Lighthouse Blog

What does Artificial Intelligence (AI) mean to you? In the non-legal space, AI has taken a prominent role, influencing almost every facet of our day-to-day life – from how we socialize, to our medical care, to how we eat, to what we wear, and even how we choose our partners.In the eDiscovery space, AI has played a much more discreet but nonetheless important role. Its limited adoption so far is due, in part, to the fact that the legal industry tends to be much more risk averse than other industries. The innate trust we have placed in more advanced forms of AI technology in the non-legal world to help guide our decision making has not carried over to eDiscovery – partly because attorneys often feel that they don’t have the requisite technological expertise to explain the results to opposing counsel or judges. The result: most attorneys performing eDiscovery tasks are either not using AI technology at all or are using AI technology that is generations older than the technology currently being used in other industries. All this despite the fact that attorneys facing discovery requests today must regularly analyze mountains of complicated data under tight deadlines.One of the most prominent roles AI currently plays in eDiscovery is within technology assisted review (TAR). TAR uses “supervised” machine learning algorithms to classify documents for responsiveness based on human input. This classification allows attorneys to prioritize the most important documents for human review and, often, reduce the number of documents that need to be reviewed by humans. TAR has proven to be especially helpful in HSR Second Requests and other matters with demanding deadlines. However, the simple machine learning technology behind TAR is already decades old and has not been updated, even as AI technology has significantly advanced. This older AI technology is quickly becoming incapable of handing modern datasets, which are infinitely more voluminous and complicated than they were even five years ago.Because the legal industry is slower to adopt more advanced AI technology, many attorneys have a muddled view of what advanced AI technology exists, how it works, and how that technology can assist attorneys in eDiscovery today. That confusion becomes a significant detriment to modern attorneys, who must start being more comfortable with adopting and utilizing the more advanced AI tools available today if they stand a chance overcoming the increasingly complicated data challenges in eDiscovery. This confusion behind AI can also lead to a vicious cycle that further slows down technology adoption in the legal space: attorneys who lack confidence in their ability to understand available AI technology subsequently resist adoption of that technology; that lack of adoption then puts them even further behind the technology learning curve as technology continues to evolve. This is where legal technology companies with dedicated technology services can help. A good legal technology company will have staff on hand whose entire job it is to evaluate new technology and test its application and accuracy within modern datasets. Thus, an attorney who has no interest in becoming a technology expert just needs to be proficient enough to know the type of tools that might fit their needs – the right technology vendor can do the rest. Technology experts can also step in to help provide detailed explanations of how the technology works to stakeholders, as well as verify the outcome to skeptical opposing counsel and judges. Moreover, a good technology provider can also supply expert resources to perform much of the day-to-day utilization of the tool. In essence, a good legal technology vendor can become a trusted part of any attorney team – allowing attorneys to remain focused on the substantive legal issues they are facing. With that in mind, it’s important to “demystify” some common AI concepts used within the eDiscovery space and explain the benefits more advanced forms of AI technology can provide within eDiscovery. Once comfortable with the information provided here, readers can take a deeper dive into the advantages of leveraging advanced AI within TAR workflows in our full white paper – “TAR + Advanced AI: The Future is Now.” Armed with this information, attorneys can begin a more thoughtful conversation with stakeholders and legal technology companies regarding how to move forward with more advanced AI technology within their own practice.Demystifying AI Jargon in eDiscoveryAt its most basic, AI refers to the science of making intelligent machines – ones that can perform tasks traditionally performed by human beings. Therefore, AI is a broad field that encompasses many subfields and branches. The most relevant to eDiscovery are machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing (NLP). As noted above, the technology behind legacy TAR workflows is supervised machine learning. Supervised machine learning uses human input to mimic the way humans learn through algorithms that are trained to make classifications and predictions. In contrast, deep learning eliminates some of that human training by automating the feature extraction process, which enables it to tackle larger datasets. NLP is a separate branch of machine learning that can understand text in context (in effect, it can better understand language the way humans understand it).The difference between the AI technology in legacy TAR workflows and more advanced AI tools lies in the fact that advanced AI tools use a combination of AI subsets and branches (machine learning, deep learning, and NLP) rather than just the supervised machine learning used in TAR. Understanding the Benefits of Advanced AIThis combination of AI subsets and branches used in advanced AI tools provides additional capabilities that are increasingly necessary to tackle modern datasets. These tools not only utilize the statistical prediction that supervised machine learning produces (which enables traditional TAR workflows), but also include the language and contextual understanding that deep learning and NLP provide. Deep learning and NLP technology also enable more advanced tools to look at all angles of a document (including metadata, data source, recipients, etc.) when making a prediction, rather than relying solely on text. Taking all context into consideration is increasingly important, especially when making privilege predictions that lead to expensive attorney review if a document is flagged for privilege. For example, with traditional TAR, the word “judge” in the phrases, “I don’t think the judge will like this!” on an email thread between two attorneys and, “Don’t judge me!” on a chat thread with 60 people regarding a fantasy football league will be classified the same way – because statistically, there is not much difference between how the word “judge” is placed within both sentences. However, newer tools that combine supervised machine learning with deep learning and NLP can learn the context of when the word “judge” is used as a noun (i.e., an adjudicator in a court of law) within an email thread with a small number of recipients versus when the word is being used as a verb on an informal chat thread with many recipients. The context of the data source and how words are used matters, and an advanced AI tool that leverages a combination of technologies can better understand that context.Using Advanced AI with TAROne common misconception regarding using newer, more advanced AI tools is that old workflows and models must go out the window. This is simply not true. While there may be some changes to review workflows due to the added efficiency generated by advanced AI tools (the ability to conduct privilege analysis simultaneously with responsive analysis, for example), attorneys can still use the traditional TAR 1.0 and TAR 2.0 workflows they are familiar with in combination with more advanced AI tools. Attorneys can still direct subject matter experts or reviewers to code documents, and the AI tool will learn from those decisions and predictive responsiveness, privilege, etc.The difference will be in the results. A more advanced AI tool’s predictions regarding privilege and responsiveness will be more accurate due to its ability to take nuance and context into consideration –leading to lower review costs and more accurate productions.ConclusionMany attorneys are still hesitant to move away from the older, AI eDiscovery tools they have used for the last decade. But today’s larger, more complicated datasets require more advanced AI tools. Attorneys who fear broadening their technology toolbox to include more advanced AI may find themselves struggling to stay within eDiscovery budgets, spending more time on finding and less time strategizing – and possibly even falling behind on their discovery obligations.But this fear and hesitancy can be overcome with education, transparency, and support from legal technology companies. Attorneys should look for the right technology partner who not only offers access to more advanced AI tools, but also provides implementation support and expert advisory services to help explain the technology and results to other stakeholders, opposing counsel, and judges.To learn more about the advantages of leveraging advanced AI within TAR workflows, download our white paper, “TAR + Advanced AI: The Future is Now.” And to discuss this topic more, feel free to connect with me at smoran@lighthouseglobal.com.ai-and-analytics; chat-and-collaboration-data; ediscovery-review; lighting-the-path-to-better-ediscoveryreview, ai-big-data, tar-predictive-coding, blog, ai-and-analytics, chat-and-collaboration-data, ediscovery-review,review; ai-big-data; tar-predictive-coding; blogai-analyticssarah moran

