Close
Enter your
text here

Review

Have you considered the implications of time zones when it comes to your litigation needs?

by: Trent Livingston, Chief Technology Officer

Most of today’s legal technology platforms require that a time zone be selected at the time of ingestion of data. Or, in the case of forensic software, the time stamp is displayed with a time zone offset based upon the device’s time zone setting. However, when conducting a review, the de facto time zone setting for your litigation is often determined ahead of time, often based upon subjective information. This is likely the region in which the primary custodian resides. Once that time zone is selected, everything is adjusted to that time zone. It is “set in stone” so to speak. In some cases, this is fine, but in others, it can complicate things, especially if you want to alter your time zone mid-review.

Let’s start by understanding time zones, which immediately begs the question, “how many time zones are there in the world?” After all, it can’t be that many, right? Well, don’t start up your time machine just yet! To summarize a Quora answer (https://www.quora.com/How-many-timezones-do-we-have-in-the-world) we arrive at the following confusing mess.

Spanning our globe, there are a total of 41 different time zones. Given the number of time zones, “shifting time” (so to speak) can be of the utmost importance when examining evidentiary data.

If everything is set to Eastern Standard Time but does not properly allocate for time zone changes, a software application could arbitrarily alter a time stamp inconsistently, and consistency is what really matters! What happens if two of the parties to a matter are in New York while two of the parties are in Arizona? Arizona does not observe Daylight Saving Time. This could result in a set of timestamps being thrown off by an hour spanning approximately five months of the data set (based upon Daylight Saving Time rules). Communication responses that may have happened within minutes now seemingly occur an hour later (or earlier depending on how to look at it). Forensic records could fall out of sync with other evidentiary data and communications or, worse yet, sworn testimony. The key is to ensure consistency to avoid confusion.

CloudNine’s ESI Analyst (ESIA) normalizes everything to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) upon ingestion, leveraging the original time zone or offset. By doing this, ESIA can display the time zone of the project manager’s choosing (either set at the project level or by the specific user’s account time zone setting). This allows for the time stamp display of any evidence to be changed at any time to the desired time zone across an entire project, allowing for the dynamic view of time stamps. Not only can it be changed during a review, but also set at export. All original metadata is stored, and available during export so that the adjusted time stamp can be leveraged for timelines, while the original time stamp and time zone settings are preserved for evidentiary purposes.

When performing analysis of disparate data sets, this methodology allows users to adjust data to see relative time stamps to a particular party involved in that specific investigation. For example, an investigation may involve multiple parties that are all located in different time zones. Additionally, these users may be traveling to different countries. Adjusting everything to Eastern Time may show text messages arriving and being responded to in the late hours of the day not accounting for the fact that perhaps the user was abroad and was actually responding during normal business hours.

While seemingly innocuous, it can make a big difference in how a jury perceives the action of the party, depending on the nature of the investigation.

As they say… “timing is everything!” especially when it comes to digital evidence in today’s modern era.

Now, where did I leave my keys to my DeLorean?

Learn more about CloudNine ESI Analyst and its ability to deduplicate, search, filter, and adjust time zones across all data types at once here.

Managing the Unpredictability of eDiscovery Costs

Client fees are the lifeblood of the legal industry which means unpredictability isn’t congruent to the financial stability of a successful law firm. This means your eDiscovery document review solution can be as much of a liability as it is an asset when striving to remain profitable.

As every case differs in the volume and type of data collected, processed, and reviewed, the costs associated with it can be unpredictable. Without a balanced and consistent cost structure, the result can lead to an undesirable profit loss.

When eDiscovery was first utilized in the late 1990s, it was only in special cases involving email correspondence. Today, the American Bar Association (ABA) estimates that eDiscovery accounts for more than 80% of costs.  That translates roughly to $42 billion a year, with 70% of costs directly associated with document review.

Today’s eDiscovery has evolved further to include device data derived from multiple sources which can quickly inflate expenses and severely impact your operating budget.

