Database): The server files for Microsoft Exchange, which is the server environment which manages Outlook emails in an organization. In the EDB file, a user account is created for each person authorized at the company to use email (usually, but not always, employees). The EDB file stores all of the information related to email messages, calendar appointments, tasks, and contacts for all authorized email users at the company. EDB files are the server-side collection of Outlook emails for an organization that uses Exchange, so they are a primary source of responsive emails for those organizations. Not all organizations that use Outlook use Exchange, but larger organizations almost always do.

OST (Outlook Offline Storage Table): Outlook can be configured to keep a local copy of a user’s items on their computer in an Outlook data file that is named an offline Outlook Data File (OST). This allows the user to work offline when a connection to the Exchange computer may not be possible or wanted. The OST file is synchronized with the Exchange computer when a connection is available. If the synchronization is not current for a particular user, their OST file could contain emails that are not on the EDB server file, so OST files may also need to be searched for responsive emails.

PST (Outlook Personal Storage Table): A PST file is another Outlook data file that stores a user’s messages and other items on their computer. It’s the most common file format for home users or small organizations that don’t use Exchange, but instead use an ISP to connect to the Internet (typically through POP3 and IMAP). In addition, Exchange users may move or archive messages to a PST file (either manually or via auto-archiving) to move them out of the primary mailbox, typically to keep their mailbox size manageable. PST files often contain emails not found in either the EDB or OST files (especially when Exchange is not used), so it’s important to search them for responsive emails as well.

MSG (Outlook MSG File): MSG is a file extension for a mail message file format used by Microsoft Outlook and Exchange. Each MSG file is a self-contained unit for the message “family” (email and its attachments) and individual MSG files can be saved simply by dragging messages out of Outlook to a folder on the computer (which could then be stored on portable media, such as CDs or flash drives). As these individual emails may no longer be contained in the other Outlook file types, it’s important to determine where they are located and search them for responsiveness. MSG is also a common format for native production of individual responsive Outlook emails, though HTML is also used (as Outlook emails, by default, are already HTML formatted files).

Other Outlook file types that might contain responsive information are EML (Electronic Mail), which is the Outlook Express e-mail format and PAB (Personal Address Book), which, as the name implies, stores the user’s contact information.

Of course, Outlook emails are not just stored within EDB files on the server or these other file types on the local workstation or portable media; they can also be stored within an email archiving system or synchronized to phones and other portable devices. Regardless, it’s important to account for the different file types when collecting potentially responsive Outlook emails for discovery.

So, what do you think? Are you searching all of these file types for responsive Outlook emails? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Here’s a New Job Title that May Catch On – Chief Data Scientist: eDiscovery Trends

With big data becoming bigger than ever, the ability for organizations to apply effective data analytics within information governance and electronic discovery disciplines has become more important than ever. With that in mind, one law firm has created a new role that might catch on with other firms and corporations – the role of Chief Data Scientist.

The article from Legaltech News (Drinker Biddle Names Borden Chief Data Scientist, by Chris DiMarco) notes that Drinker Biddle & Reath has named Bennett Borden the firm’s first chief data scientist (CDS). As the author notes, in this role, Borden will oversee the implementation of technologies and services that apply use of data analytics and other cutting edge tools to the practice of law and will be tasked with developing the firm’s data analytics strategy. The move positions Drinker Biddle as one of the first firms – possibly in the world – to carve out a leadership position overseeing data analytics, with the impetus for the new role coming from the firm’s longstanding views on the importance of governing information.

Borden, who is also co-founder of the Information Governance Initiative (IGI), was quoted in the article, stating, “Our perspective is that information governance is a coordinating discipline around all the different facets of the creation use and disposition of information. And so data analytics is one more part of a large IG framework.”

Borden’s selection as the firm’s chief data scientist comes on the heels of him receiving a Master of Science degree in business analytics from New York University.