The theme at the last CLOC conference was all about how the legal function is going through a tremendous evolution. Businesses are changing rapidly through digital transformation and remote or hybrid work environments while trying to capture the attention of technology saturated consumers. To remain competitive, legal departments must evolve to handle new types of work and constantly advancing processes and technologies, and consider how the legal function impacts the broader organization. They need to do this while also showing that their own department is embracing change, staying up on technology, and becoming more efficient. To do this well, legal department heads and the lawyers and professionals in the department will have to learn, and practice, some new skills: embracing technology, project management, change management, and adaptability. Some good news—recent trends in the legal space are helping departments and professionals facilitate and adapt to these changes. The first is an uptick in legal technologies available to legal departments. Instead of adapting to whatever technology the business makes available to the department, there are technologies built by lawyers for running a legal department. This trend means that lawyers have already started down the path of being more technology-forward. Second, the advent of the legal operations role—putting business discipline and rigor around the functioning of the legal department— has brought more robust project management and change management into many law departments. With these foundational blocks in place, lawyers must evolve their skills to take their department to the next level.The first, and likely most obvious, skill an attorney needs in a rapidly evolving business environment is a firm grasp on existing and emerging technology. There are two important categories of technology to consider—the first is legal technology and the second is broader technology trends. Legal technology not only facilitates the day-to-day functioning of the legal department—with e-billing, contract management, and project intake and workflow software—but also includes more complex categories such as eDiscovery and data management. To learn more about these technologies you can attend CLEs about relevant technologies in your area of practice or attend a legal technology conference. Outside of the legal space, there are also many general technology trends that are important for lawyers to be immersed in, including digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and digital payments and cryptocurrency. Digital transformation is all about changing from a brick and mortar, paper-based business to one that strategically leverages technology, digital tools, and the cloud to do the work. This is important for lawyers because it impacts the way their organizations contract and manage these technologies. Migrating to the cloud also benefits lawyers because it provides new technologies to manage legal departments.[1] Like cloud, AI has the ability to transform how lawyers work (e.g., check out our recent blog post on utilizing chatbots) as well as how their companies work. For both AI and digital transformation, reading and watching videos for IT leaders can help—although made for a different audience, there are lots of resources out there and they can provide the information relevant to lawyers. Finally, the plethora of digital payment methods and the volatility of cryptocurrency will have legal impacts in the future and lawyers should learn to understand the differences.The next set of skills is about project execution and management. As businesses change through digital transformation, it is equally important to transform the way legal departments work. To do that, learning effective business case presentation, project management, and change management are incredibly valuable talents. While diving into a full 30-page business case can sometimes be necessary, focusing time on learning to create an executive summary business case is time better spent for lawyers. You can find resources and templates in many places, including SmartSheet and Asana.There is a whole discipline around project management as well as multiple ways to drive results most effectively. Whether you take an agile approach or a more traditional method, the following skills are necessary: Cross-functional collaboration, including understanding and empathy for other departments, and influencing othersCommunication, including how to communicate effectively with a remote team – a reality that is often the norm in today’s worldTime management and prioritizationLeadership – leading a team and inspiring a team, and keeping team members engaged and focused both in the same office or working remotelyFacilitating a learning mindset across the project and team – ensuring that people are looking out for ways to continuously improve, learning from each step of the project, and iterating on each phase of the projectA couple of good resources for developing these skills include PMI.org, and LinkedIn Learning courses such as Project Leadership, Project Management Foundations: Communication, and Project Management Tips. Note that this is a discipline that can take years to perfect so focus on getting familiar with the concepts and then look for ways to get real life experience in your business. The best way to master these skills is through practice.While project management focuses on the process where you create a change, change management is a separate set of skills focused on moving people through that change. There are two components of change management lawyers need to know. The first is how to manage their own reaction to change—being adaptable can bring a lot of value to a volatile world.[2] Professor Anne Converse Willkom of Drexel University provides some great ways to work on becoming more adaptable here. The second part of change management is helping others through change. This may be your team or it could be a team impacted by a project you are leading. Harvard Business Review has a whole category of writing dedicated to this area, highlighting the importance of leading through change.There is a lot of information and resources to move through so it’s important to prioritize the areas and skills that will impact your role now and as you move through your career. From there, identify the list of resources you want to access to master those areas then work it in to your schedule. It’s important to budget 2-4 hours a week, at minimum, building your skills in one of these areas. If that seems like a lot, keep in mind that it is only 5-10% of a standard work week.‍[1] You can find more information on what this change is in this article by CIO.[2] It is sometimes hard to judge adaptability because we tend to be surrounded by like-minded thinkers. As such, relying on a third party resource can help. There is a great Forbes article that shares the signs of an adaptable person. Evaluate yourself versus this list and work on areas where you may not be adaptable.ediscovery-review; legal-operationsediscovery-process, blog, project-management, ediscovery-review, legal-operationsediscovery-process; blog; project-managementlighthouse

Since the dawn of modern litigation, attorneys have grappled with finding the most efficient and strategic method of producing discovery. However, the shift to computers and electronically stored information (ESI) within organizations since the 1990s exponentially complicated that process. Rather than sifting through filing cabinets and boxes, litigation teams suddenly found themselves looking to technology to help them review and produce large volumes of ESI pulled from email accounts, hard drives, and more recently, cloud storage. In effect, because technology changed the way people communicated, the legal industry was forced to change its discovery process.The Rise of TARDue to growing data volumes in the mid-2000s, the process of large teams of attorneys looking at electronic documents one-by-one was becoming infeasible. Forward-thinking attorneys again looked to technology to help make the process more practical and efficient – specifically, to a subset of artificial intelligence (AI) technology called “machine learning” that could help predict the responsiveness of documents. This process of using machine learning to score a dataset according to the likelihood of responsiveness to minimize the amount of human review became known as technology assisted review (TAR).TAR proved invaluable because machine learning algorithms’ classification of documents enabled attorneys to prioritize important documents for human review and, in some cases, avoid reviewing large portions of documents. With the original form of TAR, a small number of highly trained subject matter experts review and code a randomly selected group of documents, which are then used to train the computer. Once trained, the computer can score all the documents in the dataset according to the likelihood of responsiveness. Using statistical measures, a cutoff point is determined, below which the remaining documents do not require human review because they are deemed statistically non-responsive to the discovery request.Eventually, a second iteration of TAR was developed. Known as TAR 2.0, this second iteration is based on the same supervised machine learning technology as the riginal TAR (now known as TAR 1.0) – but rather than the simple learning of TAR 1.0, TAR 2.0 utilizes a process to continuously learn from reviewer decisions. This eliminates the need for highly trained subject matter experts to train the system with a control set of documents at the outset of the matter. TAR 2.0 workflows can help sort and prioritize documents as reviewers code, constantly funneling the most responsive to the top for review.Modern Data ChallengesBut while both TAR 1.0 and TAR 2.0 are still widely used in eDiscovery today – the data landscape looks drastically different than it did when TAR first made its debut. Smartphones, social media applications, ephemeral messaging systems, and cloud-based collaboration platforms, for example, did not exist twenty years ago but are all commonly used within organizations for communication today. This new technology generates vast amounts of complicated data that, in turn, must be collected and analyzed during litigations and investigations.Aside from the new variety of data, the volume and velocity of modern data is also significantly different than it was twenty years ago. For instance, the amount of data generated, captured, copied, and consumed worldwide in 2010 was just two zettabytes. By 2020, that volume had grown to 64.2 zettabytes.