At CloudNine , we are dedicated to guiding you towards eDiscovery cost recovery through our streamlined and optimized data solutions; read on for more of our tips to getting to the truth and your revenue goals more efficiently.

Get to The Truth Faster: The Biggest Challenges to Profitable eDiscovery

Controlling eDiscovery costs and charging your clients appropriately comes with certain challenges.

eDiscovery Insourcing vs Outsourcing: The profitability between these two options isn’t always black and white. There are a variety of factors when considering if outsourcing eDiscovery is the right choice for you, including:

  • What pricing models do vendors offer?
  • Are there additional fees?
  • How do hosting costs change over time?
  • Does the vendor own their technology or do they lease it?
  • What’s the full extent of capabilities the vendor has to offer?

By understanding the hidden costs of outsourcing, you can determine if it will allow you to balance cost and functionality effectively.

Delays in Court Proceedings: According to an article in the Washington Post, district attorneys are facing some of the longest case backlogs in living memory due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These delays mean more costs for longer hosting and storage times for important eDiscovery data, especially when being billed by the gigabyte.

Unpredictable Timing: The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a person accused of a crime the right to a speedy trial. That means by federal law, a criminal case must proceed to trial within 70 days of indictment. However, felony trials can sometimes linger for well over a year.  The unpredictability of time between indictment and trial means costs can run higher than expected.

Managing Multiple Vendors and/or Systems: With many vendors specializing in different features and functions, it’s difficult to find a one-stop shop for all your eDiscovery solution needs. To compensate, you’ll need to engage with different vendors resulting in more contracts, more fees, and more time wasted learning how to operate the different systems.

By using a single solution to collect and assemble multiple modern data types, you can better retain the relevant context and timeline to tell the whole story. Putting together all the pieces of the puzzle becomes simpler, faster, and more strategic.

Making eDiscovery Costs More Predictable: A consistent cost recovery model can help predict and recuperate many eDiscovery expenses, but you’ll want to evaluate the pros and cons to identify the model best suited for your firm.

Examples of common cost recovery models include:

Billable Hours: The majority of law firms traditionally charge clients the billable hours they spend performing processing and project management. This model results in the least amount of pushback from clients as they’re paying strictly for the attorneys’ time. However, this can become less profitable if your law firm is forced to host its eDiscovery data long-term due to delays in court proceedings.

Billable Hours + Hosting Fees: To compensate for increased expenses, your law firm can add hosting fees to billing statements in addition to billable hours. However, clients often push back as they may not view hosting fees as actual legal work. These fees, usually charged per gigabyte, can help you recoup eDiscovery costs, but only if the client is willing to pay.

Third-Party Vendor Style: Another option for cost recovery is to invoice your clients with line items similar to how a third-party eDiscovery vendor would operate. You can include billing for individual items such as:

  • The number of gigabytes processed
  • The volume of data hosted
  • Any analytics applied to the data
  • Any licensing fees for software used

While some clients may be familiar with this model based on their experience with eDiscovery vendors, others may balk at these types of expenses. Learn more about how to optimize your eDiscovery cost recovery by downloading our eBook: Optimize eDiscovery Cost Recovery: 6 Steps to Make Your Review Process More Profitable.

Streamline with CloudNine. Optimize eDiscovery in Minutes.

As a proven leader in eDiscovery, CloudNine has provided innovative data collection and review solutions for hundreds of law firms and legal service providers since 2002.

Regardless of the type of cost recovery model you choose, CloudNine’s eDiscovery platform delivers a complete and flexible suite of solutions at a predictable and affordable price. Some of the benefits include:

  • SaaS Hosting for All Data – CloudNine’s SaaS offering allows analysis and review of all modern data types to include email, text messages, corporate chat applications, and geolocation.
  • Data and Storage Control – Right-size your data by culling it upfront to reduce your storage needs and control your costs.
  • User-Friendly Solutions – Every CloudNine solution is easy to use and operates on a self-service basis including smartphone collection data.
  • Dedicated Support – Our services teams are always available if you need additional support.
  • Flexible Storage – Optimize your spending whether you choose our all-in storage option or choose to pay for storage as needed.
  • Low Overall Pricing – Get predictability and affordability without compromise and leverage the features you need without paying for the ones you don’t.

