Software as a Service (SaaS)

What Happened in Vegas? It’s No Secret – Read the Buzz

With many reasons to celebrate, CloudNine is still enjoying the excitement of our time Vegas last week. Visiting with valued customers and meeting new contacts are always fortunate opportunities. As an enhancement to those already fruitful conversations, we were thrilled to announce our expanded capabilities through the acquisition of ESI Analyst. Adding modern communication formats such as mobile, chat, social media and more to CloudNine’s powerful and proven applications, fills the market need to manage eDiscovery more effectively, with both modern and traditional data types, on a single platform.

The buzz of our expansion reached the news feeds across multiple social media channels.  A few highlights include:


 

Demonstrations are being scheduled now to debut CloudNine’s new technology – click to request a time to speak and a member of our team will be in touch to schedule.

 

Ready to try it out for yourself?  Request a free demo and see how CloudNine can help you.

Focusing on speed, security, simplicity, and services, CloudNine is dedicated to empowering our law firm and LSP clients with proven eDiscovery software solutions for litigation, investigations, and audits. 

Release Preview LAW 7.6

As data volumes grow, fortunately so has computer processing power.  CloudNine LAW and Explore 7.6 will take advantage of this power boost to amplify your speed to review and production.  The import technology behind both LAW’s Turbo Import and Explore uses a computer’s multiple processing cores more efficiently, making processing faster.

The application updates will include over 200 enhancements to build upon the already strong, import speeds of LAW and Explore.  The most notable improvement in LAW will be the introduction of a Turbo Imaging that can be used in parallel with existing imaging.  Turbo leverages near-native imaging technology to create static images of native files without relying on the native application.  This saves time while imaging, because the files don’t have to be opened, printed to image, and then closed.  The module can also take advantage of multiple processing cores, if available.  With imaging speeds up to eight times faster than the traditional imaging license, Turbo Imaging generates production-ready images quickly and easily.

In Explore, users will benefit from improved reporting capabilities.  This builds on Explore’s email threading, near duplicate detection, advanced filtering and integration with Relativity to provide a first-class, early case assessment experience, allowing clients to reduce the volume of data promoted for review by as much as 70%.  The import and ECA processes are all done without creating additional copies of the data until the client is ready to commit an export of potentially responsive content for further review.  This saves clients from storing copies of data that they don’t need, reducing cost and risk associated with managing multiple identical files.

To learn more about these and other enhancements coming in CloudNine LAW and Explore 7.6, please reach out to your account manager, or email us at info@cloudnine.com to schedule an overview and demonstration.  We’re excited to give you a preview of these updates and plan a wider release in the week of September 13th, 2021.

 

Focusing on speed, security, simplicity, and services, CloudNine is dedicated to empowering our law firm and LSP clients with proven eDiscovery software solutions for litigation, investigations, and audits. 

Ready to try it out for yourself?  Request a free demo and see how CloudNine can help you.

Answer the Unknown Challenges of eDiscovery Review

When it comes to document review in electronic discovery, choosing a solution can be a daunting task. To make an informed decision, you need to know what challenges await you and how to overcome them. 

The three biggest challenges to address when looking for a document review platform are:

  • Security
  • Volume 
  • Cost

By better understanding these challenges and their impact on your operations and bottom line, you’ll be in a better position to choose the best eDiscovery software solution for your business.

Is My eDiscovery Data Safe and Protected?

The benefits of storing eDiscovery data in the cloud are many but, digital security and remote access top the list of concerns among legal teams and legal service providers (LSPs) for these reasons:

  • Lack of control over their data
  • Concerns about handing data over to a third party
  • Worried about their data integrity

Utilizing a company dependent on public cloud solutions like Azure or AWS, means you can’t specifically tell your client where your data actually is as it can be stored across multiple cloud locations.

Another topic, more relevant since the COVID-19 pandemic, is security for remote document review. Creating additional access points can cause worry about your network being vulnerable to data breaches.