[1]Despite this modern data revolution, litigation teams are still using the same machine learning technology to perform TAR as they did when it was first introduced over a decade ago – and that technology was already more than a decade old back then. TAR as it currently stands is not built for big data – the extremely large, varied, and complex modern datasets that attorneys must increasingly deal with when handling discovery requests. These simple AI systems cannot scale the way more advanced forms of AI can in order to tackle large datasets. They also lack the ability to take context, metadata, and modern language into account when making coding predictions. The snail pace of the evolution of TAR technology in the face of the lightning-fast evolution of modern data is quickly becoming a problem.The Future of TARThe solution to the challenge of modern data lies in updating TAR workflows to include a variety of more advanced AI technology, together with bringing on technology experts and linguistics to help wield them. To begin with, for TAR to remain effective in a modern data environment, it is necessary to incorporate tools that leverage more advanced subsets of AI, such as deep learning and natural language processing (NLP), into the TAR process. In contrast to simple machine learning (which can only analyze the text of a document), newer tools leveraging more advanced AI can analyze metadata, context, and even the sentiment of the language used within a document. Additionally, bringing in linguists and experienced technologists to expertly handle massive data volumes allows attorneys to focus on the actual substantive legal issues at hand, rather than attempting to become an eDiscovery Frankenstein (i.e., a lawyer + a data scientist + a technology expert + and a linguistic expert all rolled into one).This combination of advanced AI technology and expert service will enable litigation teams to reinvent data review to make it more feasible, effective, and manageable in a modern era. For example, because more advanced AI is capable of handling large data volumes and looking at documents from multiple dimensions, technology experts and attorneys can start working together to put a system in place to recycle data and past attorney work product from previous eDiscovery reviews. This type of “data reuse” can be especially helpful in tackling the traditionally more expensive and time-consuming aspects of eDiscovery reviews, like privilege and sensitive information identification and can also help remove large swaths of ROT (redundant, obsolete, or trivial data). When technology experts can leverage past data to train a more advanced AI tool, legal teams can immediately reduce the need for human review in the current case. In this way, this combination of advanced AI and expert service can reduce the endless “reinventing the wheel” that historically happens on each new matter.ConclusionThe same cycle that brought technology into the discovery process is again prompting a new change in eDiscovery. The way people communicate and the systems used to facilitate that communication at work are changing, and current TAR technology is not equipped to handle that change effectively. It’s time to start incorporating more modern AI technology and expert services into TAR workflows to make eDiscovery feasible in a modern era.To learn more about the advantages of leveraging advanced AI within TAR workflows, please download our white paper, entitled “TAR + Advanced AI: The Future is Now.” And to discuss this topic more, feel free to connect with me at smoran@lighthouseglobal.com. [1] “Volume of data/information created, captured, copied, and consumed worldwide from 2010 to 2025” https://www.statista.com/statistics/871513/worldwide-data-created/practical-applications-of-ai-in-ediscovery; ai-and-analytics; ediscovery-reviewai-big-data, tar-predictive-coding, ediscovery-process, prism, blog, data-reuse, ai-and-analytics, ediscovery-reviewai-big-data; tar-predictive-coding; ediscovery-process; prism; blog; data-reusesarah moran

Below is a copy of a featured article written by Jennifer Swanton of Medtronic, Shannon Capone Kirk of Ropes & Gray, and John Del Piero of Lighthouse for Legaltech News.This is the second article in a two-part series, designed to help create a better relationship between corporate attorneys and advanced technology. In our first article, we worked to demystify the language technology providers tend to use around AI and analytics technology.With the terminology now defined, we will now focus on six specific ways that corporate legal teams can put this type of technology to work in the eDiscovery and compliance space to improve cost, outcome, efficiencies.1. Document Review and Data Prioritization: The earliest example of how to maximize the value of analytics in eDiscovery was the introduction of TAR (technology-assisted review). CAL (or continuous active learning) allows counsel to see the most likely to be relevant documents much earlier on in the process than if they had been simply looking at search term results, which are not categorized or prioritized and are often overbroad. Plainly put, it is the difference between an organized review and a disorganized review.Data prioritization offers strategic value to the case team, enabling them to get to the crux of a case earlier in the process and ultimately develop a better strategic plan for cost and outcomes. This process also offers the ability to get to a point of review where the likelihood of additional relevant information is so low, no new review is needed. This will save time and money on large document review projects. Such prioritization is critical for time-sensitive internal investigations, as well.To dive further into the Pandora analogy we used above: if you were to listen to a random shuffle of songs on Pandora without giving feedback on what you like and don’t like, you’d likely listen for days to encounter several songs you love. Whereas, if you give Pandora feedback, it learns and you’re likely to hear several songs you love within hours. So why suffer days of listening to show tunes and harp solos when what you really love is the brilliant artistry found in songs by the likes of Ray LaMontagne?2. Custodian and Data Source Identification: Advanced analytics that can analyze complex concepts within data can be a powerful tool to clearly identify your relevant data custodians, where that data lives, and other data sources worth considering. Most conceptual analytics technology can now provide real-time visibility into information about custodians, including the date range of the data collected and the data types delivered. More advanced technology that also analyzes metadata can provide you with a deeper understanding of how custodians interact with other people, including the ability to analyze patterns in timing and speech, and even the sentiment and tone of those interactions.All of this information can be used to help quickly determine whether or not a prospective custodian has information relevant to the case that needs to be collected, or if any supplemental collections are required to close a gap in the date range collected. This, in turn, will help reduce the amount of collections required and minimize processing time in fast-paced cases. These tools also help determine which data sources are likely to hold your most relevant information and where supplemental collections may be warranted.Above: Brainspace display of communication networks, which enable users to identify custodians of interest, as well as related people and conversations.3. Identifying Privileged and Personal Information: Another powerful way to leverage analytics in the eDiscovery workflow is to identify privileged documents in a far more cost-effective way than we could in the past. New privilege categorization software creates significant efficiencies by analyzing the text, metadata, and previous coding of documents in order to categorize documents according to the likelihood that they are actually privileged.More advanced analytics tools can now identify documents that have been flagged as privileged by traditional privilege term screens, but have a high likelihood of not containing privileged communications. For example, the technology identifies that the document was sent to a third-party (thus breaking the privilege attorney-client privilege) or because the only privilege term within the document is contained within a boilerplate footer.These more advanced analytics tools can be much more effective at identifying privileged documents than a privilege search term list, and can help case teams successfully meet rolling production deadlines by pushing the documents that are less likely to be privileged (i.e. those that require less privilege review) to the front of the review line. When integrated with other eDiscovery applications, you can also create a defensible privilege log that can be produced for the litigation team.Additionally, flagging potential PII and protected intellectual property (IP) caught up in a large data set can be challenging, but analytics technology provides in-house legal teams with an important ally for automating those processes. Advanced analytics can streamline the process of locating and isolating this sensitive data, which is often hiding in a variety of different systems, folders, and other information silos. Tools allow you to flag Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protected information based on common format and structure to help quickly move through documents and accurately identify and redact needed information.4. Information Governance: One of the high-stakes elements of large data collections is the importance of parsing out highly sensitive records, such as those that contain PII and protected IP. This information is incredibly important to protect company data and also to comply with the growing number of data privacy regulations