Masters Conference 2012 – Washington, DC

Posted by Joe Alonzo – Director of eDiscovery/Computer Forensics at Glenmont Group

I recently attended the Masters Conference in DC and rubbed elbows with several of the brightest minds in our industry.   In DC, the focus was on Information Convergence and creating Synergy between Compliance, Discovery and Security.  If you have not been fortunate enough to attend the Masters Conference, I highly suggest you put it on your calendar for an upcoming event. Unlike many of the large vendor driven conferences, Masters Conference focuses on several current and relevant topics, a specialized and small vendor presence and top-notch eDiscovery, Compliance and Forensic professionals.

Aside from networking with high-caliber industry people, I found the biggest benefit to be absorbing firsthand experience and knowledge from professionals in the field.   This was an added bonus when helping my candidates with topics on career advancement.

I am constantly asked by candidates what we are seeing in the marketplace.  My answer is consistent: The legal technology market has always been very strong regarding the hiring of top talent.  The need for ESI sales people, litigation support professionals and forensic collections folks is always there.  The difference is, in the past ten to twelve months the need for higher level professionals has risen drastically.  Glenmont Group has been and is currently involved in several SVP, EVP, C-level and a few capital transaction deals.   Money is being spent to hire people other than pure revenue producing streams.  The hiring of management, high level project management and marketing is on the rise.

The Masters is set up for six shows in 2013 in cities like Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, New York and a few others.    Get to an event; it is great for your career.

Technology-Assisted Review: Four Key Questions

Guest Blog by Joe Garber, Vice President of Marketing at RenewData

There’s no question that Technology-Assisted Review is a hot topic in eDiscovery circles right now. A quick Google search certainly confirms that premise, and reinforces that organizations are increasingly looking for defensible, cost-saving measures to apply to the most expensive aspect of eDiscovery.  However, what’s equally evident is that there isn’t a commonly accepted understanding of what this term actually means and, as a result, the need for market education is clear and widespread.  Over the summer, my team and I have traveled from city to city across the U.S. to discuss these important issues with industry peers.  During these highly interactive sessions, we routinely find ourselves addressing a handful of questions.  I have identified four of the most frequent questions we are asked, as well as the “consensus conclusion” achieved among these groups.

What is Technology-Assisted Review and Why Should I Care?

Consensus conclusion: Technology-Assisted Review was borne out of organizations’ desires to control cost in the portion of eDiscovery (review) that generally accounts for roughly 75% of their total spend.  It is unlike traditional linear review that is highly manual and involves the interplay of humans and computers – often overlaying a variety of technological approaches such as keyword search, clustering, relevance ranking, and sampling – to vastly expedite the review process.  Technology-Assisted Review has been proven to save up to 80% of total cost versus linear review, which can add up to millions of dollars for even a single matter.

Are all Technology-Assisted Review Solutions the Same?

Consensus conclusion:  No.  Today, there are two broad categories of Technology-Assisted Review – one that leverages artificial intelligence and another that relies on a human’s understanding of language to identify potentially relevant data in a document collection.  The artificial intelligence-based approach provides quick insight into the matter and may require less oversight from senior attorneys, but there can be a “blind spot” in this process.  A few years ago, the common practice was to review as few as 500 documents as a “seed set” in order to train the system on what to look for within the collection. But with data volumes increasing and better education on semantic patterns, a best practice is now to build a seed set of approximately 10,000 documents.  Alternatively, the language-based approach makes document coding decisions based on the specific language contained within each document.  This process is easier to understand and explain to all parties than its artificial intelligence cousin (can you explain the inner-workings of Latent Semantic Indexing?), provides more transparency into the coding decisions and makes it easier to audit reviewers in real time, and creates a reusable work product that can provide even greater efficiencies in the future.

Does Case Law Support the Use of Technology-Assisted Review?