Improve and optimize your eDiscovery by simplifying and streamlining the process. You’ll make it easier on your clients and more profitable for your firm.  Reach out and book a demo to  learn how CloudNine can make your eDiscovery most cost-efficient.

Perin Discovery Streamlines Workflow Through ESI Analyst: CloudNine Podcasts

For legal teams, the race to production may seem never-ending. The journey begins with some data mapping to discern who owns the data and where it is located. Once the identification process is successful, legal teams are often stopped by the first roadblock. They need to find a vendor that can collect modern data types such as text messages, tweets, and videos. After the data is collected, another roadblock stands in the way. A second vendor is needed to carry out review and production. Stopping and restarting between each step is frustrating and time-consuming, yet few LSPs offer means for a continuous workflow.

Recognizing this issue, Peter Smith and Erin Perczak launched Perin Discovery to provide a one-stop shop for both digital forensics and eDiscovery. The co-founders joined Rick Clark for our 360 Innovate Podcast to explain how they leverage ESI Analyst to engage their clients in a smooth workflow. To learn how our platform has improved their data and case strategies, visit this link: https://cloudnine.com/webcasts/perin-discovery-podcast/?pg=ediscoverydaily/collection/perin-discovery-streamlines-workflow-through-esi-analyst-cloudnine-podcasts

Kroll Leverages ESI Analyst for Case Insights: CloudNine Podcasts

Without the right tools, sorting through a large dataset is akin to stumbling in the dark. Before deep-diving into voluminous data, legal teams need to know what to look for. The sooner those insights are found, the better. For years, attorneys uploaded data to traditional review platforms to win their clients and firm a head start. Since the platforms offered minimal searching tools, attorneys meticulously combed through mobile device data text by text. This process is not only time-consuming but also inefficient. Valuable case insights are easy to miss when hidden amongst other information.

CloudNine Senior Director, Rick Clark, kicks off the new 360 Innovate Podcast through an interview with Phil Hodgkins, Director of Data Insights and Forensics at Kroll. As a growing global practice, Kroll is well-versed in managing data-heavy projects involving compliance, investigations, and litigations. While conducting an internal investigation, Kroll learned how ESI Analyst’s capabilities surpassed those of two traditional review platforms. Through its various identification and visualization features, ESI Analyst yielded larger insights at a much faster rate. To learn how the Kroll team utilized ESI Analyst to strategically navigate through a broad dataset, visit this link: https://cloudnine.com/webcasts/kroll-innovate/?pg=ediscoverydaily/searching/kroll-leverages-esi-analyst-for-case-insights-cloudnine-podcasts

How to Redact Without Regrets

Safeguarding a client’s personal information is an important responsibility. Redactions protect client privacy by obscuring confidential, privileged, non-responsive, and personally identifiable information from relevant documents. [1] Though important, redactions are a time-consuming part of the review process, especially when done manually. To save time, legal teams should conduct an initial assessment of what, when, and where redactions should be placed. As a first step, examine the nature of the case and discovery. In other words, identify the tools and file types that will be included in the review process. When considering which redaction tool to use, refer back to the guidelines set by the ESI protocol and protective order. The sophistication of both parties can also impact the accessibility of digital redaction technology. [2] Overall, redactions should not be taken lightly. Mistakes often embarrass or endanger the client’s safety. Other ramifications may include waived attorney-client privilege, malpractice lawsuits, suspension, and even disbarment.

