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

There’s a very good post on Clearwell’s e-discovery 2.0 blog about the process of bringing e-discovery in-house, or more importantly some of the questions that need to be asked during that process.

One particular observation in the post stuck out to me: “…every company today, believe it or not, has an e-discovery solution in place.” This is very true. Many companies who must scramble or shift work around internally to address a pressing matter or who automatically send any and all litigation straight to outside counsel might not characterize their approach as a “solution” (more of a default mechanism, maybe), but it is a solution, nonetheless. From that point forward, the steps and questions laid out in the post are certainly good ways to look at the in-house e-discovery process.

The statement also juxtaposes another observation in the post about in-house departments going through the RFP process and seeking an “end-to-end” e-discovery solution. These two statements, in my view, are actually directly related. Many in-house departments are not equipped to handle any significant e-discovery work, so in the past they simply sent that work to their law firm(s) because they could physically handle the review of the documents (and were already handling case strategy). Now that the in-house departments are under incredible pressure to cut costs, they must come up with a different solution, but still don’t have the resources or time to handle it internally. They want a simple, straightforward solution that they can hand off and know it will be handled in a quality, cost-sensitive manner.

I believe this encapsulates one of the most challenging issues we face in the e-discovery realm today, one that our company has spent an inordinate amount of time addressing internally and that

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There’s a great post up on the ‘3 Geeks and a Law Blog’ that frames the current discussion regarding project managers, or, more specifically, the professional background of and what potentially makes a good project manager.

We’ve discussed this topic on Lawdable before and it’s a worthwhile, ongoing conversation within law firms and other legal service providers like Counsel On Call (although no one is like us, of course). One can very quickly dive into topics ranging from law schools and their e-discovery curriculums (or lack thereof) to whether the disciplines of project management can truly be absorbed by a practicing attorney, among a host of other sidebars.

Here’s what we’d like to tack onto the conversation: excellent project management is completely dependent on the individual project manager. If you look hard enough, there are lawyers out there who are great project managers, who understand how to budget and track metrics, who know how to design and implement proven protocols -- and who have been doing this for years. On the flip side, there are undoubtedly non-lawyers who can come into a project management role, add a lot of value, and do a better job than 95% of the lawyers who currently have project management responsibility. That’s not a knock on those lawyers, but a nod to those non-lawyers’ skills.

The training PMs receive and their personalities affect the people most likely to stay lawyers in the first place. The old adage that ‘I didn’t become a lawyer to do accounting’ is true. However, those who’ve been in law for awhile also see that there are different career development avenues to pursue and to help their clients. (And who’s to say PMs can’t make partner in the law firm of the future? Clients want to work with great PMs; that can mean more business from a PM’s clients.)

Circumstances, experiences and exposure can also help you develop the skills and expertise to push you in the direction of project management. In the same manner that lawyers involved in e-discovery today may not have started with technological understanding or had any initial training; those who have been thrust into the fire might have had an interest created, and then received the training and knowledge to accomplish and even master the topic. So, too, some of those thrust into project management may find that they like it, are good at it and want to pursue it to create the necessary expertise to become premier in the field.

We’ve found great lawyers who make great project managers, but we’re also in a more unique position than, say, a law firm, for instance. Our lawyers were looking for a different way to practice law and that’s why we’ve found one another; that departure from traditional thought also helps us identify those who could potentially make great project managers. And while MBA-types might run individual departments at a law firm, it’s usually a lawyer from within their own ranks who serves as a project manager on a specific case or matter. Some of those lawyers make great PMs, but many are so grounded in traditional lines of thinking that it’s difficult to break away and innovate; great project management requires a balance of innovation and proven protocols.

That’s a long way of saying there are different ways to approach this issue, and it’s going to be a focus as more people become attuned to it. In the end, it’s great for our profession.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The “alternative” in an Alternative Fee Arrangement (AFA) can be defined as “affording a choice between two or more things…mutually exclusive so that if one is chosen the other must be rejected.”

In the arena of legal fees, the alternative is compared to the standard billable hour. One potential alternative is a fixed fee. For other AFAs, see this interesting article where Pat Lamb argues that the “real point” should be to “shift risk from the client to the firm,” among other things.

The questions to ask are: what is the goal? What is the incentive and who should have it? Who takes the risk? Who should benefit from taking that risk?

Blended rates and known budgets provide predictability. Is that the real issue for clients? Is the debate between low cost and predictability versus unknown budgetary costs, or does it involve the ability of the legal provider to use reproducible cost-effective services over time for the benefit of the client?

I would argue that these types of arrangements will have a short lifespan. After a certain period of time, all a fixed fee arrangement offers is what the cost is going to be, not how the work can be done more efficiently, for less money, more intuitively, or in a manner in which you can best meet your goals. It also encourages a law firm to use minimal staff or attorneys billing at the lowest hourly rate, which may or may not be in the best interest of a client. The lack of value will be exposed at some point.

The bottom line is to define the goals you are trying to achieve. Is it predictability? Cost savings? Particular expertise? Time reduction? Maximum manpower? All of the above?

This is the point I was attempting to make last week: it’s imperative to think how these arrangements can work for both parties, because if it’s tilted one way or the other, it’s not a great system. Someone loses. And there’s just not a great understanding in the marketplace of how these “alternatives” truly function or if value is really received.

So I like to look at what I know. I know my company’s costs of doing business. I have a pretty good idea how long it takes for attorneys to review a gigabyte of data on most software tools. I know a lot of different ways we can reduce the amount of data to review. I know how we create efficiencies throughout the discovery process. Knowing all of this, I feel very confident we can provide several different pricing options for our clients, whether it’s per document or per gigabyte (the ‘fixed fee’ options, more or less), by the hour, or some other structure. (Although I’m talking about discovery here, the same basic principles apply to different types of work that might see alternative fees, like contracts, employment matters, IP issues, etc.)

