Lawdable : Cost-Effective & Flexible Legal Solutions for Corporate Legal Departments & Law Firms : Cost-Effective & Flexible Legal Solutions for Corporate Legal Departments & Law Firms: Counsel On Call

Post by guest blogger Tiffany Fox

I had the opportunity to attend the inaugural E-Discovery for the Small and Medium Case conference at the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida (UF) in the beginning of April. This was an effort by UF to educate attorneys who may not have had exposure to the world of ESI, typically because their cases don’t involve the large corporations who have been doing e-discovery for years. The purpose of the conference was to identify and explain best techniques in approaching e-discovery in smaller cases (for example, divorce or employment matters), but the net effect was a solid overview of the world of e-discovery.

I am not an information technology vendor nor do I play one on TV. However, I do interface with many technology vendors and get asked by clients to interpret technology terms and pricing structures all the time. Here are some tidbits to chew on that may help you at least understand the issues and decision points that will need to be made (so you’re not making them in a vacuum devoid of pertinent information).

For all the IT professionals or vendors that may dispute what I say, remember that I am just trying to simplify for lawyers what you do on a day-to-day basis. Let’s start with some terminology that can cause confusion to lawyers.

What do these terms mean?

• Processing – I have often heard from lawyers that this is the most mysterious component, the least understood and, quite frankly, the most questioned term when they look at the bills. Processing is what has to happen to take the documents out of their original/native system (Outlook, Lotus Notes, Word, PowerPoint, etc.) and move it to the review software (unpack it,  index it, etc.) – extracting the mysterious metadata.
  
• Metadata – Everyone always says it’s “the data about the data,” which is about as helpful as your mother telling you to look up the spelling of a word in the dictionary. Here’s a simple example. When you create an email it has the message that you wrote. But it also has a date, a "To" field and a "From" field. That’s metadata. Or if you create a Word document you create the text of the document, but Word also captures you as the author and the date the document was created. That’s metadata. There’s much more to it, but that’s enough to get you started.
  
• De-duping – For most vendors this is a normal function of eliminating or suppressing duplicate documents so the review team only needs to look at one copy of it (For example, think of an email sent to seven different people. The attorney review team will only look at one copy of it.) This greatly reduces review and storage costs, increases the overall speed of review and provides for consistency of coding between identical documents.
  
• Early Case Assessment (ECA) – The most overlooked portion of an ediscovery project. This is the time you should be spending on reducing the volume of documents that need to be reviewed. Key word searching, eliminating irrelevant documents and sampling and validating terms are all part of ECA.
  
• Predictive Coding – This means a lot of different things to different vendors. Basically it’s using the computer to help you get to the most relevant documents first instead of reviewing every document one at a time. It is often a means to prioritize the documents so you’re looking at the most relevant ones first.

The other area I am asked about a lot is how to compare pricing between technology vendor bids. What do all these terms mean? Processing. Monthly user charges. Per GB pricing. Production costs. PM time. It becomes almost impossible to properly compare pricing sheets.

The way I advise clients to handle this is to give each vendor the same task. Have them tell you what it would cost to deal with a case of 50-gigabyte size or 250,000 documents (mostly emails), and then what other parameters you might add that are unique to your project. Total technology project cost is the best way to truly compare bids that you receive.

See? It gets confusing quickly, and it’s easy to hide costs in bundled pricing offers. As lawyers in 2013, we have to better understand technology if we are to zealously represent our clients. Hopefully this is just a little start to help de-mystify some of the terms you will begin to encounter. This will help you on the road to a deeper understanding of the processes and things that are ultimately your responsibility. It is imperative to commit these terms and their definitions to memory in order to perform your job duties with excellence using most current methods available.

“Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it.”

- George Santayana

Counsel On Call has built its reputation partly on the notion of providing a different measure of work-life balance into the lives of experienced attorneys. It’s still an important part of what we offer in certain practice areas, and we have conversations every day with attorneys who are looking for a new way to practice law. If attorneys working in big firms are sitting down speaking with us about our model, they have honestly given a lot of thought to how their professional and personal lives are going, and that’s an important step. This has given us a lot of perspective and experience to draw from as we educate attorneys on what to expect working in the modern legal model.