“Because of where analytics is going, especially in the business arena, I was interested in getting additional training,” Borden said. “My entire career has focused on using advanced analytics on large volumes of information to find something of value. Much of my work has focused on using advanced data analytics across many of our practices, not only for discovery, but also for compliance and investigations.”

According to Borden, he is among the first to hold the title of CDS at a major firm. Will this start a trend? Maybe so. Congrats, Bennett!

So, what do you think? Do you think other firms and organizations will create a Chief Data Scientist position? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image © exploringdatascience.com

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

For a Successful Outcome to Your Discovery Project, Work Backwards: eDiscovery Best Practices

Based on a recent experience with a client, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic. Plus, it’s always fun to play with the EDRM model. Notice anything different? 🙂

While the Electronic Discovery Reference Model from EDRM has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model and work backwards, whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party.

Why work backwards?

You can’t have a successful outcome without envisioning the successful outcome that you want to achieve. The end of the discovery process includes the production and presentation stages, so it’s important to determine what you want to get out of those stages. Let’s look at them.

Presentation

Whether you’re a receiving party or a producing party, it’s important to think about what types of evidence you need to support your case when presenting at depositions and at trial – this is the type of information that needs to be included in your production requests at the beginning of the case as well as the type of information that you’ll need to preserve as a producing party.

Production

The format of the ESI produced is important to both sides in the case. For the receiving party, it’s important to get as much useful information included in the production as possible. This includes metadata and searchable text for the produced documents, typically with an index or load file to facilitate loading into a review application. The most useful form of production is native format files with all metadata preserved as used in the normal course of business.

For the producing party, it’s important to be efficient and minimize costs, so it’s important to agree to a production format that minimizes production costs. Converting files to an image based format (such as TIFF) adds costs, so producing in native format can be cost effective for the producing party as well. It’s also important to determine how to handle issues such as privilege logs and redaction of privileged or confidential information.

Addressing production format issues up front will maximize cost savings and enable each party to get what they want out of the production of ESI. If you don’t, you could be arguing in court like our case participants from yesterday’s post.

Processing-Review-Analysis

It also pays to make decisions early in the process that affect processing, review and analysis. How should exception files be handled? What do you do about files that are infected with malware? These are examples of issues that need to be decided up front to determine how processing will be handled.

As for review, the review tool being used may impact how quick and easy it is to get started, to load data and to use the tool, among other considerations. If it’s Friday at 5 and you have to review data over the weekend, is it easy to get started? As for analysis, surely you test search terms to determine their effectiveness before you agree on those terms with opposing counsel, right?

Preservation-Collection-Identification

Long before you have to conduct preservation and collection for a case, you need to establish procedures for implementing and monitoring litigation holds, as well as prepare a data map to identify where corporate information is stored for identification, preservation and collection purposes.

And, before a case even begins, you need an effective Information Governance program to minimize the amount of data that you might have to consider for responsiveness in the first place.

As you can see, at the beginning of a case (and even before), it’s important to think backwards within the EDRM model to ensure a successful discovery process. Decisions made at the beginning of the case affect the success of those latter stages, so working backwards can help ensure a successful outcome!

So, what do you think? What do you do at the beginning of a case to ensure success at the end?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Here’s Some Useful Criteria for Evaluating Information Governance Vendors: eDiscovery Best Practices

Rob Robinson’s excellent Complex Discovery blog has been a terrific resource for eDiscovery information for several years now, covering everything from a “mashup” of eDiscovery market estimates to mergers, acquisitions and investments in the eDiscovery industry. His article from last week provides some useful information to organizations looking to select the right information governance vendor for their needs.

Rob’s article, 9 Subjective Considerations for Assessing Information Governance Vendors, considers more than just the hardware and software “nuts and bolts” to select the right information governance vendor. Rob notes that “just as there is much more to the utility of a knife than its edge (especially if you want to use it more than once), there are additional areas worthy of consideration in vendor selection if one is considering the long term strategic utility and viability of a vendor.” Rob uses the Free Dictionary’s definition of “viable” as “capable of success or continuing effectiveness”.