Can My eDiscovery Software Handle the Volume and Variety of Records?

Investigations and litigation can create a lot of digital records, often soaring into the terabytes. This is compounded by the variety of digital records being used as evidence in legal proceedings, including:

  • Emails
  • Instant messages
  • Digital images
  • Videos
  • Audio files
  • Text messages
  • Social media posts
  • Websites

This volume and variety of data can have a detrimental impact on your operation if you don’t have the digital space to process or store it all. 

The more documents you have, the more infrastructure you need to support it. This can compromise your software performance which could affect your ability to navigate, search, report, export, or produce required information, in a timely manner.

If that happens, new eDiscovery projects could be delayed or canceled outright while you complete your current project. Delays could also lead to missed deadlines which could cause your clients to be sanctioned or fined by the courts.

Are eDiscovery Tools Cost-Effective?

Simply put, some eDiscovery software can be expensive. Many include a lot of features and functionality you may not even need but, you are charged generously for it. 

When looking for an eDiscovery solution, it is important to take the following into consideration in order to get the most cost-effective solution:

  • Is the pricing flexible, allowing you to pay only for what you need?
  • How much archived data is stored on the cloud vs. on-prem? Often a hybrid solution will provide you with the most cost savings. 
  • What support is included within your contract? In order to reap the most cost-saving benefits, it’s important to have your team well-versed in the eDiscovery tool.

The eDiscovery Solution – CloudNine Review

Secure, powerful, and cost-effective, CloudNine Review simplifies eDiscovery enabling you to upload documents quickly and to begin reviewing data within minutes. 

CloudNine Review utilizes a private cloud environment so you know where your data is at all times, giving you better audit controls and the assurance your data is intact. To protect client data, CloudNine cybersecurity safeguards are always up-to-date and constantly monitored.

Another safeguard to protect your data on the CloudNine platform are access controls allowing only authorized staff to review specific documents:

  • User-based permissions
  • Project-based rights
  • Document-level rights

By utilizing our private cloud platform, you have access to all of your data anywhere, anytime, without having to log into your network VPN. 

Also, CloudNine Review carries greater bandwidth so you’re able to get your data much faster. As an example, the first day for a new project can look like this:

  • Registered online and began uploading data
  • Uploaded 27 GB of PST email files
  • Processed 300,000 documents (emails and attachments)
  • A reduced document set by 61% with deduplication and irrelevant domain filtering

Imagine being able to accomplish all of that in just the first 24 hours. 

The best part is you get what you pay for. CloudNine’s transparent pricing model includes multiple pricing methodologies so you’re never caught off-guard.

Beginning with a predictable upfront cost and low storage fees, CloudNine pricing models are designed to keep your costs down while providing the essential services you need.  To learn about our flexible pricing options, click here to speak to one of our eDiscovery experts.

  • All-in Model – one ‘all-in’ price with no hourly rates for self-service
  • Flex Model – low monthly storage costs for long-running litigation

Plus, you only pay for what you use if your case ends or becomes dormant. Older, dormant case data can be archived and saved at your own location using CloudNine Concordance to help you keep costs low and your data safely archived for the future. 

Focusing on speed, security, simplicity, and services, CloudNine is dedicated to empowering our law firm and LSP clients with proven eDiscovery software solutions for litigation, investigations, and audits. 

Ready to try it out for yourself?  Request a free demo and see how CloudNine can help you.

Export Review Documents Using Self-Serve Productions

#DidYouKnow: You can export your own documents for production from CloudNine Review, with or without support from the CloudNine Client Services team?

 

Document production sizes can range from one document to tens or even hundreds of thousands of documents.

Some platforms require legal teams to work with their project managers to coordinate productions, regardless of size or complexity. This can lead to delays and risk as instructions are handed off to teams, unfamiliar with the case.