But rather than thinking of work-life balance as a goal to be achieved, I prefer to see it as a resulting condition that emerges when an individual accepts his or her own history, circumstances, priorities and values.   We commonly hear the term “work-life balance” used when someone is putting in extended hours at the office, or when someone is worn down because of a work environment that is highly stressful. These are legitimate problems. I once encountered a high-level, legal project manager who was known to work in excess of 20 hours every day in advance of a tight deadline.  It was clear the entire culture around this individual (including his team) was tired, disorganized and chaotic.  

There’s also another extreme.   Too often, members of the workforce (especially lawyers) find themselves under-motivated or resistant to fully engage in their professional lives.   This side of the problem, for obvious reasons, isn’t as widely talked about.  Nobody wants to admit they are apathetic toward their job – or, worse; they’re filled with resentment toward their employer or their clients.  These attitudes are difficult to mask.

And of course we all know the person whose professional reputation remains sound, despite his or her private life being in shambles.   We often read about these folks in the newspaper or in the rulings of the Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Responsibility.  

Either way, the question is:  how does one find work-life balance?   Here are 5 steps that can help chart a course to balancing your personal and professional life:

1. Take a minute to reflect on your life. Before self-evaluating, make a conscious decision to accept whatever you find.   Sometimes the truth isn’t pretty, yet it does no good to wallow in self-pity about past decisions or current circumstances.  Make a commitment to live in the world of “what is” as opposed to the world of “what was” or “what should be.”   
2. Get honest about your baggage.  Let’s face it, nothing ever changes in our lives unless we’re willing to get real about what’s happened and what’s happening.   We can switch jobs or move to a different city and still fail to identify the source of our unhappiness.   Seek help for larger issues like addiction or mental health, if needed.  A useful exercise is to make a timeline of your professional / personal history to see if insight may be gained.
3. Identify priorities.  I’m not talking about an ideal list of priorities, but rather what really are your current priorities?  Where do you spend your time outside of work?   How do you spend your time at work?  Where do you spend your financial resources?  An honest reflection of where you spend your time both outside of work (exercise, television, internet, community service, hanging with family or friends, yard work) and in work (emails, internet, phone, snack breaks, spinning wheels, redundant work) should reveal what we need to know about our current priorities and where we may be out of balance. 
4. Identify values / drives.  This is an intensely personal topic, yet I believe it’s impossible to find a balanced lifestyle without determining individual values and examining how our lives as currently structured are aligned with those values.   We all need to come to terms with the forces that drive us and motivate our actions.   Identifying what actually drives us is the key to initiating dynamic change.
5. Take action. Once we know where our lives are out of balance, we can begin to take action toward greater alignment.   Set small, achievable, one–day at-a-time goals to create momentum and payoff.  Worry less about the big picture and focus on your day-to-day actions.   Sometimes circumstances legitimately limit immediate drastic changes, but there are undoubtedly some small things we can do today to enhance our integrity.   

A healthy balance of our lives occurs when we make an effort to evaluate our past and use that knowledge to mold our future. It’s a process and takes time, but the outcome is a more fulfilled and stable way of living (and working).

Disclaimer (A bit tongue and cheek, but I do think this is necessary as there are some critiques below):  The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and should not be attributed to Counsel On Call, Inc., or any of its officers, attorneys or employees.

I’ve had the good fortune to attend the past two annual conferences for the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) in Hollywood, Fla., held at the superb Westin Diplomat.  In comparing the two conferences, all I can say is, “What a difference a year makes.”

First, and purely incidentally, the weather in 2012 was sunny, warm and generally quite pleasant. This year, the weather was overcast, rainy and a bit cooler. 

