Technology Advantage

E-Discovery: A Peek Behind the Curtain – The World of Law Firms & Vendors

David Welch September 20th, 2018
E-Discovery: A Peek Behind the Curtain

I started my career in outsourced litigation support nearly 20 years ago when copying and scanning paper was the bread and butter of our work and e-discovery was still fledgling technology. While the vast majority of my experience came on the vendor side, I made the move to a law firm about four years ago. I began my litigation support vendor career in Account Management (i.e., Sales) and as a result made numerous contacts and friends on the law firm side. We would often try to entice law firm personnel to “switch to the dark side” when we spotted talent or needed production/operations people; in turn, many of my vendor colleagues would move in-house to a firm for a variety of reasons, including better opportunity or more stability. Sometimes these transitions worked and other times people would move back to their previous roles after realizing that certain skill sets may fit better at a law firm or in the vendor environment. Now, having spent a reasonable amount of time in-house, I feel I have developed a sense of the similarities and differences in each environment.

Allow me to note at the outset that while the e-discovery world once consisted of law firms (with their clients) on one side, and specialized technology vendors on the other side, that world is changing and evolving rapidly. We must recognize the emergence of large law firms with significant, specialized and dedicated e-discovery teams. These law firm units function much like vendors, serving both internal and external clients (including smaller firms). I currently work on a large specialized, full-service e-discovery team within a law firm with a full suite of e-discovery technology in-house, multiple data centers throughout the world, a dedicated document review center and every bell and whistle a litigation support professional could want. So, at least in the case of Kilpatrick Townsend, many of the following references to “vendors” could just as easily apply to a such a dedicated law firm-based e-discovery unit.

The tasks and skills addressed in this article relate to the day-to-day activities that we e-discovery professionals undertake. As we move along the EDRM lifecycle (see below), there are certain tasks that are more often performed by vendors and those that are more specific to law firms. The rules about when to use vendors and when to rely on law firms are not hard and fast, especially in the evolving legal industry, as you can find a vendor that will do just about anything and you can find law firms like mine that have both the financial and intellectual resources to perform tasks more often associated with e-discovery vendors. I will discuss each stage of the EDRM in turn.

Image result for edrm diagram

 

Records Management

There are a multitude of companies that focus on records management, providing guidance on information governance policies and procedures, data mapping and the day-to-day work required. These companies can be vendors and law firms alike. Regardless of whether a vendor or law firm is consulted on records management, this is a stage that should be important enough to designate someone (or a team, depending on company size and makeup) within the company to oversee. Without company buy-in and dedicated internal support with institutional knowledge, records management is simply too unwieldy to pawn off completely on an outside resource. That being said, any internal records management team should work closely with outside legal experts to ensure policies and procedures are defensible.

Identification

When it comes to identifying potentially relevant data, whether for preservation, disposition or for use in litigation, it is critical that organizations employ defensible strategies. In my experience, such strategies are best handled by attorneys with specialized knowledge of data management and e-discovery in collaboration with internal company representatives and, in the case of pending litigation, government investigations or internal reviews, outside counsel.

Preservation

ESI preservation is something that requires law firm involvement and communication. Plenty of vendors offer legal hold services and software, and many law firms utilize those resources, but the long term requirements of preservation really require that law firm personnel be more involved in this phase of discovery.

Collection

I have found that internal company employees and inexperienced law firm personnel who are tasked with collecting client data usually do not specialize in e-discovery and are wholly unaware of the potential risks involved. Too many times, a lack of tracking, documentation and formal standard operating procedures results in costly and time-consuming discovery disputes down the line. Specialized support from a specialized e-discovery team or e-discovery vendor is critical. This is particularly true in the area of forensic collections. While my firm has certified EnCEs (certified experts in the industry-leading forensic tool, EnCase) and Certified Computer Examiners (I fall into this group) in-house, most law firms do not. Computer forensic experts generally have more resources and institutional knowledge than non-experts when it comes to forensic-type collection, including collection of mobile data and forensic analysis (in the case of, for example, purported spoliation). The added layer of defensibility for a forensic collection when performed by an outside partyis an additional reason to lean on specialized outside help. So, when it comes to collection, the plan should be to consult with the experts, whether they come from a law firm like Kilpatrick or a vendor.

Processing

Most law firms with a heavy litigation and e-discovery focus have some level of data processing capabilities. However, there are enormous disparities in such capabilities between a five person law firm or even a large regional firm and one like mine that has 20 offices worldwide, multiple processing tools in-house, a team of experts on staff and every possible security measure in place. Small law firms will almost always have to rely on outside support for e-discovery work. Most small law firms turn to vendors but large law firms with specialized teams should also be considered. For processing, as long as you use a group that specializes in it – whether that is a vendor or a law firm with a specialized team - the bandwidth you need to meet your needs should be available.

Review

The review phase fits well on the law firm side. Sure, many vendors offer attorney review services, but let’s face it - having control over, and easy consultation with, reviewers about their quality of work is something that most litigation teams don’t want to give up. I’ve also found that searching, batching, and setting up reviews is more of a strength of law firm teams since they are more integrated with the case team and come with institutional knowledge that can provide invaluable guidance in conducting efficient and defensible reviews.