 

Self-service productions provide complete project control with 24×7 access to export case documents independently.

  • Control your data to ensure important, relevant documents are not missed.
  • Control your project cost by paying only for what you need and, nothing you don’t.

CloudNine Review empowers clients to export documents themselves, including native files and emails, searchable text, and static images of documents containing confidential language, unique identifiers, and redactions.

Ready to Get Started with Self-Service Productions?  

To start a self-service production in CloudNine Review, select the Tools menu in the upper right corner then, click the Self-Service Production option.

Next, select whether you would like to produce images, native files, text, and metadata, or any combination of these.

If your documents do not yet have static images, they can be created during this process.  Annotations and redactions can be permanently applied to images, and there are several Excel imaging options, including using slip sheets instead of generating images.

The fielded metadata associated with the production records can be exported in a variety of formats including the common .DAT file, a .CSV file, or XML.

Users running a production can select and deselect fields to include in the production metadata file.

View Productions As They Progress in the User-facing Dashboard:   

This screen also allows users to clean up old productions and exports they no longer need to access.

Stay informed of software updates and browse training documentation in the CloudNine Review Knowledgebase (login required).

To learn more about CloudNine Review and Self-Service Productions, click the button below to schedule a demo!

Results of the Microsoft Office 365 eDiscovery Challenge Survey: eDiscovery Trends

Remember the Microsoft Office 365 eDiscovery Challenge Survey that Tom O’Connor and Don Swanson were conducting?  The results are in!

The results were published on Bob Ambrogi’s LawSites blog last week.  The survey was conducted over seven weeks using both an online SurveyMonkey tool and telephone interviews. Tom and Don received a total of 75 survey responses from corporations, government agencies and law firms, with the estimated breakdown of respondents mostly being from corporate legal (69 percent of the total respondents).  Law firms were a distant second at 20 percent, followed by government respondents at 10 percent.  Vendors constituted just 1 percent of the responses.  1 percent!

Of all respondents, approximately 30 percent were attorneys. The remainder were litigation support professionals, paralegals and IT staff.

As for the questions, here are some notable results:

What was your first reaction to Microsoft offering eDiscovery features within Office 365?: Nearly two-thirds of respondents said their initial reaction was either very positive and promising (37 percent), or somewhat positive (29 percent).  Thirteen percent of respondents did not know that O365 offered eDiscovery functionality.

Does your organization run Microsoft Office 365? Version?: Just over 3/4 of respondents said they were running O365, with version E3 (G3) the leader at 32 percent22 percent did not know what version they use.  Only 7 percent had no plans to move to O365.

Which EDRM activities can be/have been performed within Office 365 eDiscovery? (check all that apply): Generally, the phases on the left side of the EDRM model were considered to be the most likely to be performed within O365, with Preservation the leader at 73 percent, closely followed by Identification at 72 percent.  However, only 46 percent and 41 percent of respondents (respectively) had actually used it in those phases.  40 percent of respondents had never used any of O365’s eDiscovery capabilities.

Are Microsoft Office 365’s eDiscovery features helpful?: Over 4 out of 5 respondents indicated that they would definitely need (53 percent) or probably need (29 percent) O365’s eDiscovery capabilities.  Only two percent of respondents indicated that they probably don’t need or definitely don’t need O365’s eDiscovery capabilities (1 percent each).

Click here for a complete set of results on Bob’s blog.  In early 2019, Tom and Don will be publishing their findings and observations.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by any of the finding?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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 Another Survey to Check Out on the eDiscovery Uses and Capabilities of Office 365: eDiscovery Best Practices

A survey a day keeps the…blog posts written!  Yesterday, we covered the survey on Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site regarding predictive coding technologies and protocols.  Today, here is another survey worth participating in regarding the use of Microsoft Office 365’s eDiscovery capabilities.