worldwide, including Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), and HIPAA. Analytics can help identify and flag documents per their appropriate document classification. This can be helpful for both the business in their day-to-day operations as well as the legal team in responding to requests.5. Data Re-Use: One of the largest potentials with the use of analytics is the ability to save time and money on your next matter. Technologically advanced companies are now starting to use analytics technology to integrate previous attorney work product, case information, and documents across all organization matters. On a micro level, recycling and analyzing previous work product allows companies to stop re-inventing the wheel on each case and aids in much faster identification of privilege, personal information, and non-responsive documents.For example, organizations often pay to store documents that contain previous privilege tagging from past matters in inactive or archived databases. Those documents, sitting unused in storage, can be separately re-ingested and used to train a privilege model in the new matter, allowing legal teams to immediately eliminate documents that were identified as privileged in previous reviews—even prior to any human coding in the new matter.On a macro level, this type of advanced capability enables organizations to make data-driven decisions across their entire eDiscovery landscape. Rather than looking at each new matter on an individual basis in a singular lens, legal teams can use advanced analytics to analyze previously coded data across the organization’s entire legal portfolio. This can provide previously unheard of insights, like which custodians often contain the most privileged documents matter over matter, or if a data source rarely produces responsive documents. Data re-use can also come in handy in portfolio matters that have overlapping custodians and data sets and need common production. The overall results are more strategic legal and data decisions, more favorable case outcomes, and increased cost efficiency.6. Accuracy: Finally, and potentially the most important reason to use analytics tools, is to increase accuracy and have a better work product. Studies have shown that tools like predictive coding are more accurate than human work product. That, coupled with the potential for cost savings, should be all one needs to utilize these technologies.As useful as these new analytics tools are to in-house legal teams in their efforts to manage eDiscovery today, it is important to understand that the great promise of these technologies is the fact that they are in a state of continuous improvement. Because analytics tools learn, they refine and “get smarter” as they review more data sets. We all know that we’re on just the cusp of what analytics will bring to our profession—but we believe the future of this technology in the area of eDiscovery management is here now.ai-and-analyticstar-predictive-coding, blog, corporate, ai, ai-and-analytics,tar-predictive-coding; blog; corporate; aijohn del piero

In this two-part series, I interview Gordon J. Calhoun, Esq. of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP about his thoughts on the state of eDiscovery within law firms today, including lessons learned and best practices to help attorneys overcome their trepidation of electronic discovery and build a better litigation practice. This second blog focuses on how attorneys within law firms can save their clients money, achieve better outcomes, and gain more repeat business once they overcome common misconceptions around eDiscovery.You mentioned earlier that you think attorneys who try to shoehorn volumes of electronic data into older workflows developed for paper discovery will likely cause attorneys to lose clients. Can you explain how? Sure. My point was that non-technological workflows often pop into the minds of attorneys because they are familiar, comfortable approaches to responding to document requests. Because they are familiar and can be initiated immediately, there is a great temptation to jump in and avoid planning and employing the expertise essential for an optimal workflow. Unfortunately, jumping in without much planning produces a result that is often unnecessarily costly to clients, particularly if the attorneys employ in-house resources (which are usually several times more costly than outsourced staff). In-house resources often regard document review and analysis as an undesirable assignment and have competing demands for their time from other projects and cases. This can result in unexpected delays in project completion and poor work product (in part because quality degrades when people are required to perform tasks they dislike). The end result is untimely, lower quality, and more costly than anticipated, which will ultimately cost the attorney their client.Clients will always gravitate towards the professional who can deliver a better, more cost-effective, and more efficient solution while avoiding motion expenses. That means that attorneys who are informed enough to use technology to save clients money on multiple cases are going to earn the trust and confidence of more and more clients. And that is the answer to the question as to what’s in it for the professional if he or she takes the time to learn about or partners with someone who already knows eDiscovery.Well, coming from a legal technology company, I agree with that sentiment. But we also tend to see attorneys from the other end of the spectrum: lawyers who understand the benefits advanced eDiscovery technology can provide, but avoid it because of fears around overhead expense and surprise fees. Have you seen this within your own practice? If so, how do you advise attorneys who may have similar feelings? I experience the same thing and, again, this type of thought process is completely understandable. When eDiscovery technologies were comparatively new, they seemed disproportionately expensive. The cost to process a GB of data could exceed $1,000, hosting charges ran into the many tens of dollars per month and there were no analytics to expedite review. When the project management service was in its infancy, too many of those providing services simply followed uninformed instructions from counsel. An instruction to process data was not met with inquiries as to whether all data collected should be processed or if an alternative should be explored when initial analysis indicated the data expansion would be unexpectedly large. Further, early case assessment (ECA) strategies utilizing only extracted text and metadata were years in the future. The only saving grace was that data volumes were miniscule compared to what they are today. But that was not enough to prevent widespread reports about massive eDiscovery vendor bills. As you might suspect, the problem was not so much the technology or even the lack thereof as it was the failure to spend the time to develop an appropriate workflow and manage the eDiscovery process so the results were cost effective. Any tips on how attorneys can overcome the remnant fear of eDiscovery “sticker shock”?This challenge can be met by research, planning, and negotiation: research into the optimal technologies and which providers are equipped to provide them, planning an appropriate workflow, and negotiation with eDiscovery platform providers to customize the offerings to the needs of your case. If you have the aptitude, consider investing some time and doing some research about eDiscovery solutions that provide predictable, transparent prices outside of the typical hourly and per-GB fee structure. A good eDiscovery platform provider should work with you to develop a fee arrangement that makes sense for your caseload and budget. There is no reason why even a small firm or individual practitioner cannot negotiate subscription-based or consumption-based fees for eDiscovery solutions the same way that forward thinking serial litigants like large corporations and insurers have. The pricing models exist and there is no reason they cannot be scaled for users with smaller demands. Under this type of arrangement, there will be no additional costs or surprise fees, which in turn will allow any practitioner to pass that price predictability on to his or her clients. Ultimately, this lower cost, increased predictability, and efficiency will enable an attorney to grow his or her book of business with repeat customers and referrals.So, if an attorney is able to negotiate an alternative fee arrangement with a legal technology provider, is that the end of the problem? Should that solve all an attorney’s eDiscovery concerns? It’s a start – but no. Even with a customized eDiscovery technology solution, part of the concern for most attorneys is the magnitude of the effort required to respond to discovery requests. On one hand, they’re faced with document requests fashioned by opposing counsel fearful of missing something that might be important unless they are massively overinclusive. They ask for each, every, and all documents and any form of electronic media that involves, concerns, or otherwise relates to 30, 50, 100, or more discrete topics. On the other hand, the attorney must reconcile this task of preserving, identifying, collecting, processing, analyzing, reviewing and producing ESI in a manner that complies with the applicable discovery laws or case specific discovery orders… all under what may be a modest budget approved by the client. This is where experience (or guidance from an experienced attorney), as well as a good eDiscovery technology provider can be a huge help. The principle that underlies a solution to the conundrum as to how to manage an overly broad discovery request with a limited budget is: proportionality. Emphasizing this principle is a major focus of the 2015 amendments to the FRCP. Got it. I think the logical follow up question to that answer is: how can attorneys attain “proportionality” in the face of ridiculous discovery requests (while also not exceeding the limited amount the client is prepared to spend)?The key to balancing these conflicting