Redaction Failures

  • In January 2019, Paul Manafort’s pleadings were filed as PDF documents containing portions of blacked-out text. By copying and pasting the PDF into a different text document, people were able to see the improperly hidden text. Consequently, the court learned of Manafort’s exchanges with Konstantin Kilimnik, an alleged Russian intelligence agent.
  • In a 2018 legal battle with an app called Six4Three, Facebook’s lawyers failed to obscure sensitive information from a PDF file. The mistake revealed that Facebook considered giving user data to Six4Three in exchange for financial compensation.
  • In August 2018, the United States Postal Service was tasked with producing a civilian personnel file of Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger. In compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, USPS successfully produced the file but failed to redact any of her personal information. Information disclosed in the file included Spanberger’s SF-86 security clearance application, social security number, and responses to personal background questions. [3]

Redaction Mistakes to Avoid

  • Don’t simply change the font to white. Though the words look like they have disappeared, they can be seen when highlighted.
  • Don’t hide black text with black highlights. Similar to the white font problem, black highlight looks like it hides black text. However, the information will show when a mouse is clicked and dragged over it.
  • Don’t forget about the metadata! Metadata from word-processing programs contains information about text changes and deletions. Unless purged from the document, this information can be found even after the file is re-saved or converted to a PDF.
  • Don’t rely on Adobe Acrobat edits to black-out or remove text. These edits can be removed if the information is copied and pasted into a different document. [4]

 

[1] Rachel Teisch, “Death, Taxes, and Redaction Blunders,” EDRM, February 4, 2022.

[2] Clara Skorstad, “Right on Redactions,” JD Supra, November 4, 2020.

[3] “Getting Redactions Right Matters Now More Than Ever,” Warner Norcross + Judd, November 12, 2019.

[4] “Best Practices: Redaction of Information,” United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama.

Ready, Set, Recover: Attain eDiscovery Cost Recovery with CloudNine

There’s a simple truth to running any business, including legal service providers and law firms: Profitability means you need to make more money than you spend. While this seems like an easy concept to follow, there are hidden or unexpected costs which can jeopardize your ability and financial performance. 

One of the biggest culprits behind your firms’ rising operating costs is legal data collection and review. As data sizes and timelines become more unpredictable so does the price of eDiscovery services. 

eDiscovery costs are on the rise for three main reasons:

  1. Exponential growth in data: As our communications have become more sophisticated, so has eDiscovery. Previously, cases including paper files now include financial transactions, geolocation, slack messages and more. This has led to an ever-expanding amount of data associated with new cases.
  2. Complex technology: Many eDiscovery solutions operate more like IT systems, requiring servers, networks, desktops, applications, etc. This requires firms who insource their eDiscovery to maintain a team of IT professionals to manage any updates that may arrive. 
  3. Complex infrastructure:  The fear of missing critical deadlines has driven system architects to prepare for extreme one-off situations versus everyday matters resulting in overbuilt and overcomplicated review solutions. 

The Most Common Cost Recovery Models

Despite the unpredictable cost of eDiscovery, nearly 82% (1) of LSPs and law firms continue to pass these costs along to their clients even though they typically recover only 77% of the costs (2).

The most common cost recovery models are:

  1. Billable hours for time spent performing eDiscovery services:  This typically results in minimal pushback from the clients since they’re accustomed to paying by the hour. 
  2. Billable hours + hosting:  Usually charged per GB, hosting fees allow you to recoup more of your eDiscovery costs but are not always accepted by clients as actual legal work. 
  3. Third-party style:  Charging fees like a vendor allow you to recoup costs for specific line items like GBs processed and hosted, analytics, and licensing fees. 

Surprisingly, 13% of LSPs and firms simply absorb the cost of eDiscovery rather than bill their clients (3).   The most common reasons for this are:

  • They practice in an ultra-competitive market
  • They honor previous agreements
  • They take on non-billable projects

To recoup more of your eDiscovery investment, read on to learn the steps you can take to optimize your cost recovery efforts or download our eBook: Optimize eDiscovery Cost Recovery: 6 Steps to Make Your Review Process More Profitable for a more expansive look into cost recovery. 