Just as the weather cooled a bit I think I detected a slight “cooling” of the conference attendees’ collective enchantment with the so called predictive coding technology.  In 2012, predictive coding was going to cause an industry and professional upheaval, eliminating the need for discovery (contract) attorneys, cutting costs, improving accuracy and possibly shifting influence between different stakeholders in this area.  One year later, we have experience  – more reported court decisions directly on point and more vendor entries into the marketplace.  With this collective experience, the conference attendees had a cooler, more nuanced view of the technology.

Please don’t misunderstand, there’s no question that predictive coding (also known somewhat synonymously as technology-assisted review or simply “TAR”) is here to stay and should only improve with time.  Rather, the bloom has worn off, and practitioners are discovering that, although at times and for certain types of matters, TAR improves efficiency, overall quality of a review and can significantly lower overall costs. Nevertheless, it is neither a cure-all nor the disruptive technology that some claimed last year.

I think there are several reasons for this maturing of the collective view:

• The term predictive coding (trademark issues aside) seems to mean different things to different people, hence the use of the more generic TAR designation. This causes confusion among potential customers.
  
• Some technology vendors may have rebranded older technology as TAR, perhaps thereby lessening the user experience.
  
• Different TAR tools have different “blind spots” that limit their utility, e.g., image files and spreadsheets may not be considered by the analytics.
  
• Far from removing human judgment from the process, TAR applications may increase dependence on human judgment.  For example, mistakes by “subject matter experts” can be amplified.  Alternately, I suggest trying your hand at picking “exemplar” documents to teach the computer – a document might be technically non-responsive to the litigation but would nevertheless have excellent teaching parameters.
  
• TAR itself is not inexpensive.
  
• TAR reduces data but does not eliminate the need for some linear review, either with quality control or during the construction of a privilege log.
  
• Not all matters are suitable for TAR, ether due to the size of the case or the type of data.

Counsel On Call has always been a solid proponent of predictive coding as well as an early adopter.  Vendors now, however, call their technology predictive coding without the functionality.  There is no question that predictive coding is here to stay; rather, its potential is still less than hyped.

I’m looking forward to attending next year’s ACEDS Conference.  While not perfect (panels are too large and too much time is spent on speaker introductions), it’s the only conference of which I’m aware that is focused on the e-discovery practitioner.  ACEDS also seeks to professionalize this field, and this is a good thing.

Maybe next year the weather will be warmer.  It will be interesting to take the attendees’ temperature on TAR as well.

Follow Barry on Twitter (@barrywillms)

Following up on the post I wrote about social media in 21st century litigation, I had the opportunity to speak with Colin O'Keefe of LXBN on the matter. In the interview I discussed how social media evidence is becoming more prevalent in corporate litigation and offered my thoughts on how companies can prepare for it. 

Follow Barry on Twitter (@barrywillms)

The third annual Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) Conference was held again this year at the Westin Diplomat in Hollywood, Fla. We had great lodgings for sure, but they did not order the warm weather in so-called sunny Florida. Next year’s conference will be moved to May in order to compensate for this unruly weather. I guess I can’t complain too much; there are colder places in February/March, especially this year.

The gathering seemed to be a bit smaller than last year, but it was a really good group of professionals. There were several good sessions in addition to lots of opportunities to mingle and meet everyone. The information presented focused on a number of areas but a lot of them could be labeled within technology assisted review (TAR), social media and various ‘best practices’ within the industry.

It seems everyone is starting to dabble in TAR by various names (computer-assisted, technology-assisted, predictive coding, etc.). Much of the discussion went beyond simply being comfortable with the subject matter but included discussions on how to properly validate the process, workflow and output to make sure to achieve your goals and benchmarks.

The use of social media in litigation has not become as big as it was originally projected to be in 2013. However, its presence in cases continues to grow. Tweets, Facebook pages and many other networks are more routinely being collected and produced in litigation than ever before. We can only imagine that this will increase over time. We were told, for example, that instant messaging is the norm for business communications in some Asian countries instead of email. It’s certainly something we’ve been anticipating for a couple of years here in the states and that our technology partners are well prepared for.