demands is insisting upon proportionality early and often. The principle needs to be addressed at a granular level with a robust understanding of the client’s data that will be the subject of opposing counsel’s discovery requests. For example, the number of custodians from whom data should be collected should not be a laundry list of everyone who might have knowledge about the issues in the case. Rather, counsel should be focused on the key players and how much data each has. The volume of data that counsel can afford to collect, process, analyze, review, and produce should depend largely on what the litigation budget is, which in turn should generally depend on the amount in controversy. There are exceptions to this rule of thumb, but this approach to proportionality needs to be raised during the initial meetings of counsel in advance of the first case management order. If the case is one where the general rule does not apply (e.g., a matter of public interest), the client should be informed immediately because the cost of litigation is likely to be disproportionate to its economic value and the client may prefer to have some other entity litigate the issue. An experienced attorney should be involved in this meet and confer process because the results of these early efforts are likely to create the foundation and guard rails for the remainder of the case. Any issues that are left to future negotiation create a potential for costs to balloon in unexpected ways. Can you dive a bit deeper into proportionality at different phases of the discovery process? Is there anything else attorneys can do to keep cost from ballooning before data is collected?As I alluded to a moment ago, one key to controlling scope and cost is to negotiate a limited number of custodians that is proportional to the value of the case. In larger cases, it will be appropriate to create tiers of custodians and limit progression into the lower tier custodians to those instances where opposing counsel make a good faith showing that additional discovery is necessary based on identifiable gaps of information rather than upon speculation about what might be found if more discovery is permitted. If opposing counsel doesn’t agree to a limited number of custodians or staging discovery in larger cases, counsel would be well advised to prepare a case management order or a protective order to keep the scope of discovery proportional to the value of the case. To be successful, an attorney and his or her technology provider will have to understand the data in the client’s possession and provide metrics and costs associated with the alternative approaches to discovery.Great advice. How about once data is collected and analysis has begun? How can attorneys keep costs within budget once they've got the data into an eDiscovery platform?Attorneys should continue to budget proportionally throughout the case. This budget will obviously include the activities identified by the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). The EDRM provides a roadmap to respond to opposing parties’ discovery requests: identifying those documents that are needed to make our case, regardless of whether opposing parties requested them; winnowing the documents identified to a subset for use in deposition preparation; drafting potentially dispositive motions; and preparing for mediation; and, if necessary, preparing for inclusion on the trial exhibit list. The EDRM was designed to help attorneys identify documents that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or relate to claims and defenses asserted in the case. In a case with 100,000 documents collected, that could easily be 10,000 to 15,000 documents. The documents considered for use in depositions, law and motion, or mediation will be a small fraction of that amount and will include a similar culling of those documents produced by other parties and third parties. Only a fraction of those will make it onto the trial exhibit list and fewer will be presented to the trier of fact.Responding to discovery and preparing the case for resolution are two very different tasks and the attorney’s budget must accommodate these two different activities. Monies must be reserved for other written discovery requests, both propounding them and responding to them, and for depositions. Because the per-GB prices for these activities are predictable, an attorney and technology provider should be able to readily determine how much information they can afford to collect and put into the eDiscovery workflow. Counsel needs to be ready to share this information with opposing parties during the early meetings of counsel. But what happens when there is just a legitimately large amount of data, even after applying all the proportionality tactics you described earlier? Counsel should only agree to look at more data than that to which the parties originally agreed if opposing counsel can show good cause to incur that time and expense. If more data needs to be analyzed, the only reliable way to avoid busting the budget is to use AI to build on the document classification that occurred during the initial round of eDiscovery activities. Counsel should take advantage of statistically defensible sampling to determine the prevalence of responsive documents in the data and cut off analysis and review when a defensible rate of recall has been achieved. The same technologies should be employed to identify documents that should not be produced, e.g., those that are privileged or contain trade secrets unrelated to the pending litigation or other data exempt from discovery – enabling counsel to reduce the amount of expensive attorney review required on a given case.By proactively managing eDiscovery proportionality and leveraging all the efficiency that modern eDiscovery platforms provide (either by developing the necessary expertise to do so or associating with an attorney who does) – any lawyer will be able to handle any discovery request in a cost-effective manner.You mentioned choosing a database and legal technology provider. Do you have any advice for attorneys on how to choose the best one to meet their needs?I won’t weigh in on specifics, but I will say this: do the necessary research or consult with someone who has. In addition to investigating the various technologies available, counsel must become familiar with a variety of pricing models for delivery of the technologies needed to respond to eDiscovery requests. Instead of treating every case as an a la carte proposition, consider moving to a subscription-based self-service eDiscovery platform solution. This allows counsel savvy with the technology to control his or her cases within the platform and manage costs in a much more granular way than is possible when using a full-service eDiscovery technology provider, without incurring additional licensing, hosting, and technology fees. With a self-service solution, a provider hosts the data within their own cloud (and thus takes on the data security, hosting, and technology fees), while counsels gain access to all the current versions of eDiscovery tools to help manage the client’s costs. It will also allow counsel to customize the platform and automate workflows to meet his or her own specific needs, so that no one is spending time and money re-inventing the wheel with every new case. A self-service solution also comes with the added benefit of being immediately available from any web browser and gives counsel the ability to transfer data into platform at the touch of a button. (This means that when a prospective client asks whether you have a solution to handle the eDiscovery component of a case, the answer will always be an immediate “yes”).What happens if counsel does not feel ready to take on all eDiscovery responsibilities in a “self-service” model?If counsel is not ready to take on full responsibility for managing the eDiscovery process but still wants the cost-savings of a self-service model, find a technology provider that offers project management services and guidance that will act as training wheels until counsel is ready to navigate the process without assistance. There are also service providers who offer flexible arrangements, where large matters can be handled by their full-service team while smaller matters or investigations can remain “self-service” and be handled directly by counsel.Those are great tips, Gordon – I couldn’t have said it better myself. Any last thoughts for attorneys related to discovery and leveraging eDiscovery technology? Thank you, it’s been a pleasure. As for last thoughts, I think it would be this: in 2021, no attorney should fear responding to eDiscovery requests. Attorneys who still have that fear need to start asking, “If the data exists electronically, can I use technology to extract what I need less expensively than if I put eyeballs on every document?” The answer is almost always, “Yes.” The next question those attorneys should ask is, “How do I go about extracting the information I need at the lowest possible cost?” The answer to that question may be unique to each attorney, and this is where I recommend doing some up-front research and preparation to identify the best technology solution before you are looking down the barrel at a tight discovery deadline.Ultimately, finding the right technology solution will enable you to meet every discovery request with confidence and ultimately grow your book of business. If you would like to discuss this topic further, please reach out to Casey at cvanveen@lighthouseglobal.com and/or Gordon Calhoun at Gordon.Calhoun@lewisbrisbois.com.ediscovery-review; ai-and-analyticsediscovery-process, blog, spectra, law-firm, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analyticsediscovery-process; blog; spectra; law-firmcasey van veen