1.  Quantify Your Current Cost Recovery Challenges

Identifying all the costs associated with your eDiscovery lets you know where, how, and when you’re losing money. A few of the factors you should assess include:

  • Total annual eDiscovery and document review costs
  • Total revenue from eDiscovery
  • Cost comparison of running eDiscovery document review solutions in-house versus outsourcing. 

2.  Re-examine the Cost of eDiscovery Insourcing versus the Benefits of Outsourcing

While larger law firms can afford complex eDiscovery technology, smaller LSPs and firms need to balance cost and functionality to optimize cost recovery. They need to consider things like:

  • What pricing model makes the most sense?
  • What technology is more economical to own versus lease?
  • What features and functionality do you need to provide your users?

3.  Right-Size Your eDiscovery Data

With data volumes increasing exponentially, you need to be smart about what data you’re hosting in the cloud. By culling your data on-premise, you can reduce your hosting costs before you move it to the cloud. 

4.  Be Strategic About Your Storage

Not every client needs a lot of data storage. Adopt a solution that allows you to adapt your storage strategy on a case-by-case basis so you’re not stuck offering a single standard storage model to clients that may need smaller options.

5.  Choose Self-Service, Easy-to-Use Tools

Your cost recovery is much easier when your internal staff can perform eDiscovery during billable hours. By adopting a solution that’s simple and easy to run, you reduce the need for additional external services.

6.  Standardize Through One Primary Vendor

The more eDiscovery vendors you engage with, the more complex things get – more contracts, more fees, more systems to learn. Look for a single self-model with lost costs, flexible storage plans, and easy-to-use tools to optimize your cost recovery.

Now that you have a better idea of what it takes to improve your eDiscovery cost recovery, it’s time to go a little deeper to understand the benefits of an eDiscovery solution that’s perfectly suited to help you earn more than you spend. Click here to request a demo of CloudNine Review and learn how to make your review process more profitable. 

 

Sources

(1), (2), (3):  2019 eDiscovery Billing Survey

Getting the Most out of Your Keyword Searches

Though a more basic searching technique, keyword searches allow professionals to identify one or two specific words from multiple documents. Nowadays, keyword searches are considered inferior to the successor, predictive coding (TAR). In comparison to TAR, the “outdated” search method is more expensive and time-consuming. Keyword searches are also less predictable; when filtering through the same data set, keyword searches yield fewer results. Based on these flaws, some would argue that keyword searches are a dying technique. So, why bother talking about them at all? Though keyword searches have their flaws, they are far from obsolete. Some legal teams prefer to utilize manual review, recognizing it as a tried-and-true method. For example, the defendants in Coventry Capital U.S., LLC v. EEA Life Settlements, Inc. attempted to use TAR in 2020 to resolve the fraud case, but they argued the process was “protracted and contentious.” Thus, Judge Sarah L. Cave declined to compel the inclusion of TAR. [1] Similar outcomes occurred in cases such as Hyles v. New York City (2016) and In re Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Prods. Liab. Lit. (2016). In both cases, the court refused to mandate the usage of TAR when the responding party demonstrated a clear preference for keyword searching. [2] With this knowledge in mind, it’s important to recognize that keyword searches are still effective when done right.

Five Tips for Effective Keyword Searches

  1. Good communication is crucial.

Consult your custodians before running your searches. Use the conversations to identify any specific terms or abbreviations that may be relevant to your review. If necessary, you may also need to speak with an experienced advisor. Through their expertise, they can assist you with the sampling and testing process. Advisors are a great way to save time and money for everyone involved.

  1. Create and test your initial set of terms.

Everyone has to start somewhere. Your initial search terms don’t have to be perfect. While constructing your list, estimate how many results you expect each term to yield. Once you’ve run your test, evaluate how the search results compare to your expectations. If you received significantly fewer results than anticipated, adjust the search terms as needed. You may have to refine your search list multiple times. Anticipate this possibility to avoid missing any deadlines.  [3]

  1. Limit searches that include wildcards and/or numbers.

When searching for words with slight differences, it’s better to search for each variation rather than use wildcards. For example, you should set up individual searches for “email” and “emails” instead of using “email*” as a search term. Numbers can also be a problem if not done correctly (i.e. searching for the number 10 will show results for 100, 1 000, etc.). Make sure to place the number in quotes to avoid this issue.