While he acknowledges that these nine criteria are not “all-inclusive”, Rob observes that they “may have an impact on {your} organization for many years to come”. Here are the criteria, along with questions that Rob asks for each (in italics):

  1. Technology = Demonstrated ability of product/service offering’s technical contribution to solving specific information governance challenges. Does the vendor’s technology appear to do what you need it to do? Can the technology be validated by some entity other than the vendor?
  2. Domain Knowledge = Demonstrated ability of an organization to utilize technology to solve specific information governance challenges. Does the vendor understand the domain you are operating in or do they just understand their technology?
  3. Awareness = An organization’s mindshare in the eyes of the client in relation to other organizations seeking to solve similar information governance challenges. Is the vendor known by information governance analysts, thought leaders, influencers, and information governance experts?
  4. Reputation = The confidence level customers have in the actual or perceived ability of an organization to solve information governance challenges viewed in relation to other organizations. Does the vendor have a reputation for being able to deliver on the expectations they set in a timely and accurate manner?
  5. Free Cash Flow = Net Income + Depreciation/Amortization – Changes In Working Capital – Capital Expenditure. Is the vendor able to meet financial commitments to support client needs and internal/external commitments?
  6. Clients = The number of active entities that have paid for information governance products/services in the current calendar year. Does the vendor have clients who have moved beyond the partner, master services agreement, and/or pilot phase of an engagement and are actually using the product/service in a production environment on a regular basis?
  7. Motive = The stimulus causing an organization to determine product/service strategies and tactics. Are vendor decisions made for the greater good of clients and vendor support staff or are they personality driven completely based on the personal objectives of the vendor ownership?
  8. Sincerity = Congruence or lack thereof between an organization’s stated market desires and actual leadership actions. Does the vendor do what they say they are going to do for both clients (external sincerity) and internal support staff (internal sincerity)?
  9. Employee Turnover = The rate at which an organization gains or loses staff. Is the vendor committed to its employees/contractors? Are vendor employees/contractors committed to the vendor?

Regardless how good an information governance vendor’s technology may be, if the vendor can’t demonstrate a knowledge of the industry and doesn’t have a proven track record for meeting client deadlines, an established client base or financial or organizational stability, they may not be the right choice for your organization for the long term.

Rob’s article has other key points and additional useful information, you can check it out here.

So, what do you think? Does your organization use one or more information governance vendors? If so, what criteria did you use to select them? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Are You as “E-Savvy” as You Need to Be in Your “E-Disclosure” Process?: eDiscovery Best Practices

Craig Ball’s Ball in Your Court blog is always an excellent read, even when he writes it “across the pond” over in London. His latest post discusses how “fighting the last war” will eventually cost you when you come across an “e-savvy” opponent.

In Craig’s post, Girding for the E-Savvy Opponent, he mentions that he is presenting the keynote topic opening the Information Governance & eDiscovery Summit conference in London and how, while he was there, they were celebrating the 70th anniversary of VE day. I’ve heard him say before that “Generals are always prepared to fight the last war”, which he analogizes to technology and “e-disclosure” (which is what they call eDiscovery across the pond). Imagine if we were still trying use mounted cavalry to fight against armored tanks? It would be a disaster. As he notes, “In e-disclosure, we still fight the last war, smug in the belief that our opponents will never be e-savvy enough to defeat us.”

Craig notes that “Our old war ways have served so long that we are slow to recognize a growing vulnerability. To date, our opponents have proved unsophisticated, uncreative and un-tenacious.” He observes how our tech-challenged opponents “make it easy” and that he has “more than once heard an opponent defend costly, cumbersome procedures that produce what I didn’t seek and didn’t want with the irrefutable justification of, ‘we did what we always do.’”