Discovery in litigation or investigations invariably leads to concerns over protection of privileged information. With today’s often massive data volumes, locating email and documents that may contain legal advice or other confidential information between an attorney and client that may be privileged can be a needles-in-a-haystack exercise. There is little choice but to put forth best efforts to find the needles.Whether it’s dealing with thousands (or millions) of documents, emails, and other forms of electronically stored information, or just a scant few, identifying privileged information and creating a sufficient privilege log can be a challenge. Getting it right can be a headache — and an expensive one at that. But get it wrong and your side can face time-consuming and costly motion practice that doesn’t leave you on the winning end. A look at past mishaps may be enlightening as a reminder that this is a nuanced process that deserves serious attention.Which Entity Is Entitled to Privilege Protection?A strong grasp of what constitutes privileged content in a matter is important. Just as important? Knowing who the client is. It may seem obvious, but history suggests that sometimes it is not; especially when an in-house legal department or multiple entities are involved.Consider the case of Estate of Paterno v. NCAA. The court rejected Penn State’s claim of privilege over documents Louis Freeh’s law firm generated during an internal investigation. Why? Because Penn State wasn’t the firm’s client. The firm’s engagement letter said it was retained to represent the Special Investigations Task Force that Penn State formed after Pennsylvania charged Jerry Sandusky with several sex offenses. There was a distinct difference between the university and its task force.The lesson? Don’t overlook the most fundamental question of who the client is when considering privilege.The Trap of Over-Designating DocumentsWhat kind of content involving the defined client(s) is privileged? This can be a tough question. You can’t claim privilege for every email or document a lawyer’s name is on, especially for in-house counsel who usually serve both a business and legal function. A communication must be confidential and relate to legal advice in order to be considered privileged.Take Anderson v. Trustees of Dartmouth College as an example. In this matter, a student was expelled in a disciplinary action filed suit against Dartmouth. Dissatisfied with what discovery revealed, the student (representing himself) filed a motion to compel, asking the judge to conduct an in camera review of what Dartmouth had claimed was privileged information. The court found that much of the information being withheld for privilege did not, in fact, constitute legal advice, and that Dartmouth’s privilege claim exceeded privilege’s intended purpose.Dartmouth made a few other unfortunate mistakes. It labeled entire email threads privileged instead of redacting the specific parts identified as privileged. It also labeled every forwarded or cc’ed email the in-house counsel’s name was on as privileged without proving the attorney was acting as a legal advisor. To be sure, the ability to identify only the potentially privileged parts of an email thread — which could include any number of direct, forwarded and cc’d recipients and an abundance of inclusive yet non-privileged content — is not an easy task, but unfortunately, it is a necessary one.The lesson? If the goal of discovery is to get to the truth — foundational in American jurisprudence — courts are likely to construe privilege somewhat narrowly and allow more rather than fewer documents to see the light of day. In-house legal departments must be especially careful in their designations given the flow and volume of communications related to both business and legal matters, and sometimes the distinction is difficult to make.Be Ready to Back Up Your ClaimNo matter how careful you are during the discovery process, the other party might challenge your claim of privilege on some documents. “Because we said so” (aka ipse dixit) is not a compelling argument. In LPD New York, LLC v. adidas America, Inc, adidas claimed certain documents were privileged. When challenged, adidas’ response was to say LPD’s position wasn’t supported by law. The court said: Not good enough. Adidas had the burden to prove the attorney-client privilege applied and respond to LPD’s position in a meaningful way.The lesson? For businesses, be prepared to back up a privilege claim that an in-house lawyer was acting in their capacity as a legal advisor before claiming privilege.A Protection Not Used Often Enough: Rule 502(d)Mistakes do happen, however, and sometimes the other party receives information they shouldn’t through inadvertent disclosure. With the added protection of a FRE 502(d) order, legal teams are in a strong position to protect privileged information and will be in good shape to get that information back. Former United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, renowned in eDiscovery circles, is a well-known advocate of this order.The rule says, “A federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court — in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.”Without a 502(d) order in place, a mistake usually means having to go back and forth with your opponent, arguing the elements under 502(b). If you’re trying to claw back information, you have to spend time and money proving the disclosure was inadvertent, that you took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and you promptly took steps to rectify the error. It’s an argument you might not win.Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated is a good example. In 2018, Apple lost its attempt to claw back certain documents it mistakenly handed over to Qualcomm during discovery in a patent lawsuit. The judge found Apple didn’t meet the requirements of 502(b). Had Apple established a 502(d) order to begin with, 502(b) might not have come into play at all.The lesson? Consider Judge Peck’s admonition and get a 502(b) order to provide protection against an inadvertent privilege waiver.Advances in Privilege IdentificationLuckily, gone are the days where millions of documents have to be reviewed by hand (or eyes) alone. Technological tools and machine learning algorithms can take carefully constructed privilege instructions and find potentially privileged information with a high degree of accuracy, reducing the effort that lawyers must expend to make final privilege calls.Although automation doesn’t completely take away the need for eyes on the review process, the benefits of machine learning and advanced technology tools are invaluable during a high-stakes process that needs timely, accurate results. Buyer beware however, such methods require expertise to implement and rigorous attention to quality control and testing. When you’re able to accurately identify privileged information while reducing the stress of creating a privilege log that will hold up in court, you lessen the risk of a challenge. And if a challenge should come, you have the data to back up your claims.ai-and-analyticsprivilege, ai-big-data, blog, ai-and-analytics,privilege; ai-big-data; bloglighthouse

In this two-part series, I interview Gordon J. Calhoun, Esq. of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP about his thoughts on the state of eDiscovery within law firms today, including lessons learned and best practices to help attorneys overcome their trepidation of electronic discovery and build a better litigation practice. This first blog focuses on the history of eDiscovery and the logical reasons that attorneys may still try to avoid it, often to the detriment of their clients and their overall practice. IntroductionThe term “eDiscovery” (i.e., electronic discovery) was coined circa 2000 and received significant consideration by The Sedona Conference and others, well in advance of November 2006. That’s when the U.S. Supreme Court amended the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to include electronically stored information (ESI), which was widely recognized as categorically different from data printed on paper. The amendments specifically mandated that electronic communications (like email and chat) would have been preserved in anticipation of litigation and produced when relevant. In doing so, it codified concepts explored by Judge Shira Scheindlin’s groundbreaking Zubulake v. UBS Warburg decisions.By 2012, the exploding volumes of data led technologists assisting attorneys to employ various forms of artificial intelligence (AI) to allow analysis of data to be accomplished in blocks of time that were still affordable to litigants. The use of predictive coding and other forms of technology-assisted review (TAR) of ESI became recognized in U.S. courts. By 2013 updates to the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct officially required attorneys to stay current on “the benefits and risks” of developing technologies. By 2015, the FRCP was amended again to help limit eDiscovery scope to what is relevant to the claims and defenses asserted by the parties and “proportional to the needs of the case,” as well as to normalize judicial treatments of spoliation and related sanctions associated with ESI evidence. In the same year, California issued a formal ethics opinion obligating attorneys practicing in California to stay current with ever changing eDiscovery technologies and workflows in order to comply with their ethical obligation of competently providing legal services.In the 15 years that have passed since those first FRCP amendments designed to deal with the unique characteristics of ESI, we’ve seen revolutionary changes in the way people communicate electronically within organizations, as well as explosive growth in the volume and variety of data types as we have entered the era of Big Data. From the rise of email, social media, and chat as dominant forms of interpersonal communication, to organizations moving their data to the Cloud, to an explosion of ever-changing new data sources (smart devices, iPhones, collaboration tools, etc.) – the volume and variety of which makes understanding eDiscovery’s role in litigation more important than ever.And yet, despite more than 20 years of exposure, the challenges of eDiscovery (including managing new data forms, understanding eDiscovery technology, and adhering to federal and state eDiscovery standards) continue