If I didn’t really know all of what we know about our business, well … I would be basing everything on a lot of subjective data. That’s simply not necessary in today's marketplace. But because we do have the objective data and we understand our capabilities and costs, the client gets a great work product at a low cost, achieves measurable efficiencies, and ultimately the predictability and consistency that are sought. That’s a win-win arrangement, which is a great goal to shoot for from the beginning.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There’s little question Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs) have gained in popularity in recent years, and that interest seems to only be increasing. In a recent survey of in-house attorneys we conducted in Atlanta, 46% of those who planned to implement new strategies in 2010 said they planned to use AFAs. After all, what in-house department wouldn’t want cost certainty in a time when most are being asked to reduce costs?

However, it’s a difficult matter to pin down and price properly. Today’s post from the 3 Geeks and a Law Blog says it very well: you have to understand what goes into your costs before you can manage or reduce them, and thus create a valuable proposition for both you and your clients. And therein lies the rub.

For many matters, there are way too many variables to be able to create a fixed cost forecast that benefits both you and the client. That’s a terrifying predicament for a law firm to be in and roll out on a pricing platform to a client. But is that really the issue? I agree with the 3 Geeks post: many lawyers just don’t understand how these arrangements can (or do) work, and I’d add there’s a question whether they should even be pursued at all if that’s the starting point of the discussion.

I have previously worked on these types of arrangements prior to joining Counsel On Call, in particular, data mapping and record retention projects– two areas in which we had a pretty good understanding of the time it took to create the work product necessary to implement. And ultimately our clients understood and appreciated the certainty of the fixed cost. But the interesting thing was that when we would initially provide the fixed fee amount, our clients would sometimes balk, shocked at the total amount staring them in the face. But then when we broke it down on an hourly rate basis and they realized they were getting a significant discount, they were all for it. (It would often go like this: Us: “The cost is $75,000 for the work on a flat fee basis.” Client: “That much?!??! Are you kidding?” Us: “OK, tell you what, we’ll do it for $250 per hour and it should take at least 300 hours.” Client: “Great! Let’s do that!”)

So for many, certainty outweighs cost, even though they think it’s the opposite. Many law firms cater to that notion, which allows them an easy way out when trying to determine actual costs and value. It’s pretty simple to estimate how long certain projects will take, and then multiply that number by an hourly rate, provide a small discount and come up with an “alternative” fee; but that’s not really very creative and doesn’t truly solve the cost/value challenges the client is facing. In fact, one can argue that deriving a flat fee from this foundation actually de-incentivizes a law firm; it’s going to get paid that amount no matter the quality of the work or how long it takes to complete. That being said, a strong case can be made that AFAs should be incentive-based as a core feature, and we know several clients who are utilizing those types of models. When everyone has a skin in the game, priorities become a lot more transparent. Value is, at a minimum, more apparent in that model.

At Counsel On Call and especially in my role in the E-Discovery Division, it’s pretty simple: We have to understand all of the costs of a typical project and how to make the work product better and operate more efficiently. If we don’t do that, it’s not going to matter how we package our costs because we wouldn’t be providing value to our clients. You have to take care of the former to be able to create options for the latter.

(I'd also be remiss if I didn't at least mention Patrick J. Lamb at Valorem, who posts often on the subject of AFAs.) 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we all know by now, in 2006 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to standardize how litigants should deal with their electronically stored information (ESI). Soon thereafter, courts at both the Federal and State levels started putting out their own rules (See Tom Allman's Article and a listing of links to state e-discovery rules.)

In addition to the rules themselves, the various courts are trying to find implementation language and protocols that govern the specifics of what the opposing sides must actually do. One example is the 2007 Administrative Order 174 in the Middle District of Tennessee, which spells out what the judges want to see happen at the meet and confer and during the whole discovery process.

Then in 2008, The Sedona Conference published its Cooperation Proclamation in an attempt to codify the steps that opposing counsel should take on the intricate and expensive matters related to identifying, preserving, collecting, searching, reviewing and producing ESI.

Now the 7th Circuit has taken the next step and announced a Pilot Program to last from October 1, 2009 to May 1, 2010, whereby selected cases will have to follow specific principles of cooperation.

The stated purpose is to assist the courts to, among other things, “promote…the early resolution of disputes regarding the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) without Court intervention.” Basically, the Courts are tired of dealing with the lawyers who don’t play nice on matters of e-discovery.

The proposed standing order contains the following (paraphrased) duties: (1) Attorneys not cooperating will be sanctioned; (2) ESI requests should be proportional to the case; (3) Duty to meet and confer, including discussions on identifying ESI and format of production; (4) Identification of an e-discovery liaison to handle disputes; (5) Creation of appropriate and specific preservation requests; and, interestingly, (6) a friendly reminder that the attorneys should become familiar with ESI prior to filing an appearance in one their courtrooms.

First came ESI and the high cost of e-discovery; then came the rules; now comes cooperation and specific actions to follow … all in an attempt to lower costs, deal with the huge influx of discovery disputes and have lawyers play nice.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I will not attempt (or bore you with) analogies about architects and house building and e-discovery protocols ... but as rapidly as things change in the e-discovery world, it is increasingly important to provide clients prescient and valuable guidance and to build processes that are consistent and reliable. That’s why it’s my pleasure to announce that Barry Willms has joined Counsel On Call’s E-Discovery Division as Senior Attorney + Discovery Process Architect.
 

It's a unique title, but an accurate one. Barry spent the last 14 years managing discovery matters for two prestigious law firms, King & Spalding in Atlanta and Bass, Berry & Sims in Nashville. He’s overseen and directed large teams of attorneys and has consulted numerous clients on the tactical use of technology to improve quality control methodologies and results during reviews. His ability to design and implement efficient, repeatable e-discovery processes – along with his background as a great lawyer – synchs perfectly with our E-Discovery Division.
 

We’ve known and respected Barry for many years and have always been impressed by his forward thinking and knowledge of the issues affecting the discovery process. We are particularly excited about his expertise in the document retention arena – those “pre-discovery” issues many of our clients continuously encounter. But he is also the type of e-discovery expert that our clients seek for project management, creating and implementing protocols, and managing quality control for reviews large and small. With his addition to our corporate team, we’ve truly strengthened our ability to provide our clients services up and down the EDRM.
 