On his Techno Gumbo blog, my colleague Tom O’Connor poses the question: Can eDiscovery Really Be Done Within Microsoft Office 365? Help Us Find Out. (Okay, that’s a question and a statement, but anyway…)

Tom is working with Don Swanson, president of Five Star Legal, to find out just how many firms out there are actually using Office 365 for eDiscovery. Most people know Office 365 as a software-as-a-service (SaaS) offering of email, word processing, spreadsheet and presentation applications. Office 365 and the Microsoft Cloud are not only used by most of the Fortune 500, it’s also used by many federal, state and local governments and educational institutions – and a growing number of businesses of any size.  To that end, they have come up with the O365 Challenge, a successor to the 2009 EDna Challenge posed by noted eDiscovery thought leader Craig Ball (which he reprised in 2016) and Tom’s 2011 follow up to that, the Ernie Challenge.

Like EDna and Ernie, the matter in question still has a budget restriction but all relevant data now resides within Microsoft Office 365.  Tom and Don really want to know if Office 365’s eDiscovery capabilities are for real, whether litigants can achieve the goals outlined in EDna and Ernie within Office 365 and whether big case eDiscovery processes can be handled within Office 365 on a small budget.

As with any good challenge, Tom provides on his blog the hypothetical scenario and describes the challenge, which includes several goals identified by the company general counsel noted in the hypothetical.  Then, Tom and Don have built a survey which asks about eDiscovery capabilities in Office 365, including each of the phases of the EDRM model.

Tom provides a link to the five-question survey in the post in SurveyMonkey (check the post link above to get it) and survey responses submitted before October 15 will be included in the white paper detailing the Microsoft Office 365 Challenge findings which Don and Tom will publish sometime in Q4.  You can also just send your comments directly to Don or Tom to include them in the final report.

While more and more organizations are using Office 365, I’m not sure they are fully using the eDiscovery capabilities of it, nor am I sure that they are finding those capabilities sufficient to accomplish what they need to accomplish to meet their eDiscovery burdens and goals.  I’ll be looking forward to the white paper to see what people have to say about it.

P.S.: For more about Tom and his latest video with Craig regarding Forensic Examination Protocol, click here.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization use Office 365?  If so, does it use its eDiscovery capabilities and find them useful?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Microsoft Corporation

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Court Declines to Compel Defendant to Produce Direct Messages Between its Employees: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week is here!  We got a head start on it by catching up on a case on Friday, leading up to our webcast on Wednesday where Tom O’Connor and I will be talking about key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018.  With that in mind, let’s discuss a key case regarding custody and control by Twitter of the direct messages of its employees.

In Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-cv-05314-JST (SK) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018), California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ruled on several discovery disputes between the parties, including denial of a request by the plaintiffs to order the defendants to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties.

In this securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the defendant, there were six issues in dispute.  One key dispute involved a request from the plaintiffs that the defendants search Twitter private direct messages that each custodian sent and received.  The defendants had agreed to provide direct messages for individual defendants Anthony Noto and Richard Costolo only (who had consented to their production). The defendants argued that the Stored Communications Act prevents the disclosure of direct messages from anyone other than a named individual defendant.

In agreeing with the defendants, Judge Kim stated:

“’The Stored Communications Act prevents ‘providers’ of communication services from divulging private communications to certain entities and individuals… Courts have held that the Stored Communications Act prevents a court from enforcing a subpoena issued to a third party ECS or RCS for the protected information.’ Crispin v. Christina (sic) Audigier, Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 965, 971-72 (C.D. Cal. 2010)… Plaintiffs are correct that a court can compel a party to produce information within the party’s custody and control, but they confuse the identity of the party with the identity of the individual custodians. Here, for purposes of analysis, the Court will treat Twitter as if it is separate from the individual custodians who have direct messages stored with Twitter. The individual custodians other than Costolo and Noto are not parties. In other words, because Defendants claim, without opposition, that Twitter did not require its employees to use direct messages for communications, the Court must evaluate Twitter separately from the individual custodians who have privacy rights protected by the Stored Communications Act. The two named individual defendants, Costolo and Noto, are allowing discovery of their direct messages, as Plaintiffs can issue to them requests for information pursuant to Rule 34 and obtain their direct messages… Plaintiffs merge Twitter and its individual custodians’ rights. They are not the same. If Plaintiffs issued a third party subpoena to a company—not Twitter—for direct messages that the individual custodians sent and received, there is no question that the Court could not enforce such a subpoena. Under the same reasoning, the Court cannot compel Twitter, a party in this litigation, to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties simply because Twitter is also the provider of the direct messaging service.”