The ‘best practices’ within the industry sessions included the following: dealing with data privacy issues of the EU, preventing malpractice or having ethical issues overtake you, and following a process to meet your budget, review and production objectives. There it is again: Success always comes from having a process and following it. As we always tell clients, it’s the project manager’s responsibility to ensure there is a process that is documented, defensible and ultimately repeatable in a future matter. Here are a few quick hits on the good, the ‘OK’ and the bad of the conference:

The good: It was a gathering of practitioners of e-discovery, folks who actually do this day in and day out. Lawyers, consultants, paralegals, IT professionals and technology vendors provided a good mix. It was refreshing to hear war stories from those who deal in process and who want to perfect the best practices of a growing industry. While the conference overdid the ‘experts’ language a bit, it really was a good group of professionals who work exclusively in this industry that had a lot to share on how best to accomplish goals. In the end, process always wins out. It’s best for clients, budgets, meeting deadlines and your own sanity.

The ‘OK’: While the topics were timely, the presentations this year seemed a bit elementary. There were too many presenters on each panel and not enough variety of speakers from one panel to the next (seemingly lots of folks did multiple panels). Variety is good for the soul. I would encourage the ACEDS team to expand the speaker selection and let each panel have a bit more time to develop its topics and provide more time for Q&A.

The bad: My constant pet peeve: too much time on introductions. For example, the first session didn’t start on time and resulted in the panelists not being able to talk until we were more than 35 minutes into the program. This limited the Q&A time which is often a very helpful part of the conversation. Then again, I’ve been to conferences where this would have been a good thing!

The moral of the story is that it wasn’t perfect. But what conference ever is? I appreciate ACEDS’ attempt at bringing together the best of breed within e-discovery – people who are well versed in this field. My philosophy is the more we focus on best practices, the more clients will rely on us to help achieve their goals. All in all, it was a good event filled with useful information and solid connections with other e-discovery specialists.

Recently I traveled to Birmingham, Ala., to attend a Symposium titled "The Use of Social Media in 21st-Century Litigation," hosted by the American Journal of Trial Advocacy. It was held in the moot courtroom of the school of law, and was well attended: probably more than 200 attorneys and law students in all.

The Symposium was a precursor to an article that will be published this spring on social media issues in the American Journal of Trial Advocacy. It consisted of two panels and one keynote speaker. The presenters were very knowledgeable and the moderators kept the discussion relevant and at a good pace.

Panel One, “Pretrial and Discovery,” was very practical in its application and instruction. Each speaker was given 10 minutes to present, which was followed by a panel discussion with some Q&A. The panelists included:

• Judge John L. Carroll, dean and Ethel P. Malugen Professor of Law at Cumberland School of Law
• Steven C. Bennett, partner at Jones Day (New York)
• John G. Browning, partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith (Dallas)
• T. Roe Frazer III, attorney and managing executive for Digome and Cicayda (Nashville)

Here are some of the nuggets that stuck with me from the session:

• Frazier noted that three quarters of internet users use social media or blogs every day, every app is social media and “social media is like an uber-diary.”
• Browning continued along those lines, stating that this ‘diary’ consists of what you’ve been doing online, where you’ve been and where you’re going.
• Bennett mentioned that “Twitter has over 400 million users per day (2012)” and that “competent representation includes knowing about and pursuing social media.” He cautioned us by stating that “there is a ‘wayback’ machine coming for social media similar to the current internet ‘wayback’ machine and because of this nothing is ever erased.”

Something to consider before posting anything on social media.

The keynote speaker was The Honorable Paul W. Grimm, District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. His talk and his paper were focused on authenticating social media at trial. He stated that “social media shows state of mind and authenticating social media gives practitioners the most difficulty.” His talk was both informative and entertaining. Attendees could tell he was looking for a case where he could expound on the steps necessary to authenticate social media.