Consensus conclusion:  Case law is quickly emerging to support the use of both categories of Technology-Assisted Review.  Two specific cases, from highly respected districts, are particularly notable: Judge Peck’s February 24^th order in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group,No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP)(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), and Kleen Products v. Packaging Corporation of America, Case No. 10 C 5711 (N.D. Ill. April 8, 2011). In Da Silva, Judge Peck specifically holds that “(Technology)-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.”  While Judge Peck comments on a matter that involves the artificial intelligence approach in this particular case, the general principles he highlights – leveraging technology to expedite review, focusing on quality, and sampling to ensure reasonable results – support both approaches.  In Kleen, Judge Nolan held for the producing party’s use of a language-based approach for a number of reasons but specifically because their approach has been embraced by the court system for years.

How Do I Choose the Right Alternative?

Consensus conclusion:  It depends.  There is a whole spectrum of review acceleration solutions available in the market, and choosing the right one (or often a combination of them) depends on your company’s litigation profile, your data set, and the time, cost and risk sensitivities of each unique matter.  The artificial intelligence-based approach to Technology-Assisted Review often has two elements that are in play: the need to arrive at quick decisions early on in the litigation, and enough time is available to read up to 10,000 documents for a seed set.  The language-based approach is most appealing when transparency and reviewer auditability are of paramount concern, and when an organization wants to incorporate this approach as a regular business practice.  Be cautious of tying your success to a single technology platform because each matter is unique and each may require a slightly different methodology to achieve optimal results.  If you need help on compiling the right solution, take the time to find an expert, because the cost and risk of making a mistake in eDiscovery can be severe.

To learn more about review acceleration, and the two key alternatives to Technology-Assisted Review, an excellent white paper written by Enterprise Strategy Group is available here.

About the Author

Joe Garber is Vice President of Marketing for RenewData.  During his 18-year career, he has served as Director of Market Strategy for Autonomy (an HP company), a management consultant for IBM, led marketing and product management for a variety of successful technology startups, and served as a press secretary for a U.S. Senator.  He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Pepperdine University and a Master’s of Business Administration (MBA) from Cornell University, where he received the prestigious Park Leadership Fellow award for “demonstrated leadership and academic excellence.”

Advancing Your Career in Litigation Support

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

Litigation support is one of the best industries to be in. At the right firm, litigation support can have a very clear career trajectory, and a relatively high level of stability. The top-level employees at AMLAW 100 firms can reach well into the 200k range plus the best benefits in the job market and a long list of other perks traditionally found in the corporate environment. Over the course of the last year I have spent countless hours speaking to litigation support professionals across the USA. What I have found is that the majority of people in this industry take one of the following two paths.

The first group of litigation support professionals I will describe are very likely to have had an interest in the space early on in their career. These are people who may have pursued a major related to the industry in college, or may have spent time in law school before inevitably realizing that they did not want to practice. The typical trajectory we find here begins with an entry-level role like legal assistant or data processing before advancing to an analyst level, to specialist, to coordinator, to project management and on to litigation support manager later in their career (please note that the titles listed in the previous statement may be interchangeable from one firm to the next).

The second most common career trajectory takes a very different route. This group is less likely to have planned on basing their career within the litigation support space, but instead ended up here due to a specific need for their skillset. Now more than ever, I am seeing IT majors begin their career in the technical support departments of big law firms. Those that take this route learn the relevant technology through maintenance of review platforms and databases, then segue to a more operational role where their superior knowledge of the technical landscape can be applied in a more effective manner.

Regardless of which road one takes on their way to becoming a professional within our industry, it will take time and effort to rise to the top. That being said, we do see some candidates rise to the upper echelon much faster than others. In order to separate yourself from the rest of your peers it is important to have some sort of competitive advantage. I see the strongest advantages in candidates who have a well-rounded understanding of the subject matter relevant to their role, with an additional specialty that helps to distinguish themselves from their peers. This specialty can come in the form of trial experience, ability to speak various languages, knowledge of a specific technology, etc.