  1. Count the characters.

Search terms with four or fewer characters are likely to yield false hits. Short words or abbreviations like HR or IT may be identified in longer, unrelated results. Filtering out the false hits requires extra review time and money.

  1. Know how to search for names properly.

Avoid searching for custodian names. Their name will most likely be attached to more documents and hits than expected or desired. When searching for non-custodians, place “w/2” between their first and last name. Doing so will show all variations of the full name. Finally, consider searching for nicknames to get even more results. Ask the client what nicknames they respond to before making your search term list. [4]

 

[1] Doug Austin, “Court Rules for Defendant on TAR and (Mostly) Custodian Disputes: eDiscovery Case Law,” eDiscovery Today, January 12, 2021.

[2] “How Courts Treat ‘Technology Assisted Review’ in Discovery,” Rivkin Radler, March 13, 2019.

[3] “Improving the effectiveness of keyword search terms,” E-discovery Consulting, November 11, 2021.

[4] Kathryn Cole, “Key Word Searching – What Is It? And How Do I Do It (Well)?,” All About eDiscovery, December 9, 2016.

Understanding and Managing eDiscovery Costs

For a medium-sized lawsuit, eDiscovery costs can range anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 million dollars. [1] This price has been exacerbated by the effects of COVID-19 on communication data. According to the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA), the pandemic has created a data explosion by encouraging frequent usage of chat applications. Meanwhile, the levels of email and other data types have remained constant. [2] As time passes, the list of communication types will continue to expand with new collaboration tools and social media platforms. On one hand, these changes have made communicating with loved ones and coworkers easier than ever. On the other hand, the influx of modern data types has created an expensive headache for legal teams.

Current Approaches to the Problem

To handle litigation costs, companies often try to cut labor costs, increase review rates, and group documents together. However, each of these approaches can only do so much. For instance, it’s risky for companies to save money through temporary attorneys or LPO companies. Though the strategy is cost-efficient, it creates new challenges surrounding logistics, data security, attorney-client privilege, and oversight. The second method was increasing the speed of review. This method holds some promise, but its efficiency depends on the type of review. Automated review is great at accelerating the process, but human review speeds are harder to manage. At best, an expert review can review 100 documents per hour. Yet, the benefit of speed comes at the chance of comprehension errors. Grouping documents isn’t an efficient solution either. The technique uses computerized technology to categorize similar documents together. Though this method is good for organizational purposes, it does nothing to minimize the volume of data. [3]

Cost-Saving eDiscovery Strategies

  1. Don’t spend too much time on search term negotiations. It’s easy for opposing parties to lose time and money while fretting over each search term; however, this practice forces counsel to work overtime to meet deadlines. Consequently, companies will have to pay higher attorney fees. The best solution would be to agree on a handful of search terms and run the data through machine learning systems for review.
  2. Avoid overusing issue coding. Though issue codes are useful for organizing documents, excessive issue coding makes the review process slower and more expensive. Consider limiting the codes to 8-10 per document.
  3. Eliminate unnecessary attachments from important documents (i.e. company logos and icons). These attachments can be eliminated manually or through a modern data processing system. [4]
  4. Engage in the discovery process as soon as possible. By contacting legal counsel early on, companies can reduce the time and money needed for processing and review.
  5. Stay prepared for the possibility of litigation by instructing employees on storing and accessing important documents. This method will save time and money by making the documents easier to find. [5]

 

[1] “Reducing eDiscovery Costs” Whitepaper, Canon Discovery Services, 2018.

[2] Sarah Gayda, “How Law Firms Can Proactively Reduce eDiscovery Risk & Cost,” Iltanet, May 21, 2021.

