Electronic Discovery Experts On Stage at LegalTech New York 2010

by Dean Gonsowski on January 28th, 2010

Next week, as most of you know, is the Superbowl of legal technology events.  And, so if this is a newsflash, you’ve probably found this blog by searching for the European Cockpit Association (“ECA”).  If on the other hand you have an unnatural affinity for the other ECA – early case assessment — then you’ve probably been planning to head to this year’s LegalTech show immediately after the last one ended.

For fear of gratuitous self promotion, I will be moderating several panels with e-discovery pundits on the first day. Akin to the upcoming Superbowl, these “Supersessions” will be chockablock with EDD luminaries and it’ll be all I can do to get a word in edgewise.  Below is the schedule. Feel free to pre-register since we expect a packed house.

1:00 – 2:00 pm: The E-Discovery Expert Panel.  This session will discuss best practices in e-discovery. Panelists include:

  • Jay Brudz, senior counsel, legal technology at GE;
  • Ron Best, director of legal information systems at Munger, Tolles and Olson, LLP, and
  • Brian Hill, senior analyst at Forrester Research, Inc.

2:15 – 3:15 pm: Strategies for Transparency and Cooperation in E-Discovery. This session will discuss how to move toward a more cooperative resolution of legal disputes.  Speakers include:

  • Sean Gallagher, partner at Hogan & Hartson, LLP and
  • Lauren Schwartzreich, associate at Outten and Golden, LLP

3:30 – 4:30 pm: Ask the E-Discovery Doctors. The “doctors” will take questions from the audience and provide their prescriptions for a wide-range of e-discovery topics.

  • Craig Ball, attorney and president, Craig D. Ball, P.C.
  • Ralph Losey, attorney and co-chair of E-Discovery Practice Group, Akerman Senterfitt,
  • George Socha, attorney and president, Socha Consulting, LLC

While it’s probably not fair to pick a favorite session, my sense is that the last one will be the most anarchical, chaotic, and stimulating, assuming that the speakers don’t take the faux Doctor thing too far (yes, they will be in scrubs).

Please come by to get your recommended daily dose of e-discovery insights.

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
Comment on this post »

Not Yet A Gartner E-Discovery Magic Quadrant, But Still A Gartner E-Discovery MarketScope

by Aaref Hilaly on December 29th, 2009

Earlier this month, Gartner published its third annual MarketScope For E-Discovery Product Vendors. Written by Debra Logan, Whit Andrews, and John Bace, the report is an excellent survey of this rapidly evolving market. It is also a useful buyer’s guide for anyone considering a purchase of electronic discovery software, since it analyzes and rates various e-discovery players. You can buy the report at Gartner’s site, or access a complimentary copy here.

The report covers 18 e-discovery software vendors. Missing from the report are e-discovery hosted/software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers and small e-discovery software vendors. Gartner believes the market is maturing and only larger companies are viable in the long run. So it increased the minimum annual revenue requirement for inclusion in the report to $15 million.

My guess is that next year Gartner will discontinue the MarketScope and move instead to a Magic Quadrant for e-discovery software. Doing so would be very helpful for the entire industry. Now that George Socha and Tom Gelbmann no longer publish their annual rankings, Gartner’s report is the only way for people to get a sense for how different products compare against each other. That alone makes it required reading for anyone considering an investment in e-discovery software.

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
Comment on this post »

Early Case Assessment (ECA): An Emerging Product Category

by Aaref Hilaly on December 16th, 2009

There are many barriers preventing the creation of a new product category, especially in the legal industry. The biggest is inertia, since most people prefer to leverage the tools they have, both on grounds of cost (why spend money on something new?) and familiarity (who wants to spend time learning a new workflow?). A second barrier is risk-aversion, since the consequences of errors in the legal world can be severe for all concerned. A third is insensitivity to cost, since service providers simply pass on expenses to their corporate clients. When safety and risk mitigation rank above efficiency on the hierarchy of needs, there’s not much incentive to try new technology.

Yet, despite all these barriers, in the past few years “early case assessment” (ECA) has emerged as a product category. In a typical workflow, ECA products are used after collection and before review, to assess case facts and estimate the scope of electronic discovery. Whereas collection typically occurs within the corporation, and review is usually conducted by outside counsel, ECA bridges the two, and can occur either in-house or via an outsourced model. Either way, it leads to better case strategies, more effective discussions at the “Meet and Confer”, and fewer nasty surprises in downstream review.

How has this happened? Why has ECA been able to establish itself as a product category despite the barriers? There are two answers to that question, each of which is completely different.