Ruling on other disputes, Judge Kim: 1) ordered the defendants to search the files of an additional custodian, Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and former CEO; 2) denying without prejudice the plaintiff’s request that the defendants produce documents from Falquora, Twitter’s internal message board; 3) ordered the defendants to produce documents in unredacted form that were covered by a stipulated Protective Order; 4) denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel documents containing terms “DAU” (daily active users) and “MAU” (monthly active users) WITHOUT PREJUDICE as potentially overbroad (allowing the plaintiffs to re-file the motion with a more specific, targeted approach if they are concerned the other requests for production are not yielding relevant documentation); 5) that the search “engag*” be conducted for documents with that term within 10 words of 20 terms proposed by defendants and up to 10 additional terms proposed by plaintiffs; and 6) denying WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to produce documents concerning Defendants’ efforts to “maintain, search for and preserve all documents” (which the defendants deemed to be privileged).

Despite the six issues being ruled on, Judge Kim stated “it is clear that the parties have worked hard in meeting and conferring to narrow the issues of dispute. The Court commends the parties for doing so and for presenting the remaining issues for dispute in a clear and cogent matter. The Court is confident that the parties will continue to meet and confer in good faith, narrow the areas of their dispute, and only present to the Court matters which they cannot resolve and which are significant.”

So, what do you think?  Should the direct messages of Twitter employees have been ruled out of the custody and control of Twitter?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Public or Private Isn’t the Only Question You Should be Asking about Cloud Solutions: eDiscovery Best Practices

In yesterday’s post detailing the discussion of industry experts regarding the adoption of cloud technology within the legal industry, several points of discussion were discussed, including the differentiation between “public cloud” and “private cloud”.  It’s important to know the difference between the two implementations and why you might consider selecting one over the other (and what you need regardless of which one you select).  But, public or private cloud isn’t the only question you should be asking about a cloud solution.

To begin to understand what we’re talking about, it’s important to define three terms typically related to cloud computing: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS):

  • Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is a service model that delivers computer infrastructure on an outsourced basis to support enterprise operations. Typically, IaaS provides hardware, storage, servers and data center space or network components.
  • Platform as a service (PaaS) is a category of cloud computing services that provides a platform allowing customers to develop, run, and manage web applications without the complexity of building and maintaining the infrastructure typically associated with developing and launching an app.
  • Software as a service (SaaS) is a software distribution model in which a third-party provider hosts applications and makes them available to customers over the Internet.

This diagram, courtesy of the site virtualclouds.in, does a good job of illustrating examples of each.

As you can see, the software application residing on top of the cloud platform and infrastructure are separate and unique and don’t necessarily have to be from the same provider.  Sometimes they are, like in the case of Office 365 hosted in the Microsoft Azure platform; other times they aren’t, like in the case of Salesforce.com hosted in Amazon Web Services (AWS).

Here’s another diagram, courtesy of YourDailyTech, which illustrates the different components to the solution and what you manage in a) an on-premise implementation, b) an IaaS implementation, c) a PaaS implementation and d) a SaaS implementation.

As you can see, there’s a lot of components to manage.  A lot of organizations are managing many (if not all) of those components anyway to support various internal needs for their organizations, but many organizations are turning to IaaS, PaaS and SaaS implementations for at least some of their solution choices.  The choices they make are based on several factors, including costs and security requirements.  There’s no right or wrong answer here – each choice can be appropriate depending on the organization and its needs.