to generate angst for most practitioners.So why, in 2021, are smart, sophisticated lawyers still uncomfortable addressing eDiscovery demands and responding to them? To find out, I went to one of the leading experts in eDiscovery today, Gordon J. Calhoun, Esq. of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Mr. Calhoun has over 40 years of experience in litigation and counseling, and he currently serves as Chair of the firm’s Electronic Discovery, Information Management & Compliance Practice. Over the years he has found creative solutions to eDiscovery challenges, like having a court enter a case management order requiring all 42 parties in a complex construction defect case to use a single technology provider, which dropped the technology costs to less than 2.5% of what they would have been had each party employed its own vendor. In another case (which did not involve privileged communications), he was able to use predictive coding to rank 600,000 documents and place them into tranches from which samples were drawn to determine which tranches could be produced without further review. It was ultimately determined that about 35,000 documents would not have to be reviewed after having put eyes on fewer than 10,000 of the original 600,000.I sat down with Mr. Calhoun to discuss his practice, his views of the legal and eDiscovery industries, and to try to get to the bottom of how attorneys can master the challenges posed by eDiscovery without having to devote the time needed to become an expert in the field.Let’s get right down to it. With all the helpful eDiscovery technology that has evolved in the market over the last 10 years, why do you think eDiscovery still poses such a challenge for attorneys today? Well, right off the bat, I think you’re missing the mark a bit by focusing your inquiry solely around eDiscovery technology. The issue for many attorneys facing an eDiscovery challenge today is not “what is the best eDiscovery technology?” – because many attorneys don’t believe any eDiscovery technology is the best “solution.” Many believe it is the problem. No technology, regardless of its efficacy, can provides value if it is not used. The issue is more fundamental. It’s not about the technology, it is about the fear of the technology, the fear of not being able to use it as effectively as competitors, and the fear of incurring unnecessary costs while blowing budgets and alienating clients.Practitioners fear eDiscovery will become a time and money drain, and attorneys fear that those issues can ultimately cost them clients. Technology may, in fact, be able to solve many of their problems – but most attorneys are not living and breathing eDiscovery on a day-to-day basis (and, frankly, don’t want to). For a variety of reasons, most attorneys don’t or can’t make time to research and learn about new technologies even when they’re faced with a discovery challenge. Even attorneys who do have the inclination and aptitude to deal with the mathematics and statistical requirements of a well-planned workflow, who understand how databases work, and who are unfazed by algorithms and other forms of AI, often don’t make the time to evaluate new technology because their plates are already full providing other services needed by their clients. And most attorneys became lawyers because they had little interest in mathematics, statistics, and other sciences, so they don’t believe they have the aptitude necessary to deal with eDiscovery (which isn’t really true). This means that when they’re facing gigabytes or even terabytes of data that have to be analyzed in a matter of weeks, they often panic. Many lawyers look for a way to make the problem go away. Sometimes they agree with opposing counsel not to exchange electronic data; other times they try to bury the problem with a settlement. Neither approach serves the client, who is entitled to an expeditious, cost effective, and just resolution of the litigation. Can you talk more about the service clients are entitled to, from an eDiscovery perspective? By that, I mean – can you explain the legal rules, regulations, and obligations that are implicated by eDiscovery, and how those may impact an attorney facing an electronic discovery request? Sure. Under Rule 1 of the FRCP and the laws of most, if not all, states, clients are entitled to a just resolution of the litigation. And ignoring most of the electronic evidence about a dispute because a lawyer finds dealing with it to be problematic rarely affords a client a just result. In many cases, the price the client pays for counsel’s ignorance is a surcharge to terminate the litigation. And, counsel’s desire to avoid the challenge of eDiscovery very often amounts to a breach of the ethical duty to provide competent legal services.The ABA Model Rules (as well as the ethical rules and opinions in the majority of states) also address the issue. The Model Rules offer a practitioner three alternatives when undertaking to represent a client in a case that involves ESI (which almost every case does). To meet his or her ethical obligation to provide competent legal services, the practitioner can: (1) become an expert in eDiscovery matters; (2) team up with an attorney or consultant who has the expertise; or (3) decline the engagement. Because comparatively few attorneys have the aptitude to become eDiscovery experts and no one who wants to practice law can do so by turning down virtually all potential engagements, the only practical solution for most practitioners is finding an eDiscovery buddy.In the end, I think attorneys are just looking for ways to make their lives (and thereby their clients’ lives) easier and they see eDiscovery as threatening to make their lives much harder. Fortunately, that doesn’t have to be the case.So, it sounds like you’re saying that despite the fact that it may cost them clients, there are sophisticated attorneys out there that are still eschewing legal technology and responding to discovery requests the way they did when most discovery requests involved paper documents? Absolutely there are. And I can empathize with their thought process, which is usually something along the lines of “I don’t understand eDiscovery technology and I’m facing a tight discovery deadline. I do know how to create PDFs from scanned copies of paper documents and redact them, if necessary. I’m just going to use the method I know and trust.” While this is an understandable way to think, it will immediately impose on clients the cost of inefficient litigation and settlements or judgments that could have been reduced or avoided if only the evidence had been gathered. Ultimately, when the clients recognize that their counsel’s fear of eDiscovery is imposing a cost on them, that attorney will lose the client. In other words, counsel who refuse to delve into ESI because it is hard is similar to a person who lost car keys in a dark alley but insists on only looking under the streetlight because it is easier and safer than looking in the dark alley.That’s such a great analogy. Do you have any real-world examples that may help folks understand the plight of an attorney who is basically trying to ignore ESI?Sure. Here’s a great example: Years ago, my good friend and partner told me he would retire without ever having to learn about eDiscovery. My partner is a very successful attorney with a great aptitude for putting clients at ease. But about a week after expressing that thought, he came to me with 13 five-inch three-ring binders. He wanted help finding contract paralegals or attorneys to prepare a privilege log listing all the documents in the binders. An arbitrator had ordered that if he did not have a privilege log done in a week, his expert would not be able to testify. His “solution” was to rent or buy a bunch of dictating machines and have the reviewers dictate the information about the documents and pay word processers overtime to transcribe the dictation into a privilege log. I asked what was in the binders. Every document was an email thread and many had families. My partner had received the data as a load file, but he had the duplications department print the contents rather than put them into a review platform. Fortunately, the CD on which the data was delivered was still in the file.I can tell this story now because he has since turned into quite the eDiscovery evangelist, but that is exactly the type of situation I’m referring to: smart, sophisticated attorneys who are just trying to meet a deadline and stay within budget will do whatever takes to get the documents or other deliverable (e.g., a privilege log) out the door. And without the proper training, unfortunately, the solution is to throw more bodies at the problem – which invariably ends up being more costly than using technology properly.Can you dive a bit deeper there? Explain how performing discovery the old-fashioned way on a small case like that would cost more money than performing it via a dedicated eDiscovery technology.Well, let me finish my story and then we’ll compare the cost of using 20th and 21st Century technologies to accomplish the same task. As I said, when I agreed to help my partner meet his deadline, I discovered all the notebooks were filled with printed copies of email threads and attachments. My partner received a load file with fewer than 2 GBs and gave it to the duplications department with instructions to print the data so he could read it. We gave the disk to an eDiscovery provider, and they created a spreadsheet using the email header metadata to populate the log information about who the record was from, who it was to, who was copied, whether in the clear or blind, when it was created, what subject was addressed, etc. A column was added for the privilege(s) associated with the documents. Those before a certain date were attorney-client only. Those after litigation became foreseeable were attorney-client and work product. That made populating the privilege column a snap once the documents were chronologically arranged. The cost to generate the spreadsheet was a few hundred dollars. Three in-house paralegals were able to QC, proofread, and finalize the log in less than three days for a cost of about $2,000.Had we done it the old-fashioned way, my partner was looking at having 25 or 30 people dictating for five days. If the reviewers were all outsourced, the cost would have been $12,000 to $15,000. He planned to use a mix of in-house and contract personnel - so, the cost would have been 30% to 50% higher. The transcription process would have added another $10,000. The cost of copying the resulting privilege log that would have been about 500 pages long with 10 entries per page for the four parties and arbitrator would have been about $300. So even 10 years ago, the cost of doing things the old-fashioned way would have been about $35,000. The technology-assisted solution was about $2,500. Stay tuned for the second blog in this series, where we delve deeper into how attorneys can save their clients money, achieve better outcomes, and gain more repeat business once they overcome common misconceptions around eDiscovery technology and costs. If you would like to discuss this topic further, please reach out to Casey at cvanveen@lighthouseglobal.com and Gordon at Gordon.Calhoun@lewisbrisbois.com.ediscovery-review; ai-and-analyticsediscovery-process, blog, spectra, law-firm, ediscovery-review, ai-and-analyticsediscovery-process; blog; spectra; law-firmcasey van veen