But, that won’t always be the case. Craig predicts that “our once tech challenged opponents will someday evolve into Juris Doctor Electronicus.” When those tech challenged opponents evolve into e-savvy opponents, you can expect that they will (among other things): “demand competent search”, “insist on native production”, “compel transparency of scope and process”, “shrewdly use sampling to expose failure” and “demand competence, but not overreach”. With regard to that last point, Craig observes that “E-savvy counsel succeeds not by overreaching but by insisting on mere competence – competent scope, competent processes and competent forms of production. Good, not just good enough.”

Defenses against the e-savvy lawyer may include “the Luddite judge who applies the standards of his or her former law practice to modern evidence” or a strategy “to embed outmoded practices in the rules and to immunize incompetence against sanctions”. But, those won’t work forever. With virtually all evidence today “born electronically”, best practices for handling such evidence cannot be ignored forever. Someday, you will have to face e-savvy opponents on a regular basis, will you be ready?

As usual, Craig has numerous insightful observations in his post, I’ve referenced several of them here, but don’t want to fully steal his thunder, so I recommend you check out his post here.

So, what do you think? Is your organization still “fighting the last war” or are they prepared to deal with an “e-savvy” opponent? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP: eDiscovery Trends

This is the seventh of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?
  3. Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Shareholder and the firm’s National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principal author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog, founder and owner of an online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world, founder of the new Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP) lawyer-centric work flow model. Ralph is also the publisher of LegalSearchScience.com and PreSuit.com on predictive coding methods and applications.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

It seems to me that attendance is up. I got here a little late, but I was only delayed two hours – I know that some were delayed as much as two days. Despite that, I think it was a good turnout. When I was walking the floor, there seemed to be crowds of people, so I think it was pretty well attended this year.

The programming this year had a slightly different orientation. I had a presentation on predictive coding (which I’ve presented on predictive coding topics for the last four years or so) and, in past years, it seemed that my presentation would be one of a dozen or more at the show whereas this year, it seemed like there were only three or four presentations on predictive coding. So, maybe the “fad” part of predictive coding is over and more people are into the topic in depth. The presentation that we gave was more on an advanced level – we didn’t discuss whether or not you should use it or review the basics; instead, we went into a deeper level. And that was fun for me to do.

Instead, I think the hot item this year was information governance, which is somewhat of a general “catch-all”. Then, the other two things that I saw in the presentations and in the “buzz” on the floor when talking to people were two things that I’m very concerned about as well: security (cybersecurity is the word I prefer to use) and privacy. I think those are two long-term issues that have been brewing and are now coming to the forefront where lawyers are realizing that these are important issues that are coming out of technology.

As for whether they should consider moving the show, well, I’m from Florida and I love to see snow every now and then – it’s a real rarity where I live. I left a 72 degree paradise to arrive here and it was 18 degrees. In spite of that, I think the show should remain in New York at this time of year and I fully believe that this is the event of the year. If anything, I think it’s growing in importance. For me, the older I get, the more I try to limit my travel and appearances and this would be one that I would not take off my list of must attend events, if for no other reason than because everyone is here. I love walking around and running into judges and old friends, so that is one of the reasons that I think it is the premier event of the year.

After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?

I don’t think there will be any issues passing the rules amendments through Congress, I think they will sail through and be part of our rules soon enough. I don’t really feel that the rules changes will make that much difference. I just recently litigated the existing Rule 37(e) and in my memos, I quoted the new Rule 37(e). At the end of the day, it didn’t really make any difference in the court’s adjudication whether it was the old rule or the new rule. So, I still continue to think that the changes are a positive move, but I don’t think they will be a savior or “cure-all” that people might hope. In that sense, I may be a little pessimistic about it. I’ve seen rules changes before, such as ’06.

This leads to a slightly different topic, but I ultimately feel that all these (as I call them) cosmetic rules changes will fail. I think that, in maybe ten years, there is going to be a major overhaul. I think the rules committee and the federal judges will realize that you can’t just do these periodic slight “tweak” of the rules. I think they will eventually consider and, possibly enact, a complete overhaul or our rules and procedures – focused on discovery. I don’t think discovery is working and I don’t think the discovery rules are really working and I don’t think that they can be patched up. They’ve been trying to patch up discovery for 35 years now with various rules changes and they’ve never worked. I have no reason to believe that 2015 will be any different than 1989 or before that. I think that they’re going to be forced to take drastic measures. That’s my prediction – we’ll see.

Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?

In my world (which is a fairly large world, but it’s all in employment law), I see employment law cases all over the country of an asymmetric type: small plaintiff against the big corporation. The change that I see is mainly on the corporation defendant level – they are getting their acts together much better on the preservation front. In fact, all across the whole spectrum, the corporations are slowly but surely getting there. There is still a long way to go, but I do see improvement. I see improvement in the defense bar in general and, of course, with my own attorneys, which for five years I have put through intensive training. We have 800 lawyers and I would say that 600 of them are litigators, so, after five years, there are certain things that have penetrated and they have developed a core level of competence, particularly on preservation. Preservation is in every case, so that’s the most important thing to get down pat and I have seen definite improvement in that.

Now, on the plaintiff side, it’s still amazingly slow. The plaintiffs’ bar is slow to catch up, they are still untrained and, for the most part, unknowledgeable. And, some of the ones that are active in eDiscovery are using it as a tool to be a “pain in the ass” really. They’re not doing it for true discovery; instead, they’re doing it more as a harassment tactic. And, they don’t really know what they’re doing. So, we have to deal with that. On the other hand, we are seeing more and more sincere plaintiff’s counsel too, so it’s not all bad. Just not as many as we would like, since cooperation really is the best way to go.

But, we are also seeing situations where we’re making requests and wanting to see the Facebook pages and wanting to see the plaintiff’s email. Although it is still asymmetric, there essentially isn’t a plaintiff in the world that doesn’t have an email account. We still need discovery from them. The impact is what I call the “boomerang effect” – be careful what you throw out there, it can come back right at you. When the tables are turned and we ask the plaintiff’s counsel “what are you doing about preservation”, we get big blank stares. In a way, the fact that the plaintiffs have their own ESI has leveled the playing field a bit.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

I’d like the readers to check out what I’m working on to create a best practices and standards for the legal practice of electronic discovery, and I call that Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP). It’s not EDRM, it’s about what lawyers do. That’s what I’ve been doing for the past eight years, helping lawyers do electronic discovery. That continues to evolve.

The thing that’s new that I’ve been working on is cybersecurity. So, one of my websites is eDiscoverySecurity.com where I talk about the need for lawyers and companies when they’re doing eDiscovery to be concerned about keeping it secure. We’re often assembling very sensitive documents, which are a target for hackers, including foreign governments. The Chinese are famous for this and law firms are being hacked. The final thing that I would point out is that I’ve got HackerLaw.org, which is another new web site that I’ve created associated with my interest in cybersecurity. I consider myself a “hacker” in the positive sense of someone who is hands on, working with computers – that’s what “hacker” really means. But, there’s also the “dark hat” hackers that are my enemies and there’s a whole war going on out there. This site pertains to that and also talks about the positive side of being a hacker (for example, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were proud to call themselves “hackers”). Believe it or not, the term “hacker” started out in model railroading – the famous computer lab at MIT grew out of the model railroad club at MIT. They were hands on building railroad tracks and, out of that grew the whole computer culture – little known historical point.

As for the e-Discovery Team® Blog, the three part series that I just finished on ei-Recall was the hardest blog post series that I have ever written. I put a lot of time into it as a public service because I worried about what is the best way to confirm and verify your results when you’re doing a review. I call it “Quality Assurance” and there are so many ways to do it that I came up with this approach for recall and consulted a number of scientists during the process. I didn’t do it because I’m trying to sell anything. But, I hope it will become the de-facto standard and I wrote it, at length, so that anybody with a little study can do it on their own. People have started to tell me that they have studied the blog and are starting to do it, so that’s encouraging. The whole point of “I’ve attained 80% recall” – that’s wrong, you can never know exact recall, it has to be a range. I’ve had some scientists after the fact tell me that’s what they’ve been doing all along, they just didn’t call it “ei-Recall”. You only calculate it at the end of a project, but that’s when you need to do it. So, I think it has been one of my major accomplishments and I hope everyone will check it out.