[3] Nicholas M. Pace, Laura Zakaras, “The Cost of Producing Electronic Documents in Civil Lawsuits,” RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 2012.

[4] Lisa Prowse, “Review is Not the Most Expensive Part of E-discovery,” KMWorld, October 29, 2020.

[5] Scott Carvo, Madelaine C. Lane, and Janet Ramsey, “Creative Ways to Cut Down on E-discovery Costs,” Grand Rapid’s Business Journal, September 4, 2020.

Document Review in a Remote World

COVID-19 has transformed the document review process. Traditionally, document review was conducted in person by experts at review centers. As COVID-19 rates increased, fears for individual health and safety mandated the transition to remote review. Though remote review became a sudden necessity, it’s not a new concept. The transition began long before the pandemic at a slow but steady pace. More and more organizations transitioned their discovery to the cloud after recognizing the financial and security benefits. Even without the pandemic-induced acceleration, the trend would have accumulated more momentum with time. Nonetheless, organization that were unprepared or on the fence were suddenly faced with new challenges and security demands. No one knows if remote review will be the new “normal.” It’s too soon to judge the permanency of the change. For now, organizations should recognize the benefits of the opportunity and adjust their review procedures accordingly.

The Benefits of Remote Review

  • Through remote operation, document review has become more flexible than ever. Talented experts from various states can provide their expertise. Organizations with remote review are not restrained by geographical limitations when seeking qualified providers. The geographic freedom also eliminates the need to pay for a provider’s travel and lodging.
  • Providers have shown increased morale and productivity due to greater flexibility with their hours and breaks. They are also spared from commute expenses. Through happier employees, organizations can raise the efficiency of their review process.
  • Through remote review, organizations gain cloud scalability. Resources and storage space can be altered to quickly meet changing demands.
  • By reducing the production of discoverable copies, remote review can offer some security advantages. Organizations can also strengthen their  security by using multifactor authentication tools. [1]
  • Remote review minimizes the risks associated with employee movement. The workforce is like a revolving door; new employees constantly join and leave their jobs. Though this cycle is normal, it often leads to the accidental corruption or destruction of valuable data. Since remote review is convenient and flexible, it often improves employee retention. [2]

Tips on Handling Document Review

  • Optimize communication among counsel, reviewers, and clients through collaboration tools and teleconferences.
  • Collaborate with your team to create a comprehensive plan tailored to your security and operation needs. This plan should address topics such as staffing, training, and oversight measures.
  • Before establishing a review plan, ask your providers about the quality of their review space and security measures. [3]
  • Consult with your clients and partners as you draft your remote review policies.
  • Keep your data secure through a VPN, multifactor authentication tool, and/or an access program. [4]

 

[1] David Greetham, “Remote eDiscovery: Pandemic Accommodation or Improvement,” Above The Law, May 29, 2020.

[2] Antonio Rega, “Understanding the E-Discovery Implications of Employee Status Changes,” Today’s General Counsel, April 7, 2014.

[3] Jonathan Hurtarte, “Insight: Covid-19 and E-Discovery Challenges With Remote Document Review,” Bloomberg Law, May 11, 2020.

[4]  SKJ Juris, “Impact of Covid-19 on Remote Document Review,” SKJ Juris, 2020.

How Automation Complements the Human Side of eDiscovery Review

If there’s one constant throughout human history, it’s that change is inevitable. In the legal world, some law firms and legal service providers often keep the status quo hoping they won’t be affected by the changes around them. For the rest, they adapt and integrate new eDiscovery technologies to include features like automation to find successful ways to overcome these changes. 

Adopting new technology is never an easy transition and it does come with concerns. But, we’re still not at a place where the software can litigate your case and accurately assign classifications for each document without human input. The need for human reviewers will always have incredible value to your firm but, automating the common challenges of eDiscovery document review will help your team work faster and more effectively. 

Learn how automation and eDiscovery come together to accelerate your legal document review process here.