Barry will also provide another voice on this blog that we believe you will find informative and interesting. Please feel free to peruse his bio or e-mail him some suggestions for a post. No word yet if he has any advice on home building.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I know that's a really bad take-off on a common expression, but it can be used to describe the prevailing attitude in legal departments toward filing suit against another company -- or even defending against a suit brought against your company. More accurately, the mindset is, “a lawsuit avoided is many, many dollars saved,” and those savings can directly effect the bottom line.

In past downturns, the Bar has been able to take some solace in the loss of transactional work knowing that the litigators would soon have more than enough cases to carry the load. Everyone expected that to be the case this time around as well. The common thought was that corporate work goes down, litigation goes up. But this recession is not like any other in so many respects, so why should it follow that course?

Since the beginning of this year, I’ve taken note of the lack of an appreciable increase in litigation. Companies are not willing to make the huge investment that even the smallest case requires; big cases can quickly become a massive drain on resources. Has the recession created an incentive to avoid these cash sponges? I believe it’s coincidental for a lot of legal departments.

Monday’s National Law Journal contains an interesting and well-written article by Karen Sloan. In it, she notes that there seems to be a dramatic shift in how corporate America is thinking about litigation as a result of the recession. Ms. Sloan shares my humble opinion that you cannot blame this change in attitude totally on the recession and cites other logical reasons why there has been a shift. There are many, many factors that lie outside of the current economic climate which have, through the course of time, changed the mindset of our corporate colleagues. The reality is that it’s just too darn expensive to enter into a courtroom battle where there are other options for dealing with the problem that are infinitely more cost-effective and efficient.

For years now we have been working with corporate clients on how best to tackle some of the more costly aspects of litigation in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. That being said, there’s little question that most changes or strategic shifts regarding litigation policies are reactive; there is usually something on the front end that demands a change. After all, in our profession the tried-and-true path gets worn bare unless a giant boulder is thrown across it. The recession certainly has provided the needed incentive for many to produce a new course of action.

But for many of our clients, that boulder was placed in front of them long ago, during better economic times, whether it was with rising outside counsel costs, new company standards or policies, or simply an early recognition that e-discovery was going to become more difficult to deal with in the future. So they started looking working with regional law firms instead of the AmLaw 100, or enacted procedures when dealing with specific types of litigation, or they expanded their in-house litigation teams and created strict e-discovery and data storing policies. Collectively, these changes meant there was a new approach to litigation, how and when to respond, and how to manage it. These clients were the early adopters of this shift and forged the path for others to follow. Once the recession set in, the shift accelerated somewhat uniformly throughout the profession.

Sure, we haven’t had a surge in lawsuits like has happened in other challenging economic times. There are many positives to this fact, though. The practices that have been developed during the good times are playing a role in decisions whether or not to sue (or to enact procedures when one is sued). They are certainly playing a big role in how to conduct a piece of litigation.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

News of the O’Melveny-H5 partnership was heralded by some -- and likely lost among a list of news blurbs for many in the industry. For those who missed it, the partnership means that one of the globe’s leading law firms has partnered with a legal information retrieval (or “search”) company to offer a uniform litigation support service to clients.

The benefits of this partnership have been outlined by industry bloggers Chris Dale and Ron Friedmann, among others. But moving beyond the deal’s strategy-and-search foundations of service, the partnership is good news for all companies providing litigation support/review services and supplies another indication that law firms are moving towards a different business model. Coming out with a news release is particularly noteworthy, as partnerships like this one have previously been seen as damaging to a law firm’s reputation. Not anymore.

What we consistently discuss with our in-house clients is how to take advantage of the resources they have. In litigation, they have outside counsel to handle and shape the strategy. That’s what law firms do best and why their partners’ hourly rates are often justified (and many of our clients agree with this). That expertise is invaluable and the strategic decisions they recommend can save millions of dollars immediately and on future matters. That is a resource.

Litigation Support providers are another resource. We know how to run an efficient discovery process with strict quality control measures. We have teams of experienced attorneys that can be dedicated to only one client. We have the proven protocols and know how to benchmark and track data. We design our services to save money now and in the future. This is all contained in our value proposition for litigation support services; that's not traditionally the case for a law firm.

So while our methods and costs of actually conducting the review of documents differ from a company like H5, and without knowing how O’Melveny will package and bill its clients for this service, the messages that this partnership sends are 1) some law firms are accepting the need for and creating new business models, 2) they recognize exactly how they are a resource to clients in litigation, and 3) They aren’t afraid to tell the world about it. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that our Litigation Support Division has seen increased interest from law firm clients in recent months.

Ultimately, these are all good signs for the profession (and especially clients).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once upon a time, there were really only a handful of titles in the legal profession: Associate, Partner, Paralegal; General Counsel, Associate General Counsel; or simply Attorney. Sure, there were mini-steps between these positions and other classifications, but for the most part these titles offered a good snapshot of the profession – especially the way business was done. Everything that couldn’t be handled in-house was sent to the law firm. There were no Account Executives, no Client Liaisons, no Information Systems Administrators ... no other business partners to lean on.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is our final recap from Discovery Symposium 1.0. If you would like more information on the event or to inquire about attending in 2010, please email us.

As more corporate legal departments are looking to bring discovery in-house, this panel was of keen interest to attendees.

What was very striking was how the panelists – an incredible group of leaders who really know about bringing matters in-house and managing the discovery process – have truly become knowledgeable about their respective companies’ IT departments. They're very familiar with IT -- something that likely could not have been said of most attorneys even just a few years ago. This sheds a little more light on the demands of the discovery process today.

Even though each of the panelists work within a large company with substantial IT departments, it was clear that the best practices they brought with them could apply to companies of any size. Creating a team often means including legal, IT, human resources, operations, outside partners – whoever touches the company’s data on a regular basis. And this team helps guide and monitor progress from through collection, production and review.