However, you know the saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link?  Well, that holds true for cloud solutions as well.  Whether you favor a public cloud or a private cloud approach, you still have to vet the software provider on top of that public or private cloud infrastructure.  Obviously, when evaluating comparable software solutions, it goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that you should look at the features of the different solution choices and evaluate them against the needs of your organization.

But, you shouldn’t stop there.  You also want to evaluate the companies offering the different solution choices as well.  How long has each company been in business?  What’s the average tenure of their top leadership team?  What’s the average tenure of their support and services teams?  You don’t want to select a “fly-by-night” company that could be gone tomorrow or a company that has a “revolving door” in key positions where you’re continually dealing with someone new in support or services.  Familiarity breeds…comfort – not contempt (at least when it comes to a cloud SaaS provider).

So, what do you think?  How closely do you vet the SaaS company providing the solution in a cloud solution selection?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

The Speed of Migration of Legal to the Cloud is Debatable: eDiscovery Trends

How fast is the legal industry moving to the cloud?  And, what is holding some law firms back from migrating to the cloud?  These and other questions were discussed in a recent online discussion among industry experts.

In an article sponsored by ReplyAll on Bloomberg Law (Live Conversation: Making Sense of Legal’s Migration (or Not) to the Cloud), Zach Abramowitz moderated the discussion and introduced the topic as follows:

“The migration of the legal industry to the cloud has been, much like the word migration would suggest, slow and deliberate. Although Fortune 500 companies are using cloud based technology to track everything from their back office to their marketing and sales teams — and (as anyone who’s been through an airport can tell you) all the biggest tech companies in the world like Microsoft, Amazon and Alibaba are competing to offer you cloud storage and related services — many law firms are still insisting on keeping client data behind the firewall… Many of the best legal technology start-ups tell me that their #1 obstacle in selling their product is law firm resistance to the cloud. So, as we kick off this conversation, the question I’d like to start tackling today, is what should be the industry standard (we can discuss that too), but also begin by trying to better understand the disconnect between law firms and the rest of the world. With all the information available, is it rationale for law firms to still hesitate when it comes to the cloud?”

Panelists included:

  • Alma Asay, Founder of Allegory which was acquired last year by Integreon (where Alma is now the Chief Innovation Officer)
  • Dan Baker, Chief of Staff and Director of Legal Operations at Ancestry.com
  • Adam Cohen, Managing Director at Berkeley Research Group
  • Heidi Fessler, member of the Litigation Department and the eDiscovery, Data and Document Management Practice Group at Barnes & Thornburg
  • Bryon Bratcher, Managing Director at Gravity Stack LLC and formerly Director of Practice Solutions at Reed Smith LLP

Here are some of the observations from the panelists:

Asay: “Law firms regularly use private cloud providers, we simply don’t call them that. Legal service providers like Integreon regularly host data for their clients, effectively offering private cloud services, and are well adopted by law firms… Law firms know that they will fight tooth and nail against turning over their clients’ data, and they’re quite sure that service providers that specialize in the legal industry will fight just as hard (or risk never having another client). However, law firms have been less sure about how big companies servicing many different industries would proceed in the face of an order to release data in their possession. This is an issue that has come up time and time again, even as great strides have been made by law firms to understand and accept the benefits of the cloud… I think you’d be surprised how many professionals inside law firms quietly are advocating to use the cloud and recognize the benefits over hosting data inside the law firm, but they don’t feel empowered to execute until the banks do. Just as (supposedly) no one ever got fired for choosing IBM, there is still a sense that no one gets fired for NOT choosing the cloud.”