The second panel was moderated by The Honorable John E. Ott, chief magistrate judge, United States Northern District of Alabama, and the following panelists:

• Dr. Cathy Parker, professor of journalism and mass communication, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• Eric P. Robinson, professor at City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism
• J. Paul Zimmerman, attorney at Christian & Small (Birmingham, AL)

Panel Two was entitled “Issues at Trial.” These issues related to First Amendment rights to know what’s going on in the courtroom versus the use of social media. The discussion covered the use of social media by journalists, the public, the jury, the lawyers (voir dire) and even the Judge. The topics ranged from the annoyance of hearing someone typing on a laptop, to the invasion of privacy of jurors, to whether you had to notify someone that you were investigating them via social media. It ended with whether it’s appropriate or not for a juror to friend the Judge on Facebook.

I’ve presented on this subject several times myself, and our discovery teams are seeing more and more of it with each passing review. But as this panel reminded me, there’s no such thing as being “up to speed” on social media – the ways people interact and communicate keep changing, and there are always new vendors and tools that are adjusting to deal with these platforms.

In many ways it’s a nightmare for our clients to manage and regulate, so to speak … but it’s not going away, that’s a certainty. Events like these are a great way to hear how others deal with these challenges and where they anticipate issues down the road.

Each of the panelists and the keynote speaker wrote articles that will be published this spring in the American Journal of Trial Advocacy. This would make a good addition to your law library.

Last week, I made my annual pilgrimage to the Big Apple to wade among thousands of legal industry professionals, the majority of whom are involved in some phase of the discovery process. And as is normally the case, the three-day event became a blur.

There are just too many people to see, too many technology platforms to demo, too many sessions to attend. However, Legal Tech does provide that one time of year to focus on the wide array of technology and ancillary service offerings that are integral to our profession. Moreover, it provides a great opportunity to keep abreast of national and global trends in technology and its application to the legal practice.

This year was particularly fruitful, so I’ve come back with 10 observations that are related to the issue du jour: Technology-Assisted Review (TAR). I will delve into more detail in multiple blog posts over the next few weeks, but for now, here are my thoughts and summary on a panel that took on some of the bigger issues.

Part 1

TAR really took center stage at this year’s Legal Tech.  Unlike last year’s treatment of predictive coding technologies (now generically referred to as TAR, correctly or incorrectly), where the discussions largely focused on the uncertainties of computer review and “black box” technology, it’s clear that 2012 was a year in which TAR in all its different varieties was embraced by legal practitioners. This made the panels much less theoretical and much more practical.

Indeed, the panel entitled “Case Studies and Lessons Learned from the Practical Use of Technology-Assisted Review" offered a guided tour of how each of the four panelists uses TAR in his or her areas of specialty.

10 observations from the panel discussions

1. There is no one-size fits all technology or methodology. Sorry, there is no ‘easy’ button. While all panelists had regularly used TAR, none of the panelists used the same technology or even the same approach to using the technologies. However, the panelists were consistent in that they each had clearly defined processes that they followed for each matter. We wholeheartedly agree that there are many tools with different features and benefits and the key to successfully and defensibly utilizing technology is to have customized processes.
   
   
2. You can’t separate the law from technology. As technology continues to advance at warp speed, there’s still no substitute for “good lawyering.” To effectively use and defend the use of TAR, the attorney should follow the same principles that are part of any successful legal strategy. The first is to talk to your client. It is imperative that the attorney spend time with the client and ask questions that are designed to lead to identification of relevant information and examples of documents that can be used in creating seed sets. Ask for acronyms, where they store data and who they communicated with on other side to develop your collection and review strategy.
   
   
3. There is no case that is too small. The potential benefits of using TAR for large data populations are generally well accepted. However, for smaller data populations the panelists agreed that TAR is still helpful in cases with as few as 15,000 documents. In fact, the obstacle in using the technology on cases under 15,000 documents is not that the technology can’t assist in the review; rather, that if doing so required that you seek out a new technology vendor with TAR technology, it may not be worth the additional time and effort. Conversely, if you have a relationship with a technology vendor and have processes built around the applicable TAR technology, the use of TAR is especially helpful to resolve smaller disputes as the costs can be reduced dramatically and the risks of using the technology are much lower.
   