It’s also worth mentioning that the attorneys on this panel have collectively saved their companies tens of millions of dollars on the discovery process in a relatively short period of time. Talk about demonstrating the value of the legal department ...

Creating Your Own Discovery Team
Panelists: Senior attorneys from Fidelity Investments, Cox Communications, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Georgia-Pacific
Moderator: Candice Reed (Executive Director, Counsel On Call)

Summary of Dialogue
IT staff is critical to the team as well as representatives of other departments specific to your business. Know the people on your team; trust them. Know where the data is located. Know your systems. Trust your company knowledge, which surpasses that of a law firm.

The discussion began with a statement: E-discovery is a management task. Those in charge of discovery cannot be afraid of technology, must serve as traffic cop and coordinator, and need to be a “techie” who can talk to lawyers. When choosing members for your discovery team, it’s about 1) Having the right people on the team, and 2) Trusting your own judgment that you have put the right people on the team. One panelist said her team meets weekly.

Another panelist said she received incredible pushback from her outside law firm when she decided to build a discovery team in-house. Her team includes attorneys with employment and patent experience, a paralegal, representatives from the IT department, as well as a person from the legal department dedicated to e-discovery (who has since been moved to another department and not directly replaced). The team meets once a month.

Another panelist put her team together when in-house e-discovery experience quickly surpassed that of the company’s outside counsel. The core team consists of her, representatives from the IT department, as well as an outside consultant. Other team members are attorneys with commercial, labor, and insurance experience and representatives from Records Retention. Since three-quarters of her company’s corporate employees are members of the IT department, it is important to have everything IT-related documented – how the department is organized, who reports to whom, detailed protocols, and the location of specific data. This information also is in the company’s E-Discovery Manual, which is constantly updated. Due to an increasing number of matters, the panelist wanted to create a “thoughtful and consistent approach to review.” After each project, the team would discuss what data was collected, what part(s) of the process worked and what didn’t, and even examined the overall cost. Perhaps most importantly, they looked at what could be done to make future matters cost-effective. In order to better predict future costs, her company partnered with Counsel On Call, whose team handles several parts of the company’s discovery process, to find a software vendor that would do just that.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This was probably the most animated session during the two-day event - maybe it was the cocktail reception and songwriter's night that was to follow.

More likely, it was the issue at hand. The in-house attorneys in the room were all under at least a minimal amount of pressure to contain costs, and everyone had clearly examined their outside counsel relationships recently. The panelists had each taken different steps to modify their relationships with outside counsel, and each seemed to be pleased with the direction these relationships were heading.

Working With My Law Firm: The New Dynamics
Panelists: Senior attorneys from International Paper, SunTrust Banks, CVS Caremark
Moderator: Candice Reed (Executive Director, Counsel On Call)

Summary of Dialogue
Themes: Make your voice heard with outside counsel; We hold the power; We often know more about e-discovery than law firms do; Law firms need to budget/plan and work with the vendors we choose

Panelists began the session detailing how they, and many in the legal profession, believe that the law firm model is broken. The dialogue with the audience began immediately once this subject was broached, and many shared anecdotes about their relationships with outside counsel.

With that framework, one panelist said it’s important for a law firm – even firms you’ve been working with for years – to know you will walk away if their pricing or services are not inline with your needs. His department has moved to bidding out all of its work, and every law firm knows that there are at least two or three other firms bidding – and this has changed the way law firms look at the company (in a positive way). It has not changed the quality level of the work they receive (also positive).

Another panelist took this further and stated that involving her law firm in the decision-making process on the company’s e-discovery was not the best decision. The firm’s e-discovery committee was not up to the task, they did not have a disciplined approach and said that no matter who reviewed the company’s documents (namely: discovery attorneys), they were going to re-review them in order to sign off on the agreement.

Panelists them reiterated that in-house counsel must be willing to say, “Give me what I want” and stand up to law firms when necessary.

One specific anecdote that was shared with the group involved a recent conversation with a law firm partner, who was leading a company’s litigation strategy. The attendee loved the value he was getting from that partner, even at $500 per hour. But what he did not like – and what he wanted the partner to understand – was that along with every hour in that partner’s time came another $600 per hour in two junior associates a paralegal.

Another panelist said that we are in an evolutionary period right now, and that law firms must get their value proposition in order. He calculated that his company pays its in-house attorneys $150 per hour; if a law firm associate is doing work for his company, it needs to be at that price or less or it’s not worth it – they will do it in-house or use another vendor. Another panelist said a good practice is to staff a department at 80% of volume at $150 per hour.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It was clear from the onset that attendees were eagerly awaiting this panel, and that Mr. Efkeman, Mr. Lisi and Mr. Stout were the right attorneys to answer the questions before them.

There was great dialogue between the panelists and the audience, as many attendees were either currently in the software platform analysis process or considering purchases for their in-house dpartments.

Session II: De-dupe, Near Dupe and Being Duped: Software Decisions Good and Bad

Panelists: Senior attorneys from FedEx Express, Fidelity Investments
Richard Stout, Director, Litigation Support Division, Counsel On Call

Moderator: Dennis McKinnie, Executive Director, Atlanta, Counsel On Call

Summary of Dialogue
Themes: Review less data, and do it faster; Establish a good relationship between your legal and IT departments and ensure both are speaking the same language; Purchasing software is costly, and those decisions should be carefully considered, especially in an environment in which there is much consolidation currently -- but a purchase can save time and money in the long run; “Try before you buy.”

The panelists agreed that limiting the amount of data to review was paramount to containing costs. They spoke about the importance of Early Case Assessment (ECA) tools, specifically mentioning Clearwell and Trident (by Wave, a de-dupe/culling tool).