One must also consider the value of making calculated, strategic moves. It is very important to be sure-footed in one’s consideration of new opportunities because not every new position warrants consideration. Here at the Glenmont Group, we provide expert advice on open positions within the space. Speaking with a recruiter can offer tremendous value because we see the strengths and weaknesses of the top organizations from a bird’s eye view. We are constantly helping candidates find new opportunities, and in doing so – we see which firms people stay at for extended periods of time, which one’s cannot retain talent, and which firms offer the best opportunity for growth. Helping candidates make the right move at the right time is what our business is founded on. In many cases a new role can help one advance in title faster than they would by remaining in one role for many years, offer a 10-15% increase in compensation, and help reinstill passion in the subject matter by offering analysis from a different viewpoint.

When one stands back and takes a look at the litigation support space on a macro level, the benefits of a career within the space truly stand out amongst the many different industries which compose our economy. Whether you take the traditional route into litigation support, or you find yourself in the space via another avenue, the potential to earn a successful living is very high. Remember that learning a specific skill in addition to a foundation of the best practices and procedures within the industry can truly set you apart from the pack. Finally, when the right opportunity presents itself, be ready to seize the moment and proceed accordingly!

The Opportunity you ALMOST Overlooked!

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

Have you ever had the feeling that things just aren’t quite right at work? Perhaps your commission plan has been reduced, your favorite manager has just left, or you simply feel that you are not getting the recognition that you deserve. So, you arrive at the conclusion that it is now time to possibly make a move. Whether you decide to embark on this journey alone or using a recruiter it can be a daunting task.

As the job search begins, one often looks toward the most visible organizations within his or her competitive landscape. These organizations are likely to be cash healthy, mature, and stable in nature. Although these organizations have generated a certain allure amongst your peers, a question emerges. Is this company right for me?

I am a recruiter at the Glenmont Group, specializing in the eDiscovery space. Throughout the progression of my career within recruiting I have developed a relatively unbiased overview of the talent that composes the industry, and where these skillsets are most likely to thrive. Upon finding a strong candidate that is actively seeking new opportunities I am often compelled to begin by asking the candidate if there are any organizations that have attracted their attention. I often notice that the candidate has narrowed the realm of possibilities by pigeon-holing themselves to one specific type of organization. For example, a candidate may say they are looking for a company that provides the opportunity to influence high level technology decisions and then mention the largest player in the space. The problem here is that although this “big player” is thriving, their size prohibits candidates of this level from accessing the proposed level of decision making. Here at Glenmont Group, we have been trained to take a consultative approach and recommend a smaller organization that affords any employee the opportunity to have the ear of their CEO. For some candidates it may be more valuable to be a big fish in a small pond.

After taking the information provided above into consideration one must understand that it can be difficult to notice the best option for them due to the fact that their opinion is intrinsically biased. Of course, this is not always the case, but there is great value to be achieved through an outside opinion. I have worked with many candidates that have initially overlooked a certain organization only to find that it was the best option for them. Finding a new opportunity is never an easy task which is why it is important to utilize all of the tools that are available, especially services that are free of charge!

 

Pick A Card Group, Any Card Group

Posted by Joe Alonzo, Director of eDiscovery/Computer Forensics at Glenmont Group

ILTA, ARMA, AIIM, ALSP, ECALSM, bDiscovery…the list goes on.   You may have asked yourself, “Which one is for me?”, or “Do I even need to get involved in something like this?”. The short answer is yes, definitely! Get involved and find an association that is closely aligned with your long term career goals.

There are many benefits of joining industry associations, but I think the biggest overall benefit is education and keeping up with the latest technologies and industry trends.  Depending on your involvement with an industry association, it may take up a small amount of your time, but the long term benefit will likely be worth it.  This is a fast paced, evolving industry and the people with a deeper breadth of knowledge are the ones who make it farther in their careers.

Look at Judge Peck’s decision on predictive coding, for example.  This has been one of the most widely discussed topics in the recent past, but the people who took a deep dive into this case and understand the workflow on predictive coding, or understand the true differences between predictive coding and TAR are getting the higher salaries when it comes time for an offer.

