Recap: Creating Your Own Discovery Team

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.

Another panelist stated that all data collection is done by her in-house team, which consists of a technology specialist (a member of the legal department) and staff members dedicated to forensics and collections. Representatives from compliance, human resources, and audit departments also are interested in the data collections. She added that the names of employees on legal hold are posted on the company’s main web page, giving the responsibility to each individual to know whether he or she is on hold. Also, everyone on legal hold takes a mandatory, computer-based training. She does not rely much on outside counsel (but is considering sending them to her company’s “E-Discovery College” course) as usually the in-house team knows and understands more about these matters. To communicate policies to her employees, she also hosts “Lunches and Lectures.”

Regarding the size of the team, the panel believes it is dependent upon the amount of litigation. The group was in agreement that the size is not as important as those who are on the team, specifically those who know where the data is located. One panelist’s top priority is to never turn over a privileged document; Other panelists had recently lost key team members and were filling the gaps internally.

In follow up, Ms. Reed asked the panel what keeps them up at night. One responded with “making sure we have all the data.” She worries that something will be left in a warehouse. However, she finds comfort in her IT staff. Each person has a designated back-up (another individual in the department) and all information is shared.

Ms. Reed also asked if outside counsel was involved in setting up the discovery process or is involved directly with the e-discovery team. One panelist said she uses outside counsel and often prefers to use first or second year associates simply because of their computer literacy. Her company currently has Counsel On Call attorneys on its discovery team, and she is adamant about outside counsel respecting these contract attorneys. Another panelist views outside counsel as part of the team as well but not as decision makers. All decisions are made internally because those in-house know the business and the matters better. Ms. Reed asked how she handles this with outside counsel. “Directly,” the panelist said. She tells outside counsel she wants efficiency and cost-effectiveness and to “go for it” if they can match it. This has not happened yet, and she is very confident in her company’s model and processes, and how they work with Counsel On Call to achieve cost savings. Also, she mentioned outside counsel helped define the preservation letter – “They can comment on it, not change it,” she said.

Recap: Software Decisions Good and Bad

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.
 


The question of whether to purchase software was also discussed. While it was clear that every department’s needs and restrictions are different, the general consensus was there are some purchasing decisions that make sense. Clearwell was a very popular option among attendees. Mr. Stout stated that there is a lot of consolidation in the software business at this point in time – it is the fastest growing segment of the legal industry – so some might opt for a “wait and see” approach with many of these decisions. The technology is improving on almost a weekly basis, it seems, and new tools enter the market every month. The key, the panel and audience agreed, is having people who know how to use the software to its fullest capabilities; Mr. Stout stated that attorneys who know all the “bells and whistles” of a particular platform can ultimately save a client hundreds of thousands of dollars in efficiencies during a review (they review more documents per hour).

Some of the biggest mistakes cited by the group included not testing enough software and committing too early and not investigating (and therefore not implementing) the entire software structure selected.

One panelist mentioned that most, if not all, of the software companies will allow you to test their products for 30-90 days so you can see how it will work with your data. He said this ultimately became a big part of his “success” in software selection, or at least in purchasing a tool that is working well for his company.

The group also asked if anyone knew of a “good, end-to-end solution” currently on the market. While there are multiple tools that handle specific parts of the EDRM Model, there seems to be a need for a comprehensive tool. There was some discussion about particular platforms that are rumored to be coming out with more robust tools, but no one would site a particular tool they felt comfortable saying was good for all stages.

Savings 'in the millions, easily' ...

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.

LegalTalk Network: Are there any particular discovery counsels that you categorized in that you’ve worked with that you would recommend to our listeners?

MM: Well, one of the best things I ever did was sign up for listserv [for in-house counsel], and I highly recommend reading those things, even if you don’t have time, because you never know what you’ll learn.

I saw a request for a discovery attorney … the whole concept for discovery attorneys was kind of new to me, and somebody from an extremely large company that I knew well had recommended a group called Counsel On Call. Counsel On Call is a Nashville-based company, they have offices all over the country, but are based in Nashville and what they do is seek out very experienced attorneys who are really looking for a different way of life than the normal law firm or in-house life … so they’re attorneys who would be in law firms or in-house but for their desire for a different world, or a different schedule, they are highly, highly vetted. So this person on this listserv who I respected said, “I used them and I never looked back and I have had enormous success with this group.”

 

So in the end it’s a big win for everybody, and I just recommend people really look hard at this sort of three-legged model.

 

[Counsel On Call] understands the review process, they have a vision for the whole discovery process that mirrors mine, they understand the need to work with the law firm to provide the knowledge that the attorneys are gaining through their document review to the law firm – but to provide it in an efficient way. And so, I’ve found that, over time, the great thing is that you start to work with the same lawyers who then become available just to you, and Counsel On Call has set up almost a Fidelity team for us … and I know these lawyers and I can say, “I want Suzie on this case” or “I want Steve on that case,” as they have different qualifications, different credentials. You end up with almost a little mini-law firm that you can call on to work with your law firm on any major case -- but at a quarter of the price. And I would say their experience with the various review tools, their experience with doing this kind of fact-finding and investigation makes them, actually, probably better at doing this than the first-year at a law firm might be.

LegalTalk Network: Marty, we have time for one more question. Now that you’ve been with Fidelity for a few years and implemented several new discovery initiatives, what advice would you give to someone who would find themselves where you were a few years ago? What are your primary lessons learned?

MM: One thing I would say is if you are talking about the technology side, make sure you have the right technology people working with you. It’s hard to find the right litigation support technology people. We have an awesome team here and that has been a lifesaver for me because [they provide] the ability to manage that kind of triangle -- lawyers over here digging up the facts and lawyers over there developing your legal defense. A lot of that is dependent upon good technology and peoples’ ability to use it. [So it’s important to] first of all, make sure that you’ve got a technology backbone and technology support people who are really your partners and are trying to build discovery capability in-house.

I would say that although there are always going to be times where you will have to turn everything over to a law firm, I think that the old law firm model may be a little bit outdated. And I think that the way the firms have been experiencing some pressure on their rates and so forth is [reason to] develop this kind of triangle of working with a Counsel On Call and a law firm to get work done in a most efficient way. 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. And it has the most impact because everybody loves it – everyone loves the system. And I include in that the law firms who would really like to have the revenue but in the end they want to focus on what they want to focus on and not have to review documents.

So in the end it’s a big win for everybody, and I just recommend people really look hard at this sort of three-legged model.


The full podcast can be heard on LegalTalk Network’s website.

 

Q&A: Martha A. Mazzone, Fidelity Investments

If you're looking for a clear vision of how data/records management and the discovery processes should operate, there are few more qualified voices in our profession than Martha A. Mazzone, vice president and associate general counsel of the legal department of Fidelity Investments in Boston.

Marty recently participated in a podcast with LegalTalk Network's In-House Legal show that is very insightful. Her interview picks up at the 13:30 mark. Note: A partial transcript of Marty's interview can be read here.

If you haven't seen Marty speak before, this is a good opportunity to get a glimpse behind the curtain of the discovery processes of a large company that handles a significant amount of data. For Marty and Fidelity, processes are centered around the ability to efficiently access the "five to ten" pieces of data that are going to make the difference in a case.