As ways to reduce discovery time and costs, Richard Stout (Counsel On Call) echoed the dialogue about reducing the volume of data to review and discussed how to review the data faster. Implementing the right technology and correctly managing the process are central; the volume of data to be reviewed can be reduced by implementing a Comprehensive Records Management Program (including an effective document retention policy), targeting the collection (searching key custodians, date ranges, specific terms), culling and de-duping data, and using ECA tools. Mr. Stout also mentioned companies with project managers available 24/7 as an important factor in selecting software.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was a lot of very interesting dialogue at Counsel On Call’s Discovery Symposium, and one (overarching) topic clearly on the front burner was retention, holds and the collection/preservation of documents -- and the internal processes and logistical challenges surrounding these often laborious tasks.

This will be one of our longer summaries from DS1.0’s four main sessions; more will be posted Wednesday.

Good Policies for Retention and Holds; Standards of Care in Preservation and Collection
Panelists: Senior attorneys from Equifax, FedEx Express, Hilton Hotels
Moderator: Anne Whitaker (Vice President, Counsel On Call)

Summary of Dialogue
A properly developed retention program can be a useful tool for reducing the cost associated with document review and other discovery-related matters. The preservation of appropriate data is one of the most pressing issues facing litigation managers today.

Panelists discussed eight basic steps to developing a program that is reasonable, defensible, and practical:

1. Identify when the preservation obligation begins.

Every company has different needs that must be addressed.  One panelist said a preservation obligation may begin with, for instance, an internal employment investigation. It does not begin when a claim is filed for lost goods. Another company begins the process if there is intent to initiate litigation. The in-house attorney asks, “Is this meaningful? Credible?” It’s a judgment call.

2. Determine what ESI (electronically stored information) must be preserved. 

The main question to ask is, “What do we need in order to win or defend this case?” A map of the IT landscape is needed; therefore, a close relationship must be developed between legal and IT and a common language between the two established. It is also important to define “necessary business records” and in some companies’ legal holds, this term is defined and a list of triggers provided (such as an EEOC charge or knowledge of a complaint filing). Another panelist mentioned that custodians must be identified prior to determining what ESI must be preserved and posed the question of whether companies ask custodians to “give him what they’ve got” or if it is sometimes better to retrieve materials.

In terms of what goes into a hold, one panelist said that two pages is too long for a litigation hold, and to be concise (but possibly attach the subpoena to the hold just to be sure to cover all bases). Several panelists suggested including "warnings" in the holds, such as "do not share any information in this hold or you will be in violation of company policy" or something to scare custodians into compliance. Another attendee suggested web-based training for custodians prior to being subject to their first litigation hold.

3. Who is in charge with respect to technology?

Staff from IT, security, and legal are involved, but most agreed that someone from IT manages the effort. All processes and procedures are in writing in order to keep communication consistent. Important to be consistent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

8:25am
What a day yesterday was here at the Discovery Symposium in Nashville - my brief posts here can't do it justice. The programming ended with an incredible discussion about the new dynamics of working with law firms ... Brian Edwards (SunTrust), Brian Cadwallader (International Paper) and Jennifer Molinar (Caremark) share some incredible insight and experiences with the group, and not surprisingly this led to a very spiritied discussion. Possibly the most interesting tidbit was regarding the bidding out of every significant matter; Brian Edwards spoke about how beneficial this has been and how his firms understand that SunTrust will walk away if they aren't getting the price/services they're after. The group was intrigued by this and asked several pointed questions.

Some of us (namely me) are probably still a little groggy after enjoying the evening's songwriter's night ... Don Schlitz, who has penned 24(!!!!) No. 1 hits, was kind enough to entertain us. Don is a friend of one of our attorneys, and his wife is also an attorney -- so he had a steady stream of lawyer jokes ready for us, which is always fun.

I'll post more later today...

4:15pm
Everyone is on their way home now, probably somewhat exhausted after another substantive day to close out the Symposium ... we started with a powerhouse panel -- Sue Dyer (HCA), Marty Mazzone (Fidelity Investments), Heather Munday (Georgia Pacific) and Kristen Weathersby (Cox Communications), moderated by Counsel On Call's Candice Reed -- discussing how to create your own discovery team. Over 2.5 hours, these women really broke down how their processes work, who is involved, the challenges they've faced, mistakes they've made and what's most important. Each panelist was asked "If you're just now starting to assemble your discovery team, what would be the first thing you would do?" The unanamous answer was "identify the person in IT who is going to be by my side throughout this process and make things happen." These women were very, very impressive as a group and individually, and as I remarked to someone: "You can see we have some great resources to learn from here at Counsel On Call." We were really pleased that so many people got to hear the information/opinions that we have access to every day.

And that seemed to be a common theme ... our post-event survey responses indicated that there haven't been many (if any) events like this one, that the program was relevant and informative, and truly in the 'best practices' mindset. My biggest takeaway is that in-house attorneys are genuinely excited about the value they can provide to their company in the discovery realm, and many shared some great stories about the reactions they've received when showing the cost savings of the processes they've implemented.

A great event all around ... we'll post some of the best practices that were discussed during the event soon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Greetings from the packed Discovery Symposium!

If you're not follwoing Dennis McKinnie on Twitter, you can do so here: www.twitter.com/dmac1957. Dennis will tweet periodically from our meeting site and is leading a panel shortly.

I will continue to update this post today and tomorrow as interesting tidbits arise, so please check back and refresh your screen.

1:15pm CST
Our keynote speaker at lunch was Cheryl Mason, VP of litigation at HCA, who is incredibly knowledgeable about the litigation process and its role at HCA. She detailed how HCA's approach -- when they started to really create solutions regarding e-discovery several years ago -- was to create a defensible process, not necessarily a perfect process. And even if HCA's process isn't perfect, it is kept in the perspective of what is best for the company -- and where e-discovery fits into its priorities. Her level of knowledge and her calm deameanor are 'points of light,' as COC President Jane Allen says.

We're getting into the Retention/Holds & Preservation/Collection panel now with attorneys from FedEx, Equifax and Hilton Hotels. More updates soon.