I recently co-founded the NY Chapter of the ALSP and have put together a high caliber steering committee.  Our overall goal is to serve as an advocate for the development of global professional standards for the litigation support profession through collaboration, education and certification. We provide a platform where professionals from the space can come together and collaborate on ideas, gain insight on career development and network with likeminded individuals. Aside from partnering with ACEDS, we are in talks with the CLE Board to offer credits for area attorneys at upcoming events.

Whichever industry association you decide is best for you, make sure are getting as much out of it as you put into it.

Have a great weekend! Please contact me with any questions.

-Joe
joe.alonzo@glenmontgroup.com

Going Mobile?

Posted By Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

“There were 5 Exabyte’s of information created between the dawn of civilization through 2003,” Eric Schmidt said (CEO of Google), “but that much information is now created every 2 days, and the pace is increasing.” As these vast quantities of data continue to multiply exponentially, the demand for information governance grows in direct correlation. Organizations that are tasked with processing this information through eDiscovery practices are becoming inundated with terabytes of data, and the increase in data creates a need for more time to effectively deal with this data. So the question emerges, how can eDiscovery organizations create more time to manage their data?

One trend that has emerged amongst top competitors within the eDiscovery industry is the concept of making their data accessible via mobile platforms such as iPhone, Blackberry, Droid etcetera. Let me fist explain that this process may be more complicated than one may expect at a glance. The fact emerges that providing mobile access to sensitive data requires a strategy that will ensure that the data is kept secure while being easily accessible to the organization’s relevant employees. Any firm that is planning to make the transition toward mobile accessibility must decide how much access to grant to each level of authorization and how to protect these levels by a series of passwords.

A recent article by Mark Gerow (Director of Aapplications and Business Process at Fenwick & West) that was featured in last month’s issue of LTN, summarized the steps his team took in order to bring their firm’s information base to the mobile platform. Mark spent a great deal of time deciding which method would be best. At first, they had contemplated creating an app, but this was quickly ruled out due to compatibility issues across the various cell phone service providers. It quickly became clear that a web-based approach would be best, as it would allow the information to transcend the boundaries of the typical iPhone application. The information was then password protected on different levels on a need-to-know basis, as suggested above. Mark has successfully brought his firm’s stored data to the mobile platform at a low cost by using his firms existing infrastructure in a new way. In conclusion, one of many effective ways to create more time is too provide employees with mobile access to important documents via a secure and protected web-based solutions.

Ediscovery New Zealand Style

Posted by Kate Potters, COO, Glenmont Group

As I’m preparing to go on vacation to visit my daughter in New Zealand, eDiscovery is not on the top of my mind. However, discovery is a global issue and New Zealand is no different. Although less litigious than the U.S. or Europe, this island country implemented new discovery rules in February in direct response to the rising cost of discovery dealing with large volumes of ESI. Sound familiar?

More fascinating than the EDRM model and the technical aspects are the stories behind the cases themselves. Clearwell’s eDiscovery blog mentions a case in New Zealand involving an internet billionaire, Mr. Dotcom. That’s right – he officially changed his name. He’s involved in the largest copyright infringement case in history. The U.S. is looking to extradite him because his business allegedly allows users to illegally download pirated material. His website has been “seized pursuant to an order issued by a U.S. District Court.” Here is the story of his arrest at his mansion outside of Auckland, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089954/Megaupload-founder-Kim-Dotcom-sprang-electronic-locks-Bond-villain-lair-police-swooped.html

He was released on bail and waiting a hearing in August on his extradition to the U.S.

http://www.clearwellsystems.com/e-discovery-blog/2012/03/29/ediscovery-down-under-new-zealand-and-australia-are-not-as-different-as-they-sound-mate/

If you’re interested in learning more about eDiscovery in Oceania read The NZ E-Discovery Blog http://www.e-discovery.co.nz/blog/a-judicial-commentary-on-new-zealands-new-discovery-rules.html or http://www.e-discovery.co.nz/

I plan to forget about business for a while and have some fun, but if I happen to learn anything new, I’ll be sure to post a follow up!