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC: eDiscovery Trends

This is the sixth of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them most of the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. Two or three years ago, the “next big thing” was probably technology assisted review; last year, it was probably information governance. What would you say this year’s “next big thing” is, or do you think we have one this year?
  3. Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is George Socha. A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey; in 2011, he and Tom Gelbmann converted the Survey into Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings. In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are nine active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations. George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

{Interviewed the first morning of LTNY, so the focus of the question to George was more about his observations about the curriculum for the show and what to expect}.

It is a little early for general observations about LTNY – we haven’t even heard the opening keynote panel discussion – but here goes. Looking at the curriculum and talking with attendees, speakers and exhibitors, it appears we have reached a stage where a significant number of eDiscovery providers are turning their attention from the “traditional” eDiscovery market and are looking, instead, for new markets. First it was information governance, now the “flavor of the month” appears to be security. Some providers are, I suspect, looking for a larger pond, on with more for them to eat; others may feel that the eDiscovery pond is getting too crowded or, perhaps, beginning to dry out.

At the same time, a large portion of the legal industry continues to be ignored by the bulk of eDiscovery providers. Many providers deem most law firms to be too small to pursue. After all, which law firm do you think a provider is more likely to try to get work from, one with 5 lawyers, or one with 500? And with roughly 80% of the 57,000 or so law firms in the US having 5 lawyers or less, that leaves a lot of law firms who aren’t getting a lot of eDiscovery love. I suspect we will see this reflected in the content delivered at the educations session and in the focus of software and services on display in the exhibit hall.

As for whether ALM should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather… For me, one of the draws of LTNY is that I get to go somewhere warm in the beginning of February. But then, I live in Minnesota. I think LTNY has a lock on the place and time. Software providers plan major releases and updates with LTNY in mind. Providers of all stripes schedule their biggest announcements for the weeks before LTNY takes place. Consumers shopping for new providers and providers seeking new customers set up meetings for the entire week of LTNY, not just at the Hilton but at surrounding hotels as well. So, some other place, some other time, just because of the weather? I don’t think so.

Two or three years ago, the “next big thing” was probably technology assisted review; last year, it was probably information governance. What would you say this year’s “next big thing” is, or do you think we have one this year?

If I were to be glib, I would say that this year’s “next big thing” will be just one more “bright shiny object.” But that would not really be fair. We have had a “next big thing” happening for several years now. But it has not been TAR, or information governance, or ECA, or any of those. Rather, it has been the many incremental improvements made in the tools available to us, the processes we use, and the sophistication of the people using those tools to carry out those processes. While we are a long way from a mature industry and a mature market, nonetheless we have made huge advances.

Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?

I agree with the assessment that most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. We have a long way to go. We make incremental improvements, but I off the top of my head I can’t think about any major advances in the past year.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

We’ve been making a number of changes and advancements with EDRM over the past year, especially the past few months. Look to see much more in terms of efforts to focus on standards and on practical tools and capabilities. Also, look to see much more from us in terms of collaborative activities, such as the recent partnering announcements with ACEDS as an Affinity partner and eDiscovery Daily as an Education partner. We’ve broadened our base of membership in terms of types of members considerably over the last year – we have a much larger number of corporate members than ever in the past and, for the first time, we have governmental members. I think that change in membership and the continued push toward the practical will lead to further positive changes with EDRM.

Here are links to some of EDRM’s other most recent announcements, including an updated statistical sampling guide, clarification to its Model Code of Conduct and release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1).