4:15pm CST
We just finished the 'Software Decisions' panel, which I was very pleased to be a part of. Leading/directing the dialogue were Edward Efkeman (FedEx Express) and Mike Lisi (Fidelity), who have both been tasked with handling vendor relationships with all types of software companies. What was most striking -- and probably most encouraging for our guests, many of whom are at different stages of their software selection processes -- was that both FedEx and Fidelity were able to demonstrate a high level of value to their companies in going thru the processes. They clearly knew a lot about dozens of vendors, their capabilities, and how they could help their respective companies. They each spoke about the value of the IT department and good project managers -- and not letting information beyond their firewall. 

There were probably 25 questions from the audience, so this is obviously a hot topic. We'll have to post a more thorough recap next week.

The 'Working With My Law Firms' panel is off and running, then it's off to the Country Music Hall of Fame for what promises to be a great songwriter's night. More to come. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Next week, we will have the pleasure of welcoming 35 senior in-house litigation managers, representing 25 companies, to our home base in Nashville for the inaugural Counsel On Call Discovery Symposium 1.0. It’s very exciting for us, as it provides the opportunity to get several of our clients in a room together and talk about best practices in discovery and litigation support.

We tried to limit the event to about 30 attorneys to foster a healthy environment for exchanging experiences, and we’re pleased that the demand has been so high. It's a great program – discussing all areas of discovery – that is completely led by the attorneys who are in the trenches and dealing with these challenges on a daily (hourly) basis. We’re proud to be by their side, but in this instance we’re merely facilitators and believe that’s going to help generate the best possible dialogue among some of the brightest minds in the in-house profession.

Here are a few of the session titles:

• “Good Policies for Retention and Holds; Standards of Care in Preservation and Collection”
• “De-dupe, Near Dupe and Being Duped: Software Decisions Good and Bad”
• “Working With My Law Firm: The New Dynamics”
• “Creating Your Own Discovery Team”
• “Budgeting for E-discovery: Not a Pipe Dream”

We will likely produce a recap that shares some of the best practices discussed during the event, and if you’re an in-house attorney interested in reading it, please send us an e-mail and we will add you to the distribution list. Also, based on the response this year, we are considering opening up the event to non-clients in 2010 (event will be in Atlanta or Boston), so please indicate if you would like to receive information when it becomes available.

And if you like Twitter, we’d recommend following Dennis McKinnie, formerly a general counsel of two publicly traded companies, formerly with PoGo’s IP litigation group, and a past Staff Counsel to the Supreme Court of the United States … he’s been the Executive Director of our Atlanta office the last four years, and he just got his Twitter account up and running and will tweet during the program. Dennis is well-known for his txt/Blackberry skills, so we’re going to put him to the test.

Richard Stout will also post on this blog from the event, so don’t forget to check back May 13-14. Subscribing to the blog (on the right side of this page) is the easiest way to make sure you don’t miss an expanded update.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There’s an interesting phenomenon happening in the litigation arena right now: nothing.

Well, that’s not entirely true. There is plenty going on, of course, but the sour economy has put a different spin on how litigation is being managed. Cases are not marching in lock-step with a normal timeline. For instance, some companies are putting everything related to a piece of litigation on hold until they are required by time, or the case itself, to act. And action this time around is preceded (in most instances) by a lot of anxious planning and budgeting.

Now this isn’t anything new – many companies have longstanding policies not to act on litigation until forced to do so. It’s often a cash-flow-versus-workflow approach. However, I am seeing a palpable sense of hesitancy with regard to litigation and case management. Companies are taking an ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ stance, whether it’s regarding the various stimulus measures and burgeoning economic turnaround, or the stability of a company and their department's budget, or any number of other things. That attitude is impacting case management. These companies know that eventually they are going to have more work (i.e. revenue), but they simply do not want to spend the money now, when times are tight, addressing litigation matters unless they have to.

All is not dour under this approach. One great side effect is that companies are taking this time to create, refine or institute their approach to e-discovery for when the storm finally does come. If their ducks aren’t already in a row, they are briskly walking toward the line.

We’ve participated in dozens of planning or strategy meetings that are seeking to solve the bigger issues: how to create repeatable discovery processes, how to budget discovery costs, the software tools to use, the action items surrounding a litigation hold, the data collection and management process, analyzing the benefits of early case assessment tools, and creating processes that facilitate collaboration with outside counsel and all their legal vendors, among many, many other issues.

All of this is ultimately focused on cost and efficiency, of course. And it’s never too early to make that a priority – or in some cases, it’s not too late.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I would say that’s been one of the things I’ve been able to do in my three years here at Fidelity that has undoubtedly saved the company the most money of everything I’ve done, and I would put that in the millions, easily."

- Martha A. Mazzone, V.P. and Associate General Counsel, Fidelity Investments, on creating a "three-legged stool" with Counsel On Call and outside counsel
 

As demonstrated on what's become a popular podcast for LegalTalk Network, Marty Mazzone is incredibly well-versed in the discovery process and data management. Her candid comments and detailed descriptions of how Fidelity handles the litigation process have been helpful to many in-house attorneys. 

We've had numerous requests for a transcript of Marty's podcast, and have pasted at least a partial version below... to listen to all of Marty's interview, including an in-depth discussion on data management, please visit LegalTalk's website or our Media Center.


Paul Boynton, LegalTalk Network: In addition to bringing some of this work in-house, are there other service providers other than law firms that have been assistance to you?

Marty Mazzone: Yes, that is key, actually. And this is not to be disparaging of law firms, not at all. But I do think that all of us – clients and law firms, and I was in the law firm for many years -- have to address this changing model.

First of all, there is the whole technology vendor world in e-discovery, and they can be extremely helpful and critical partners in a major e-discovery effort. There are also these groups that I would call something like “discovery attorneys,” or maybe at one time you would have called them “staffing groups,” but they provide high quality attorneys for an extremely minimal cost compared to the cost of law firms. And by using those groups to do your review and manage that in-house, you’re saving your law firm attorneys for building the legal defense.