Differences in Opinions: eDiscovery Solutions

Legal document reviewers are usually specially trained associates who need to analyze complex information quickly and make decisions based on:

  • Relevance
  • Privilege
  • Responsiveness
  • Confidentiality

Unfortunately, there’s often a difference of opinion within these teams which can lead to inaccuracy and inconsistencies in the classification of documents. In fact, in a study released by Autonomy, Inc., experts from seven professional review teams were asked to review a selected set of 28,000 documents. In the end, the experts unanimously agreed on the classification of only 43% of the documents. 

This means more than half of your documents could potentially be misclassified making your eDiscovery more challenging. 

Removing the Guesswork in Legal Document Review

Legal document reviewers are often presented with a broad overview of the matter along with a binder of protocols and example documents. This training includes little eDiscovery data and a lot of guesswork as to what is being sought after in the documents.

A few days – or sometimes weeks – after the eDiscovery review has begun, a quality control team reviews the progress to identify discrepancies in classification and specific reviewers with low accuracy.  At this point, the reviewing team is retrained with more specific protocols based on the errors uncovered. 

Having more accurate protocols from the onset of your legal document review supports productivity and avoids wasted time and effort.  

With improved efficiency, your legal team is one step closer to optimizing your eDiscovery review process. Learn how to accelerate your eDiscovery even more in our eBook: Optimize eDiscovery Cost Recovery .

Flawed Legal Document Review Protocols

When legal review protocols are established, they’re usually created by subject matter experts, well-versed in the matter. Despite their credentials, the initial review protocols can suffer from two primary flaws:

Flaw 1: Lack of Knowledge: When the expert creates the review protocols, they usually do so before they’ve had a chance to review the documents in context to better account for variations in the review set.

Flaw 2: Lack of Understanding: Once the protocols are written, the reviewers have to fully understand them or efforts to accurately classify documents becomes much more difficult and error-prone. 

Improving eDiscovery Review with Better Protocols and More Accurate Classifications

Errors and inefficiency in document review is often linked to insufficient training.  Review teams will struggle to understand exactly what they’re looking for if protocols are too vague and don’t account for unforeseen variations.  This results in too many discrepancies in your document classification. 

The solution lies in leveraging automation to support human expertise and equip them with sound training of the review protocols and classifications.

Establishing Stronger Protocols for Legal Document Review 

First, select a diverse collection of documents through early sampling so your expert can review an ample variety of documents, concepts and classifications.  As you create the review protocols, allow your review team to interact with these documents for more hands-on experience with the document set. 

Next, ask each reviewer to classify the same small batch of documents so you can provide immediate feedback on their classifications. If they classified a document incorrectly, you now have an opportunity to question their decision-making to determine why they did it and if the protocols were unclear or misleading.

Get More Accurate eDiscovery Classifications

Once training is complete, you can review the results to check the accuracy of each reviewer. This helps you identify individuals on your review team who need additional training. In addition, you can create a threshold accuracy score each reviewer is required to meet before they’re allowed to begin reviewing actual documents from the data set. 

This level of review evaluation helps:

  • Identify poorly performing reviewers
  • Informs your decision-making on review assignments
  • Improves the overall quality of the early stages of the review

All of these lead to more accurate and cost-effective reviews.

Using CloudNine Review Automation to Improve eDiscovery Review

CloudNine Review offers an automated eDiscovery solution that’s fast, affordable, and easy to use. By utilizing the automation in our solution, you’ll be able to improve your training based on your reviewers’ accuracy and speed. This allows you to:

  • Create immediate feedback and critique for your reviewers.
  • Establish a more thorough understanding of classification protocols.
  • Improve review efficiency making it faster and more accurate.

Plus, you’ll be able to improve your initial review protocols by tracking which were misunderstood by your reviewers so you can determine why they were misunderstood and what you can do to make them more understandable. 

It’s time for you to check out CloudNine and see what it can do to improve your document review. Request a free demo and let us show you how CloudNine Review uses automation to improve the human element of your eDiscovery review.