Thanks, George, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP: eDiscovery Trends

This is the fifth of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Jason R. Baron. An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice and also a member of the leadership team for the Information Governance Initiative. Jason previously served as Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice. He was a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international information retrieval project devoted to evaluating search issues in a legal context. He also founded the international DESI (Discovery of Electronically Stored Information) workshop series, bringing together lawyers and academics to discuss cutting-edge issues in eDiscovery.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

Well, it’s not going to come as a big surprise to you that I have seen more sessions related to information governance. Those of us who are part of the movement here may see IG under every rock, but I did make a humorous aside at a panel that I participated in on the first day of LegalTech: “Welcome to the 29th session on Information Governance.” It seems to me that we have gone through a hype curve that Gartner talks about with both technology assisted review and with big data, and I think we are definitely going up that same curve on information governance. Whether that will level off at some point, I don’t know. But, I did see it as a more major element of this year’s conference. And, it’s not just that there was a dedicated track to the topic of IG here at LegalTech, but an increased focus on talking about IG issues across several tracks and in new and different ways.

Of course, as we came upon the year 2015, we are now living in a post-Sony, post-Snowden world. If you had to do a Time magazine cover, it might be called the year of the data breach. In my mind the increased focus on cybersecurity issues is a leveraging opportunity for those of us in the information governance community, given that it’s a moment where the C-Suite in corporations is thinking about data breaches all around the enterprise, and also going beyond that to think about their data. Because it’s one thing to secure the borders – I draw a little square when I diagram this out – and to ensure constant vigilance. But it’s another thing to figure out what’s inside the borders that you’re securing. And that’s where the information governance proposition shows up.

So, while the C-Suite is focused on cybersecurity threats, they should also be having a conversation about the amount of data they’re accumulating, the legacy data that they have, how are they getting visualization into the data they have, how are they maximizing the opportunities in terms of ROI on the data that’s being collected on the consumer side, and figuring out what’s of high value and what’s of low value. This is something that the records profession has attempted to do for decades, but we’re in a new world of big data and we need to apply 21st century thinking to this. So, what I see here at the conference is an increased attention on IG and an increased attention on cybersecurity generally and I think that those are “twins” – they go together conceptually.

The world is accelerating in terms of the pace of change of technology and if lawyers aren’t competent in understanding new technologies that they can utilize in their practices across the board – not just in eDiscovery but as a general practice – then they are going to lose out to others in the Darwinian sense. So, I don’t think LegalTech has ever been more important than right now. I think we need to expand our horizon beyond eDiscovery collection, preservation and production to the greater world of analytics and other new things that are happening in the business space. And aside from analytics and IG itself, it would be interesting for LegalTech to talk about artificial intelligence and deep learning and about how robots and software may eventually be replacing lawyers in terms of legal research. It has been very much an eDiscovery-centric conference for a long time, but that’s not everything that’s encompassed in the world of legal practice. So, it would be great to see LegalTech expand beyond its current focus.

As for the possibility of moving LTNY to a different time of year, what could be better than snow storms, slush and ice in New York City in February? Of course, if you’re asking me if I’d like to see it in Hawaii instead, the answer is yes. 🙂

After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?

No question about it – there is no known Congressional opposition to the rules and we all expect them to be effectuated. Some close colleagues of mine have made the point that Rule 37 particularly will enormously help large defendants in being able to push back on the trend towards over-preservation of data caught up in litigation. If this holds true, the rules will support an important pillar of practicing good information governance, namely, finding ways in which corporations can continue to dispose of information without running n the risk of spoliation claims in litigation.

I have not a contrary view, but let’s just call it a “view from the mountaintop.” I wrote a letter on behalf of the Information Governance Initiative which is on our web site. It was an open letter to the Federal Rules Committee that was looking at the thousands of comments that came in regarding the proposed rules changes. Basically, the IGI’s position is that the changes to Rule 37 and Rule 26 may be welcome; however, what we believe in even more strongly is that real changes will come with technology and with cultural change. We’re all advocates, at least at the IGI and in my own legal practice at Drinker Biddle, in seeking more optimal ways to automate processes and the overall workflow, to essentially reduce the burden on individuals at all points in the eDiscovery process and in the greater IG space.