So to me … I’m building my factual defense up over here with my in-house contract or discovery attorneys, and then I’m transferring the knowledge they’re gaining to our legal defense team out of the law firm who are writing our briefs … and that transfer of knowledge becomes a very important element in what I’m trying to do. But I definitely think that we can almost see a third leg to the stool now instead of a direct link just from client to law firm.

You’ve also now got an opportunity to get a good set of discovery counsel who will continue to work with my company case after case, who will know what I do, will know acronyms, will know leaders and so forth, and they’ll be able to dig out the facts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You can’t scan a legal rag nowadays without seeing an article predicting the end of the billable hour, or the revamping of the business of the practice of law, or some other projection of how the practice is going to look at the end of this recession. Some insights are better than others, like the recent Law.com article about in-house departments requesting their outside counsel to reduce rates or present an alternative fee arrangement. Patrick Lamb’s commentary on the matter on his blog also really drew my interest – I think he hits the nail on the head.

Undoubtedly there is some room for firms to reduce rates and I believe, in time, the market will bear that out (I love the anecdote from a lawyer who told Susan Hackett at ACC that $700/hour was a “suicide” rate). But what’s more central – and the article skims over this while Patrick calls attention to it – is that hourly rates are really only a small part of the equation and that efficiency and quality are the key elements. I'd add one more factor to this cost-saving/value formula: maximizing resources.

Based on hundreds of conversations I’ve had with in-house attorneys in recent months, there really isn’t as much pushback on the partners’ high hourly rates. Sure, clients would like them to be lower, but they also understand you have to pay for great legal counsel. The real problem is at the associate level, where it’s much tougher in some instances to defend the value received. In many cases they’ve turned to smaller or regional firms to get the rates they seek across all levels.

But where we’re seeing in-house departments achieve budgetary success is in conducting an audit of the work that needs to be done and overlaying that with the available resources. Here’s a rudimentary example of how the process works for a fictional department that has (only) three operational units: litigation, contracts and labor and employment:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nine years ago when we started Counsel On Call – we celebrated our anniversary on April 3 -- we had to work our tails off just to get a courtesy meeting with a client. We spent a lot of time in those meetings addressing uninformed stereotypes about contract lawyers who ‘couldn’t get a job in a real firm’ or were ‘too lazy to do the work.’ After talking in detail about the quality of our attorneys and how they simply didn’t want the big firm life, or had another interest they wanted to pursue in addition to practicing law, or wanted to spend more time with family, we started to get beyond those initial hurdles. Realistically, most everyone we met with knew an attorney that fit our model.

I’m glad to say that many of these prejudices have dissipated over the last decade, and I’m especially pleased to see that so many talented attorneys now choose to practice law in a non-traditional way. It’s more rewarding that clients recognize this as well. Most of our clients refer to our attorneys as Counsel On Call attorneys, or employment attorney, bankruptcy attorney, corporate attorney or discovery attorney … there is certainly more awareness that not every great lawyer works in a “permanent position” within a firm or in-house. It’s helped us get to the pressing matters at hand – ways we can provide our clients with effective business solutions that incorporate low-priced, experienced and highly qualified attorneys.

So what was the tipping point? This is difficult to say. First, the attorneys who have worked with Counsel On Call the last nine years have helped change the perception of our clients. Second, once clients started working with our attorneys, they realized how easy it really was, and how much value each attorney offered. Third, our clients were willing to share their experiences with others – most of our business has grown through referrals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The second podcast with LegalTalk Network's In-House Legal show is now up.

Richard Stout, director of our Litigation Support Division, and Dennis McKinnie, executive director of our Atlanta office, discuss all things e-discovery: Why the review rate is important, early case assessment tools, what e-discovery savings should really look like, the importance of outside counsel, and why every in-house department should have a discovery process it controls, among other things.

The 13-minute interview begins around the 13:45 mark. The podcast is also available on iTunes for free download.

We hope you'll check it out and let us know what you think.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The billable hour has received a lot of attention in recent months as it relates to associate salaries and the value the client receives, among other issues. But it has been especially relevant in the e-discovery field in recent years, as more in-house departments have realized that much of their discovery work can be done for under $65 an hour versus the $200-400 they were accustomed to paying.

So now that this is the norm in our profession – paying $45-65 an hour for e-discovery work – the real question becomes, ‘What am I really getting for that money?’

Once you’ve driven down costs to the $45-65 per hour level for e-discovery, I would argue that the hourly rate makes little, if no difference, on your bottom line. The most important factor is the review rate of the attorneys. In fact, it’s really very simple math.

Let’s take a medium-sized matter: 30 gigabytes of data, or 400,000 e-mails.

Using a traditional (linear) review tool, an average review rate would be approximately 50 document decisions per hour for an attorney. By increasing the attorney review rate by 20 decisions per hour, the cost savings over the life of the project would amount to $125,000 and cut the project’s time by 25-40%. That more than compensates for a $20 per hour difference in an attorney's hourly rate, too.

That’s also a very conservative answer, because many companies now utilize a content analytic review tool that clusters documents together by topic versus a linear tool that only organizes data chronologically. Using the content analytic tool is likely to produce a 300-500% increase in the review rates, which saves in excess of $300,000 and 70% in time on that same 30GB of data. Content analytic tools cost more, but you can see where that difference can be accounted for.

So if you can accept this concept, it truly becomes a question of what you’re getting for your money. Many in-house departments have $48 an hour attorneys handle their e-discovery work, but ultimately the work is re-reviewed by outside counsel, there’s no fluid process in place and the client has no idea what kind of productivity the attorneys are generating. How would they know if they could be doing it better?

The question really becomes about how to increase review rates and thus productivity. There are many ways to do this, but it starts with experienced attorneys who know e-discovery and the technology. It’s supported by proven processes and talented project managers. Everything must be transparent: work closely tracked, benchmarked and learned from. It’s a collaborative, highly communicative process with outside counsel. And it can be repeated from matter to matter, creating more opportunities for learning and efficiency.