One answer is that ECA possesses the unique combination of characteristics needed to create a new category. It capitalizes on macro trends, such as the growth in electronically stored information which makes it impossible to review every document, as occurred in a paper-based world. It’s disruptive, meaning it has completely new functionality, such as transparent search, that other products do not. And, it reduces the overall expense of litigation discovery, by giving savvy litigators the information they need to make better decisions earlier in the case. This cocktail of factors led to initial market traction from sophisticated corporations and law firms, which led to positive word-of-mouth and analyst coverage, which, in turn, educated the broader the market.

The second answer takes the opposite perspective: ECA may be a product category but, because of the barriers listed above, it’s a nascent one. No ECA is performed on the vast majority of data. Instead, the traditional workflow is still used in most cases, whereby service providers blindly run keywords, load the resulting dataset into a review platform, and hire a legion of contract attorneys to sift through it. This is changing over time, but new methodologies do not catch on overnight.

In my view, both answers are correct. Today, ECA is growing rapidly as a part of a workflow that emphasizes data minimization to lower costs. That’s spurred on by corporations who are acutely cost sensitive and increasingly taking control over the processing, analysis, and review phases of the e-discovery process. But inertia remains a huge factor, and ECA is still a small fraction of the total market.

From a historical perspective, this is to be expected. Five years ago, virtually no one did ECA; five years from now, everyone will do it, just as they all do collection and review. The only open questions are how quickly we move from one state to the other, and who will benefit from the change.

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
Comment on this post »

How to Reduce E-Discovery Costs Part V: What Part of E-Discovery To Bring In-House

by Will Uppington on December 10th, 2009

Part IV of this series on reducing e-discovery costs described how bringing e-discovery in-house can reduce costs.  One of the major decision points when in-sourcing e-discovery is to decide which parts of the e-discovery process should be in-sourced.  In making this decision, each company should look at the nature of their e-discovery process today, which [...]

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
Comment on this post »

Litigation and E-Discovery Trend Surveys Find Similar Results

by Dean Gonsowski on November 19th, 2009

As the Mark Twain quote goes, there are “lies, damn lies and statistics.”  In this case, however, and regardless of the exact numbers, two recent surveys provide some very interesting directional trending.  The first is Fulbright & Jaworski’s 6th Annual Litigation Trends Survey.  In addition to covering a range of general and vertically oriented topics, [...]

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
Comment on this post »

How to Reduce E-Discovery Costs Part IV: Bring E-Discovery In-House

by Will Uppington on November 18th, 2009

Part I of this series on reducing e-discovery costs discussed a number of approaches for managing e-discovery costs.  The third approach suggested in the original article is to bring e-discovery in-house.  This means taking some e-discovery tasks that were previously conducted by external organizations, such as e-discovery service providers or outside law firms, and performing [...]

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
Comment on this post »

Top Ten Trends in Electronic Discovery

by Dean Gonsowski on November 11th, 2009 (2 Comments)

Since I’ve finished off the last of the Halloween candy and tossed out the moldy, squirrel ravaged pumpkins, it occurred to me that now might be a good time to think about what 2010 will hold for the electronic discovery industry.  My 2009 list seems to have been fairly prescient and many of those notions [...]

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
2 Comments »

Defensible E-Discovery a Hot Topic at the Masters Conference

by Dean Gonsowski on October 29th, 2009

Recently, I moderated a panel at the Masters Conference with John Loveland, Sonya Thornton, and Bruce Markowitz entitled: How Defensible is Your E-Discovery Process? (Click here to read a summary of the panel.) It was well attended, and I think that the draw (aside from the esteemed panel) was that this topic still remains very [...]

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
Comment on this post »

7th Circuit Launches an Electronic Discovery Pilot Program

by Dean Gonsowski on October 15th, 2009 (2 Comments)

Recently, I attended the Sedona Conference’s annual meeting in Atlanta and, amongst other interesting topics, was the discussion of local rules developments and in particular the Seventh Circuit’s new Electronic Discovery Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”).  The Pilot Program was launched October 1, 2009 and seems to be a model for collaboration, since it was developed [...]

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
2 Comments »

The Federal Rules of California

by Dean Gonsowski on September 17th, 2009

On of August 14, 2009, the California Judicial Counsel amended their Rules of Court to augment discussion of electronic discovery issues during the meet and confer process.
Rule of Court 3.724 was amended to require discussion of “Any issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information” no later than 30 calendar days before the date [...]

Share this post on E-Discovery:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
Comment on this post »