   
4. You do not have to be a technology expert to use TAR. The panelists were asked how many times they had to explain the mathematics behind the algorithms used to train a predictive coding tool. All but one – who happened to have developed her own proprietary TAR module and explained for other purposes – had never been asked to explain the underlying technology that was used in the review.
   
   
5. Process, process, process. Create a process. Document your process. You should be able to clearly present the steps taken to identify responsive documents and that process should establish good faith and reasonableness. The processes described to “train” the computer in TAR methods differed from panelist to panelist, but each described their methodical process in which they followed to (1) create the “seed set” and (2) to validate the results.
   
   
6. Utilize the entire tool box to create “seed set” to train the computer. This gets into the weeds a little, and I plan to post separately on this vital aspect of predictive coding, but the crux of the matter is that key terms and concept clustering are still used in many TAR platforms.
   
   Key terms as a method to create seed sets. One panelist “uses key terms for inclusion but never for exclusion.” So while she will populate a seed set with key term hits, she will not exclude those documents from the opportunity to be brought into the seed set using different methodologies (i.e. random sampling, concept clusters, etc., might be examples).
   
   Clustering as a method to create seed sets. One advantage of the clustering approach is that you are not limiting the scope of universe by using key terms, which are typically inadequate if the only methodology for identifying responsive docs employed.
   
   Note: In our experience, we have found that all concept/content clustering technology is not alike. In fact, some are virtually useless based upon the methodology used to create the cluster. Many programs “cluster” documents that seemingly have no substantive relation to one other and certainly not enough reliability to create “seed sets” for TAR. On the other hand, concept clusters that narrowly define the size of the cluster to only contain documents that are highly similar can be very helpful in creating useful seed sets and eliminating documents that have no value to the case or training. With the right concept clustering technology, sampling the documents in a “cluster” is similar to the old practice of going through a warehouse of banker’s boxes full of documents, which would entail looking at the outside of box for a label (or any available indices of boxes), opening them up and sampling the documents. Very quickly by viewing the folder names and glancing through the documents, the reviewer could make a reasonable determination as to the contents of that box and reasonably determine if box should be “in” or “out.” There would not be a need to look at every document to make this determination.
   
   
7. There is no magic number with respect to how many documents should be reviewed to “train” the computer. The key is not the number but the richness/representative nature of the seed set. The goal of creating any seed set is to find as many representative documents in that population to allow the computer to apply analytics. This is often not all done at the outset, but rather it’s an iterative process in which you continue to “train” the computer as you find more and more representative documents (e.g. “active learning”).
   
   
8. Human reviewers are critical to the TAR process. This is the case for two main reasons:
   
   
   • Training a predictive coding tool requires attorneys with significant experience (preferably litigation) and knowledge of the client, case and substance, as the decisions that are made to train the tool have much larger impact than an individual reviewer on an individual document.
     
     
   • Reviewing the documents predicted as “responsive.” The only unanimous point of agreement of the panel was that once the predictive coding technology identified the likely responsive documents, a 100% review, document by document, is recommended of documents that would be produced. Two primary reasons for the need to review the predicted relevant documents (1) privilege and (2) knowledge of your production. The panelists agreed that, to date, TAR technologies have not been as successful in identifying responsive PRIVILEGED documents; therefore, it is an important function for a human reviewer to carry out. All agreed that when you are producing documents, the attorney should be aware of documents being turned over. The first time they see a document should not be during depositions of their clients.
     
     That being said, there were a few situations noted that might warrant less than a 100% review of the predicted responsive set and instead utilize sampling of proposed results: second-request situations and third-party subpoenas.
     