Production

I have found that document production mirrors processing in the sense that if a law firm has the data processing capabilities, as in the case of large firms with specialized e-discovery teams, they also tend to have the requisite production capabilities. These functions are generally built into the same software platforms. As a result, small firms may well need to lean on vendor support, while most larger firms can handle their own document productions. 

Presentation

Unless a firm is large or specifically focuses on trial litigation with a dedicated team (like at Kilpatrick), it is unlikely they can invest in the software and personnel resources needed to have a well-equipped, full-time trial presentation team. Vendors, by contrast, can develop the specialization and acquire the hardware and software necessary to create quality demonstrative exhibits and refined digital trial presentations because their services will be used by many firms in many types of litigation. 

Final Thoughts

Law firms and vendors vary in size and e-discovery capabilities. For anyone looking to move from one environment to the other, it is important to look at the areas or skills in which the firm or vendor specializes, as well as the areas in which they want to expand their expertise. For example, someone with strong processing skills might be a great fit for a growing firm looking to bring more e-discovery work in-house. There is plenty of cross-over in the skills and functions of law firm and vendor personnel but there are distinct and defined areas of expertise that may better lend themselves towards one or the other.

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this blog is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. For more information about these issues, please contact the author(s) of this blog or your existing LitSmart contact. The invitation to contact the author is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new attorney/client relationship will be confirmed in writing.

 

Subscribe to the E-Discovery Newsletter

Related Posts

  • Data Mapping - Why is it Important for Successful E-Discovery?

    A data map is usually something that is generated along with a data retention plan and is a great starting point if and when an organization becomes involved in litigation and discovery. Long before litigation and discovery, however, it is important to understand the relevant data sources that may be in play and where those can be found within the organization’s various data systems. This blog explains what a data map is, what it contains and how it is helpful.

  • Pitfalls of Complex Search Protocols in ESI Agreements

    ESI Agreements cover the full gambit of e-discovery issues, from preservation expectations to production specifications. Sometimes, these agreements include an overview of the process by which the parties will identify the universe of potentially responsive documents by using specific date ranges, identifying priority custodians and developing proposed search terms. Adding another layer of complexity, this discussion is often had in a vacuum before the parties even know how much data their clients have. Coming up with criteria that identifies the relevant documents, but is not overly broad, in this vacuum can be difficult. However, the process is important because the date range, custodians and terms will inevitably dictate how much data is collected, processed and reviewed, which can significantly affect any litigation budget.

Newest Posts

  • Planting the Seeds of Accountability for Spoliation Sanctions

    When seeking sanctions for spoliated evidence, the nature of the evidence and your jurisdiction can play a pivotal role. Are you in state or federal court? Is the missing evidence electronically stored information or not? The same facts and circumstances could yield vastly different outcomes depending on the answers to those questions. It is important to recognize up front, at the start of your case, how your jurisdiction may impact discovery issues that could arise later down the road so that you can plan accordingly. In the case in this post, while the court did not ultimately affirm the imposition of an adverse jury instruction for spoliation of evidence, it did find a duty to preserve existed based not only on the parties’ contract, but on evidence the party in question had promised to preserve such evidence. By contrast, the insurers failed to demonstrate that same party owed them a duty to preserve. 

  • You’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat: Data Management and E Discovery Strategy

    “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

    This iconic line was uttered by Chief Brody in the 1975 blockbuster film Jaws when he first saw the massive size of the shark they were trying to catch. At that moment, Brody realized they were in completely over their heads, and the boat they had was not big enough to accomplish their task. While Quint’s Orca fishing boat and his traditional methods were capable of handling previous assignments, they were not going to be enough to take on the enormous shark they were chasing. 

    For better or worse, the digital environment we live in has resulted in an explosion in the number of documents and amount of information created and used by companies in their daily operations. A mid-sized company’s internal emails alone can run into the tens of thousands a day, and that is before factoring in reports, meeting minutes, studies, presentations, and other business documents. Adding in external emails and related attachments, you are looking at millions of documents a year. Because of this increased volume of data, companies dealing with potential litigation must adjust accordingly. 

    Like Brody, they need a bigger boat. An effective e-discovery strategy can provide companies with a bigger boat capable of handling even the most massive litigation matters.

  • Now You See Me, Now You Don’t: Ephemeral Messaging Challenges

    The emergence of ephemeral messaging applications to communicate with friends, family, and coworkers quickly, securely, and effortlessly has boomed over the past decade. In that time, users of ephemeral messaging apps have risen significantly, from millions to billions of active users! Ephemeral messaging is an integral and evolving part of both individual and company communications with advantages and challenges impacting companies and the legal industry. Companies must consider the ramifications of their employees' use of ephemeral messaging and adopt policies and procedures to best protect themselves and comply with requirements relating to litigation and regulation. Courts have already begun addressing the failure to preserve relevant ephemeral messages and have been issuing sanctions in a myriad of legal challenges. Ephemeral messaging is here to stay, and companies, courts, and attorneys must understand and adapt to evolve with this emerging technology.