You know that cleaning out the garage is a good idea. You would have more storage space and would even be able to put the car into the garage, which is better for security, for keeping it clean, and for ensuring an easy start on a frozen winter morning. Even if you don’t have a garage, you likely have an equivalent example such as a loft or that cupboard in the kitchen, yet somehow these tasks are often put off and rarely top of the “to do” list. Information governance often falls in this category; a great idea that struggles to make it to the top ahead of competing corporate priorities.For both the garage and information governance, the issue is the creation of a compelling business case. For the garage, the arrival of a new car or a spate of car thefts in the area is enough to push this task to the front. For information governance, the business case might be that a company is enlightened enough to realize that its data is an under-utilized asset or it might be a question of time and effort being wasted in the struggle to find the information when needed. However, these positive drivers might not be enough. Sometimes you need to look at the risk if nothing is done.In our view, building a strong business case for information governance will be a laconic combination of both the carrot and the stick. This blog will focus on the stick because that is often the hardest factor to spell out in clear terms. We will take you on a journey through the GDPR fines that have been levied since it came into force in May 2018, show how European regulators see information governance as an essential element of a companies’ data protection obligations, and give you the necessary background to prepare your business case.Why address information governance now? It is worth just pausing to ensure we are all talking about the same thing, so let’s define information governance. You can see Gartner’s definition here. For our purposes, we can talk in simpler terms and define information governance as “the people, processes, and technology involved in seeking to ensure the effective and efficient creation, storage, use, retention, and deletion of information.”Now, let’s turn to the GDPR. The total of fines under the GDPR, since it came into force in May 2018, approaches €300m. The big fines usually relate to processing personal data without good reason or consent (e.g. Google - €50m), or for inadequate security leading to data breaches (e.g. British Airways - £20m). As a result, many organizations prioritize this type of work.However, after a thorough trawl, we see a growing body of decisions where fines have been imposed by regulators for information governance failures. In our view, the top 5 reported “information governance” fines are:€15m Deutsche Wohnen (Berlin DPA) – set aside on procedural grounds​€2.25m Carrefour (France)​€290,000 HUF (Hungary)​€250,000 Spartoo (France)​€160,000 Taxa4x35 (Denmark)​GDPR fines, in detailThe largest fine is the Deutsche Wohnen matter. In 2017, the Berlin Data Protection Authority (DPA) investigated Deutsche Wohnen and found its data protection policies to be inadequate. Specifically, personal data was being stored without a necessary reason and some of it was being retained longer than necessary. In 2019, the DPA conducted a follow-up investigation and found these issues were not sufficiently remedied and thus issued a fine of €15m. The Berlin DPA explained that Deutsche Wohnen could have readily complied by implementing an archiving system which separates data with different retention periods thereby allowing differentiated deletion periods, as such solutions are commercially available. In February 2021, Criminal Chamber 26 of the District Court of Berlin closed the proceedings on the basis the decision was invalid and not sufficiently substantiated. The Berlin DPA had not specified the acts by the management of the company that supposedly led to a violation of the GDPR. The Berlin DPA has announced it would ask the public prosecutor to file an appeal.​ It would be a mistake to interpret the nullification of the fine as evidence that information governance / data retention is not an important issue for DPAs. Such an interpretation would be ignoring that fact that there is no criticism as to the substance of the findings made by the Berlin DPA in relation to Deutsche Wohnen’s approach to data retention.Holding data without necessary purpose or not actively deleting data has been a theme of fines by other DPAs as well. In Denmark, the Data Protection Authority recommended fines for similar inadequacies as follows:1.2m DKK (€160,000) on Taxa4x35. A DPA inspection discovered that although customer names were deleted after 2 years, their telephone numbers remained for 5 (as a key field in the CRM database)1.1m DKK (€150,000) on Arp-Hansen Hotel Group. Personal data was being stored longer than was necessary and in breach of Arp-Hansen’s own retention policies​1.5m DKK (€200,000) on ID Design. A routine DPA inspection revealed old customer data not being adequately deleted.​ Although, like Deutsche Wohnen, this fine was subsequently reduced on technical grounds, the commentary on the corporate information governance policies still holds.In France, three fines have been imposed relating to the holding customer data well past what the regulators deemed necessary:In the Carrefour​ matter, there was a fine of €2.25m​ for various infringements including that Carrefour had retained the data of more than 28 million inactive customers, through its customer loyalty programme, for an excessive period.In SERGIC​, there was a fine of €400,000​ for various infringements including that SERGIC had stored the documents of unsuccessful rental candidates beyond the necessary time to achieve the purpose for which the data was collected and processed​.In Spartoo​, there was a fine of €250,000​ for reasons including that Spartoo retained data for longer than was necessary for more than 3 million customers​. In Spartoo, the regulators also called out that the company had not set up a retention period for customer and prospect data​, did not regularly erase personal data​, and retained names and passwords in a non-anonymised form for over 5 years​.Although the authorities in France and Denmark have been the most active, they are not alone. In Hungary, HUF​ was issued with a fine of approximately €290,000​ based on the absence of a retention policy for a database containing personal data. And in Germany, Delivery Hero failed to delete accounts of former customers who had not been active on the company’s delivery service platform for years ​and was fined €195,000.Other authorities may not yet have imposed fines, but their attention is turning in the direction of information governance. A number of DPAs have issued guidance, the scope of which includes data retention (e.g. the Irish DPA, in Sept 2020, on how long COVID contact details should be retained; the French DPA, in October 2020, on how long union-member files should be retained)​.How to get started on your business caseThere is a genuine threat to companies stalling in relation to information governance, particularly around personal data. The decisions to date represent a small percentage of the activity in this area, as many of the violations are dealt with by regulators directly. We don’t know what, if any, settlements have been agreed upon, but the decisions that we have located are helpful and instructive for building the business case for prioritizing this work.The first thing to do is create an internal overview for why this area matters – use the above to show that there is risk and that regulators are paying attention. Hopefully, our overview will help you to identify the size of the stick. As to the carrot, that will be very company-specific, but our clients who have successfully made the case focus on the efficiency gains that can be made if information is properly governed as well as the opportunity to mine more effectively their own information for its real business value. Next, take a look at your policies and areas that may require adjustment based on the above in order to gain some insight into the scale of the activity. Now your business case should be taking shape. You might also consider looking wider than the GDPR, such as the increasing number of state data protection frameworks within the US.We recognize this process is an oversimplification and each step requires a significant time investment by your organization, but spending time focusing on the necessity of retaining personal data, as well as the length of retention (and subsequent deletion), are critical elements in minimizing your risk.information-governancedata-privacy, blog, record-management, information-governance,data-privacy; blog; record-managementlighthouse