9. Effective utilization of TAR saves significant time and money, and is defensible. One of panelists explained he had a case in which he had performed in linear fashion originally, using 20 to 30 attorneys over a six-month period. By circumstance, several years later the court ordered a re-review of the data for different objectives. By using TAR, it took one attorney one-and-a-half weeks to complete the work of five associates. Depending on the tool selected and the methodology deployed, TAR has tremendous opportunity to cull through a lot of non-relevant materials and to eliminate much of the attorney review time otherwise spent on sorting through the mountains of non-responsive documents typically found in any given case (usually only 10% or less of documents are responsive in a document review). By utilizing TAR, it is possible to increase the responsive rate of any review to 50% or above, which permits the attorney reviewers to perform more in-depth and substantive analysis without wasting time and money reviewing spam or other clearly non-relevant material.
   
   
10. Validate your results. Do your own validation/null set sampling. Be prepared to show a reasonable process was undertaken to identify documents not reviewed on a document by document basis. This is no different than any other data reduction methodology (i.e. like key term development, sampling, testing and refinement), but always a crucial step in tying up the loose ends of your process.

I’ll have follow up blogs of my LTNY series posted here in the upcoming weeks.

Legal Tech NY 2013 Panel
"Case Studies and Lessons Learned from the Practical Use of Technology-Assisted Review"

Panelists
Thomas Lidbury, partner, Drinker Biddle & Reath
Alan Winchester, partner, Harris Beach
Maura Grossman, counsel, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Jennifer Keadle Mason, managing partner, Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers

Follow @BarryWillms on Twitter

Well, the ACEDS 2012 (Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists®) conference is over: another practical e-discovery conference at a great location (the Westin in Hollywood, Fla.) is in the books.  It seemed to be much larger than its inaugural year and a good mixture of lawyers and other e-discovery practitioners.

It was especially good to return this year having passed the CEDS examination last fall, which tested many areas of the e-discovery process, from technology to project management to budgeting, etc.

Topics at this year’s conference included dealing with social media, best practices in project management, succeeding in catastrophic cases, e-discovery malpractice, and numerous others. The format was again fairly tightly controlled, with each speaker giving eight to nine minutes on a topic followed by questions and answers, with the moderators trying to keep everyone on task.

The speakers were knowledgeable and usually quite practical in their application of points, although too much time was spent on bios and introductory remarks, which took away precious minutes from the speakers (some of whom were slighted on time). This is always the most difficult component of a conference and for the most part it was pulled off successfully, however. I liked that so many different speakers were used, and while several spoke on more than one panel there were no domineering performances that left you wondering why they were on a panel.

One main takeaway on the programming is that I’m still struck (and somewhat amazed) that the industry has been slow to embrace that e-discovery projects require project management. While this is generally an accepted notion on the technology side of the process, it seems not everyone has accepted (or is just slowly adopting) that everything from budget forecasting to people management to documented repeatable processes also needs project management. Speaking from personal experience and watching it happen on dozens of projects the last few years here at Counsel On Call, that’s where you get your efficiencies, your productivity and in the end your success.

It is no longer acceptable, in my opinion, to take a project, throw people at it, and invoice the client when you’re done. Instead, you need to be able to know where you are at every step along the way and diligently benchmark, track and report it – and your client needs access to that same information as well. Budget awareness, project progression awareness, complications that might impact the budget or timeline, collaboration with inside/outside counsel and technology partners, etc., are each integral factors in a successful e-discovery project and for future matters.

In the end, clients hate the ‘gotcha’ moment. Project management and transparency of process are meant to reduce and hopefully eliminate those moments. At the very least, the steps along the way will identify those events that could quickly spiral out of control if not picked up on as early as possible.

One other note: This year there seemed to be more technology vendors than before. While it is important to have great sponsors for such events, I’m sure hoping it doesn’t become overwhelming with booths like so many other conferences. These vendors were each given a time to briefly speak and provide several tips but were not supposed to make it an infomercial. Many succeeded while others failed. Perhaps the ACEDS committee should have this segment pre-planned much like they do each of the other panels. The concept is good but the execution left something to be desired.

Overall it was another solid event for ACEDS, and I’m looking forward to more in the future. They are worth checking out if you aren’t familiar with the organization.

And then of course there were the fabulous accommodations. The beach is always a great place to learn about e-discovery. Just saying.