Cohen: “I think this (the question whether Amazon is handing over client data} is a real issue for some, but it’s not the overriding issue, which is a fundamental ignorance as to the allocation of risk in the cloud and how to deal with it. If you don’t understand the services you are buying, then you can’t assess security appropriately–something lawyers are required to do by virtue of their professional responsibilities.”

Cohen also quoted the headline from this press release “Threat Stack Analysis Reveals 73% of Companies Have Critical AWS Cloud Security Misconfigurations” where Threat Stack, a cloud security and compliance management company, announced the findings of an analysis of more than 200 companies using AWS that revealed nearly three-quarters have at least one critical security misconfiguration, such as remote SSH open to the entire internet.

Baker: “The concern – benchmarked with several large firms – is that cloud solutions may result in a scenario where the cloud provider could read the law firm’s files/email, if the provider wanted to. This could violate privilege or provide alternate, and unexpected, routes of discovery…{With regard to a question from Abramowitz as to whether public cloud providers simply change their terms of service to get law firms comfortable or is legal such small fry for them that they wouldn’t bother} Through a certain lens, yes. Through another lens, there’s booming growth in legal tech – especially surrounding contract and litigation discovery. I expect that public cloud providers will need to update their terms of services to get law firms more comfortable, and that it will be the discovery firms driving the change.”

Bratcher: “Ultimately many law firms are adopting a hybrid approach between a private cloud with a smaller public provider coupled with a cloud area with the larger public providers like AWS or Azure. I would see that trend continuing for the foreseeable future.”

Fessler: “It is hard for those outside of the law firm environment to understand the level of reticence to adopt “new” technology within the legal world. Most attorneys feel an enormous responsibility to keep their client data secure and under their personal lock and key. Unfortunately, this perception of control and security does not equate with fact. It is still common to find otherwise sophisticated attorneys who refuse to use eDiscovery tools and technology and instead running review using Excel spreadsheets. At times this hesitation is also the result of a misdirected drive to reduce legal spend.”

These are just a few snippets from an overall interesting conversation regarding legal’s adoption of the cloud.  Click here to view the entire conversation.  Tomorrow, I’ll have some thoughts about cloud selection and why the question of private or public cloud isn’t the only one you should be asking.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that the legal industry is still slow to adopt the cloud?  If so, why do you think that is?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Looking to the Future with CloudNine, Concordance and LAW PreDiscovery: eDiscovery Webcasts

CloudNine recently acquired the Concordance, LAW PreDiscovery and Early Data Analyzer platforms.  So, who is CloudNine, why did they acquire these products and what is their vision for them going forward?  If you’re an existing user of these products, now’s your chance to find out!

During the month of May, CloudNine will conduct the webcast Looking to the Future with CloudNine, Concordance and LAW PreDiscovery LIVE on three separate occasions.  In this one-hour webcast, we will provide an overview of CloudNine, the vision for our new robust suite of products and how they will extend and enhance your data and legal discovery efforts.  We’re conducting the webcast three different times to make the webcast presentation more interactive, giving existing customers of our products a chance to have their questions addressed, so you’ll want to register for one of these dates if you want to attend.  The webcast will include both a presentation and a demonstration of our CloudNine platform:

Presentation Highlights:

  • Who is CloudNine?
  • What We Do and How We Solve the Problems
  • Considerations for On-Premise, Off-Premise and Hybrid Approaches
  • What the Acquisition Means for Current On-Premise Customers
  • Looking to the Future with CloudNine Off-Premise and On-Premise Products

Demonstration Highlights:

  • CloudNine Automated Legal Hold
  • CloudNine eDiscovery Platform (Upload/Process/Review/Produce)
  • CloudNine Automated Data Preservation and Collection

The three dates for the webcast are:

  • Wednesday, May 2, 2018 (click to register here)
  • Tuesday, May 8, 2018 (click to register here)
  • Thursday, May 17, 2018 (click to register here)

All times are noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST).

So, what do you think?  Do you use Concordance, LAW or EDA?  Then, come join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.