It’s hard to believe that after all the planning from Discovery Symposium 2.0 that it’s over. It was a very fast-paced, informative and fun two days. But now it’s time to recap – if it’s possible to capture in a blog post the back-and-forth dialogue from panelists to audience -- and figure out what we learned… and where better to start that the first session of the first day?
On the ‘Software Experience, Culling and Early Case Assessment’ panel, I had the pleasure of sitting on stage with Edward Efkeman from FedEx and the director of our E-Discovery Division, Richard Stout. Edward has co-chaired FedEx’s internal e-discovery initiatives for the last three years, and if you’ve been to a major e-discovery event, you’ve likely seen his name on the program. Edward and his FedEx colleagues have a great discovery model in place.
We had a lively discussion with a lot of interaction with and questions from the audience. The most important takeaway for me was a comment from Edward: “Don’t forget to lawyer the problem.” FedEx definitely walks the walk in this regard and their in-house team is incredibly hands-on and detailed-oriented. His point: it’s not enough to throw technology at a matter or process; it must make sense and it must still meet the legal standards of reasonableness, defensibility and good faith. This is wonderful advice that I believe gets lost in the noise of the thousands of technology tools, webinars, conferences and white papers that engulf us.
In the spirit of ‘lawyering’ the problem, we were also reminded that lawyers have been doing early case assessment (ECA) from the beginning of the profession… it’s just now they must use technology to help solve a technology problem, which is volume. One still must interview custodians, decide what’s in and what’s out, strategize, etc. Using technology to solve a technology problem is really the only thing that has changed, and when utilized properly certainly makes life easier. (There is also a good post on E-Discovery 2.0 surrounding the discussion of the interviewing process.)
So your software selection must be understood and used by your lawyers. It’s not good enough that IT is impressed with the technology; the lawyers are the ones who must understand how it works. And bringing the process in-house is not the only option that a corporation may consider, obviously. They can also partner with an outside vendor to help guide and staff the process, review and ultimately produce what needs to be produced.
Along with risk tolerance, these decisions also come down to cost and results. Cost savings are found in reducing the amount of data and then reviewing the remaining data faster. Content analytic tools, clustering, and improved search functionality have aided review teams to speed the process and thus save money. Good tools and consistent protocols also provide more reliable cost predictability, which has generally been lacking in the discovery world in most cases. Using experienced attorneys who understand how to use the full capabilities of a review tool helps with speed, accuracy and overall project cost.
Relationships – internally and with outside counsel, IT vendors and other service providers – are also keys to success in the discovery arena. Everyone must understand roles, collaborate and communicate, and problem-solve. These were consistent themes throughout DS2.0, actually, and success with the above factors leads to results that are difficult to top, the panel agreed.
We also discussed several specific tools and platforms. ECA platforms such as Clearwell, Lateral Data and Equivio, among others, were detailed; the number of companies that have started to use one ECA platform or another has risen dramatically in the past year; reducing up to 90% of the data to review will clearly open some eyes. Some have even tried various purported “all in one” tools, though the general consensus was that no one tool excelled in all areas of the EDRM. The majority of companies that have the resources to pull chunks of the EDRM in-house don’t seem overly concerned with the “all in one” solution – they want the right tool for the specific case or matter, or have identified particular tools that fit the majority of their work (or at least ECA and the review). Others find the idea of off-site hosting/processing very appealing, and along these lines the panel and audience discussed platforms and services that offer “seamless” use of multiple tools, but with no real consensus. Regardless of the path, it's always wise to "test drive" a tool or platform before making any decisions.
Another takeaway worth noting: since it’s the lawyers who must be able to use the tool, a vendor may have already lost the sale if its software requires a full day (or even a multi-day) training session to fully utilize and comprehend it. That time commitment just isn’t realistic in today’s environment, and it certainly doesn’t affirm the “ease of use” mentality that so many in-house counsel seek. Understandable, practical and cost-effective are what matter. Without those, the in-house lawyer will not even give a tool or platform a second look.
We’ll have more on our other sessions in the coming days.