Essays

At the recent ECI event in Chicago, David Kessler (Fullbright & Jaworski Partner) made an interesting observation that 95% of all civil cases end in settlement while moderating our discussion on project managers in eDiscovery. That ratio was a bit lower than the typical discovery assessment metrics from my Fortune 500 clients, but it peaked my curiosity to see if real published study data existed. I found numerous unattributed comments purporting the rate to be 95-97% cases closed via settlement vs. trial, but the best recent study was a Florida Bar Special Committee report on the declining rate of jury trials. Even if you assume that the trial disposition rates below only correspond to the 11th Circuit and the Florida County courts, the trend is obvious. That 95-97% settlement rate was appropriate 25 years ago, but over 99% of all current cases now are disposed without trial. Despite that low trial rate, a much larger percentage of filed civil litigation will require some or full discovery effort prior to settlement. My question is, does the overwhelming settlement rate discourage litigants from investing in a thorough, defensible eDiscovery process?

Get ready for it folks – there is another “term” battle brewing in the eDiscovery market. Like the debate over technology-assisted review (TAR), computer-assisted review (CAR), and predictive coding (PC), there is a similar one between defensible disposition, defensible deletion, and active expiration. Hopefully, the terminology debate will take a back seat to the real story, which is that companies can reduce costs and decrease risks by proactively getting rid of unnecessary information.

Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) stands to change the way traditional linear legal review functions in a significant way. The fallout of this change will impact corporations, law firms, legal technology and service providers, and eDiscovery professionals everywhere. What will that change look like? There are plenty of ideas – fewer contract reviewers, more high-margin TAR specialists, greater reliance on managed services – but it is not clear just yet which path will be the road more traveled.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Greg Buckles. Published: 2012-07-18 08:53:48   My research on mobile device discovery has led me to review existing surveys on corporate policies, practices and trends. Across multiple surveys, the statistics agree that the vast majority of businesses now allow the use of personal mobile devices, otherwise known as the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy. Apple appears to have started [...]

The main message from attendees at The Cowen Group (TCG) Leadership Breakfast in New York last Thursday is that technology-assisted review (TAR) is a game-changing, disruptive force in eDiscovery and information governance (IG). TAR has the potential to change the way that law is practiced, according to one distinguished panelist. To harness the power of TAR, however, the legal industry must change. Instead of slowly adopting new technologies and ways of conducting business, the industry must begin experimenting with innovative solutions in order to keep pace with the demands of corporate clients.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Lynn Frances Jae. Published: 2012-07-24 11:27:21  I attended the Executive Counsel Institute’s “eDiscovery for the Corporate Market” conference last week. The event was quite educational, with 26 presenters including Gene Eames, Director, Search & Analytics Legal Division of Pfizer, Daniel Kulakofsky, Managing Counsel-Director E-Discovery of Travelers and several other members of corporate legal departments. The inclusion of corporate legal people [...]

In the wake of our article on the winners and losers in the eDiscovery software market, a client recently suggested to us that the software giants are not yet the best landing spots for eDiscovery software vendors. The impetus for this observation was news from two vendors – Symantec and HP – that software acquisitions in the eDiscovery market had underperformed. The revenue from Symantec’s Clearwell business was less than expected in calendar Q1 2012. HP’s executives admitted on their last earnings call that the Autonomy license revenue had a significant decline year-over-year.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Mikki Tomlinson. Published: 2012-07-27 09:23:38  Just days before trial, The Honorable Paul S. Grewel granted in part Apple’s Motion for Adverse Inference Jury Instruction against defendant Samsung.  According to the Order filed on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, “At issue is whether Samsung took adequate steps to avoid spoliation after it should have reasonably anticipated this lawsuit and elected not to [...]

At The Cowen Group (TCG) Leadership Breakfast in New York two weeks ago, it was agreed by all technology-assisted review (TAR) is a game-changing, disruptive force in eDiscovery and information governance (IG). At last Thursday’s breakfast in Washington, DC, the conversation shifted a bit to include the happy fact that TAR can help satisfy the needs of many constituents: the corporate Legal department that wants to reduce review costs and have more predictable litigation spend; the law firms that want to make more review dollars at higher margins; and the vendors and service providers that want to develop the expertise to help both corporations and law firms.

Chris La Cour’s second annual Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat (CVEDR) has just wrapped up three days of topical, interactive discussions in beautiful, relaxed Monterey, California. Many of us who attended last year’s retreat knew that this event is a perfect opportunity to gently introduce your significant other to the eDiscovery social scene away from the crazy crowds and business intensity of Legal Tech New York. The Monterey Bay Aquarium, kayaking and other attractions kept them happily occupied while we debated questions like, “Are you obligated to disclose Technology Assisted Review (TAR) or other analytics if they are used to make relevance decisions?” It was great to see many familiar top speakers and providers, but I do hope that more entry level corporations and law firms realize how valuable these smaller events are to new eDiscovery professionals. CVEDR tries to avoid ‘death by power point’ and the classic bobble-headed panelists reading from notes with those familiar droning Charlie Brown style teacher voices. Instead, the event has four themes each with five related topic sessions per track. That’s a lot of content and expertise crammed into two and a half days.