Focusing on the process and maximizing productivity -- not the hourly rate -- is where money is truly saved in e-discovery. The math really will speak for itself; all a client has to do is ask for it.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (12)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

LegalTalk Network's In-house Legal program has asked Counsel On Call to participate in three podcasts. The first of these is available now: 'How In-house Departments Can Save 20%,' featuring Jane Allen. Jane discusses different areas of savings and different approaches -- and debunks myths about what has to happen to cut 20% out of a legal budget.

The other interview on the podcast is Rees Morrison from the Law Department Management Blog, who provides good insight into the challenges legal departments are facing.

The show is also available on iTunes for free download - just search for 'in-house legal.'

Jane's interview starts at the 12:35 mark and runs approximately 10 minutes. Subsequent shows in the three-part series will focus on e-discovery and the rest of the discovery/litigation support process, as it is certainly an area we're speaking to a lot of clients about. We hope you'll listen in and let us know what you think.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I attended a CLE recently that dealt with the topic du jour -- e-discovery. Seems you can’t pick up a CLE calendar without seeing at least two sessions dedicated to the subject, which I guess speaks to just how much it's dominating our thoughts these days.

I must admit this particular program was pretty good, however. At the end of one of the panels -- dealing with corporate costs for e-discovery -- someone asked the question, “What are some of your pet peeves?” The list was insightful so I thought I’d share the panelists' thoughts:

1. Do not overpromise what you can deliver.
2. You cannot approach discovery, particularly e-discovery, as a risk-less enterprise. That only creates unnecessary costs and burden and it will never be risk-less.
3. Don't charge me for “futzing” with the technology. You should know the technology and if you don’t, learn it on your own time.
4. Every case is matter-specific. It is ridiculous to say “this is the way we do e-discovery” and apply it to every matter.
5. Clients pay for experience. You better have some.

And last but not least amongst the peeves was:

      6.   Lack of Predictability.

This last one we hear all the time and Counsel On Call has spent a lot of resources creating procedures to address. Our repeatable litigation support processes, and the data that we track and gather on each project for a client, enables that client to better budget each project going forward. In addition, we have done so many of these projects that our experience can add a large degree of certainty with respect to projected costs for even that first engagement.

I was glad to hear some interesting discussion on this subject, and it's clear that a larger percentage of in-house counsel are really taking control of their e-discovery matters -- and, whether working with their internal team or with their legal service partners, are developing progressive concepts of what they want their litigation processes to look like. We're fortunate that we have many clients that fit this mold, and it's exciting to see the results that some of these great concepts produce.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was fortunate to spend time this past week at a two-day event with a number of in-house attorneys who have created a series of best practices related to record management and litigation holds. It was an educational experience, and it was very clear that the issues we discussed during our time had everyone's attention, more so than at any similar event I've previously attended.

Why? Because everyone is under economic pressures -- extreme pressures -- to cut the cost of litigation and show how they’re doing it. Most of these individuals have already implemented measures to reduce the volume of material prior to litigation ever being filed via document retention policies, records management, and issuing strategic litigation holds when there is litigation. Most talked about their repeatable processes, the software utilized … and the need to have quantifiable data. This information puts them in a position to budget what needs to be spent in order to reduce the volume of data to review. It was clear they have the front-end of the litigation process mapped out and that there was a comfort level with, or a good level of understanding of, those challenges. But this is why I wanted to attend the event.

These same themes -- repeatable processes, the ability to save money, and receiving quantifiable data -- are what we have created for the next steps in the litigation process, when the review is being organized and conducted and the discovery process is moving forward. We have spent the past three years working with clients across the country to mold the best practices when it comes to discovery -- providing a core team of experienced and quality attorneys working on all of a client’s discovery matters and quantifiable data about our team’s performance. This allows our clients to make smart decisions in real-time, justify decisions, and to save not just on one matter, but on all litigation matters moving forward. So when a business person asks his in-house counsel, "What is this going to cost me?" we put that in-house attorney in a position to be able to give a very accurate and detailed answer. We also allow them to proactively follow-up with, "And this is how we have reduced the cost and plan to reduce it even more going forward.”

There's little doubt that these in-house attorneys were seeking new ways to ease the financial pressures they are facing, and it was great to be part of such a collaborative event. Even better was that the more we spoke about the processes that are available and how there are some very real ways they can save money – and quantify it -- the higher their respective comfort levels rose.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently I participated in a conference call with a prospective client about a voluminous e-discovery assignment. The call involved all of the players: several of us from Counsel On Call, the corporate legal department and its outside counsel (a prominent East Coast firm). These collaborative meetings are occurring more frequently now, which is refreshing. 

This trend roots from the determination that most law firms were not created to handle today’s e-discovery, but are better positioned to oversee and manage the discovery phase of litigation at a macro level. The client wants to save money on the review, let the law firm manage the process, and have an efficient communications process -- so a team approach involving corporate counsel, law firm lawyers and companies that provide litigation support services is practically a requirement today. It is this collaboration -- and open communication from the assignment's onset -- that ensures an excellent work product, as all of the players are working at their best use from Day 1. The process is more efficient, quality control is central and it ultimately better serves the client's interest and goals. It’s a business-partner approach.

Buyng into this approach is a big step for a law firm to take, but a very necessary one because legal departments need real business solutions and cost containment. The days when a firm can justify the cost of 50 associates (at $250+ per hour) conducting a large e-discovery review are over. What was somewhat surprising about the conference call, however, was that the law firm was Counsel On Call’s biggest advocate, as opposed to viewing us as the competition. But it seems that many law firms realize -- some organically, some by necessity -- that developing quality partnerships can be an asset to their practice (and put them in a better position with their clients). The ABA also seems to recognize (and bless) this outsourcing trend, as its Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently came out with Formal Opinion 08-451 outlining lawyers’ obligations when outsourcing legal support services.

Much like what this law firm coordinated (and what legal departments are insisting upon these days), it's always good to get everyone at the table together, bring all the challenges/issues out, and discuss the best possible solutions. We're seeing a lot more of this, and it's because a lot of money can be saved throughout the process by collaboratively hammering everything out on the front end.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link