We’re also advocates in support of Rule 1, which now more clearly emphasizes cooperation in discovery (via the Notes section of the proposed rule which states “Effective advocacy is consistent with – and indeed depends upon – cooperative and proportional use of procedure.”). I have been very proud to be associated with The Sedona Conference® and the Cooperation Proclamation that it issued. The late Richard Braman spearheaded this movement – as discussed in Joe Looby’s film The Decade of Discovery. Lawyers know that The Sedona Conference has been advocating for lawyers and judges to sign on to a different practice culture, at least at the Meet and Confer stage of litigation, where there is more transparency and more open discussion among lawyers in trying to narrow issues that opposing sides feel strongly about. The ideal result is that the very narrowest set of issues is presented to a judge going forward. I think the culture of cooperation is taking hold. It is not “Pollyanna-ish” to think that, in every district in the country, there will be one or more judges who are aggressively pushing lawyers to be more open and cooperative earlier in the process.

The technology in the eDiscovery space is getting to a level of complexity that you simply have to have a conversation with opposing counsel about preservation issues and about search and access issues early on in the game. We just all need to “raise our games” in terms of being competent to talk about tools to make the eDiscovery process more efficient. I am one who holds the view that enormous resources being continuously devoted to tinkering with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure misses the larger picture here, which is that the pace of change of technology is so great, that no Rules can ever catch up, as such. As lawyers, we need to give our best advice to clients on how to improve their processes to lower costs. And of course, many remain hopeful that there will be less of a “dagger over the heads” of large entities in litigation with the rules changes going into effect.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Glad you asked, Doug! It has been quite a ride for the past 15 months working in the private sector after 34 years in the government, including at the Justice Department, and being Director of Litigation at the National Archives. The problems faced in the public sector are profound, with respect to information governance challenges, both from a security perspective and well as with respect to record keeping, open government and open access in the digital age. But I now see many of the same issues here that the private sector faces as well. We all live in a world of litigation of increasing complexity. How you get your arms around the need to preserve some of your high value data, while segregating other portions of your data including legacy data that is to be considered low value, is a profound IG issue. I am very fortunate to now be part of a practice group at Drinker Biddle that is talking about all of these important information governance issues, in ways that we hope will be attractive to clients.

I’ve also been having a great time in working with Barclay Blair, Bennett Borden and Jay Brudz as part of the Information Governance Initiative, which is a new think tank and consortium launched a year ago at Legaltech (in 2014). We now have a whole a large number of sponsors and lots of activities continuously going on, including boot camps, dinners, benchmark studies, white papers, and a conference in Chicago in May about Chief Information Governance officers (a new position in the IG space).

I have also had the pleasure of going around the US and the world to be part of screenings of a film by Joe Looby calledThe Decade of Discovery (covered by this blog here, here and here; click here for the latest listing of film screening locations and dates), which traces the evolution of search in eDiscovery since around the year 2000. Joe has done a wonderful job of capturing in a 60 minute documentary the issues we all have been facing. In particular, the film is a tribute to the late Richard Braman and his vision for dialogue and cooperation in discovery. The movie also talks about what I had the privilege of doing, in terms of being tasked to search for White House email, and the film also involves a number of prominent judges and lawyers. So, for the next few months, I’ll continue our world tour with screenings of the film in law schools and other venues talking about these issues.

It’s very important to me to get a message out to younger lawyers and law students in particular that this field of eDiscovery and information governance is growing, it’s a hot field, an interesting field and one where you can be what we call a “SME” — a subject matter expert – in a pretty short amount of time. So, for anyone reading this, the message is “get on board”, become an expert in some niche in this space and in a relatively still chilly market for lawyers, you can distinguish yourself. I would be happy to have that conversation with anyone who is interested in being part of the dialogue about eDiscovery and information governance.

Thanks, Jason, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.