Is Social Media a Market for Information Governance?

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group.

In one word, absolutely. Social Media is certainly not breaking news, but with the recent evaluations of organizations like Facebook and LinkedIn it becomes clear that these platforms will continue to grow. With their growth comes the creation of terabytes of data that must be managed, backed up, and stored. All of this data will undoubtedly be useful in the future, in ways that closely parallel the use of stored data within top corporations across the world. The increase in demand for historical information in social media combined with an increase in regulation across social media platforms is likely to cause an increased demand for more compatible information governance solutions.

So with respect to the explanation of the logical chain of events mentioned above, one may be compelled to ask, “How will all of this impact the competitive landscape of the information governance market?” The answer is simple, and the trend has already begun.  One example is Autonomy’s “Social Media Governance” (based on their popular IDOL platform), which is designed to identify critical patterns across customer touch points via social media platforms. As this market develops we will see the competition in this sector increase exponentially with a close correlation to the growth of our most popular social media platforms. This increased competition will also yield a battle for niche skill sets amongst top organizations. At the Glenmont Group we have been closely monitoring the dynamic nature of this emerging market in order to effectively satisfy our client’s needs for top tier talent with regard to information governance with social media.  Those that are willing to embrace this concept are likely to find a new market for which to expand market share and continue to progress within an industry that is maturing right before our eyes.

Juggling Your Way Through the eDiscovery Process

Guest Blog by Michael Hamilton, J.D., Exterro, Inc.

Being an attorney is like being a juggler.  Within the litigation process there are many balls (tasks) to juggle: reviewing a claim, researching legal precedence, interviewing witnesses, submitting interrogatories, prepping experts, reviewing documents and more.  What can make this juggling act even more challenging is when the “e-discovery wrench” is thrown into the act. This added twist involves identifying, preserving, collecting, reviewing and producing all potentially relevant evidence stored on computers, servers, cloud systems, iPhones, PDA’s, social media sites, etc.

While attorneys are familiar with juggling the many balls involved in routine litigation or investigations, the e-discovery wrench can really cause the balls to drop if not prepared (e.g. increased risks, unbudgeted cost overruns, sanctions for spoliation, etc.).

Putting in place a process-oriented approach for managing the many balls of e-discovery can help attorneys adjust their routines when an e-discovery wrench is thrown their way. Outlined below are a few juggling tips so that the e-discovery wrench can be more easily transformed into balls used in the legal juggling act:

Juggling Tip #1: Learn where the balls are located

One of the main reasons e-discovery is so complicated is that there are the many different departments involved in the process. The first step in implementing a process-oriented approach is to identify all stakeholders at the outset of the matter and then communicate to each the deliverables for which they are responsible. Stakeholders can include inside and outside legal, IT, records management, HR and third-party vendors (e.g. data processing, collection or document review).

Juggling Tip #2: Assess how many balls are likely to be added

Through an examination of the case facts and custodian interviews, legal teams should work with IT to narrow down and create e-discovery requirements that fit the needs and size of the e-discovery project. This discussion should cover what file types are likely to be collected, what data sources the information resides on and how accessible they are and address any potential issues that could cause delays and unforeseen cost increases.

Juggling Tip #3: Plan for a new juggling routine

To ensure that preservation steps are implemented as quickly as possible, legal teams should meet with all the identified stakeholders to create a comprehensive discovery plan. For the plan to be effective, all stakeholders must buy-in and clearly understand their roles and responsibilities. The discovery plan should address the following:

• What needs to happen?
• When it needs to happen?
• Who performs what?
• How much will it cost?
• Potential risks?
• How to manage those risks?
• What are the pertinent deadlines?

All of these questions will help create a dynamic plan that helps ensure predictability as the project progresses.

Juggling Tip #4: Refine the juggling routine

Recording historical data from prior e-discovery cases can increase defensibility and help legal teams refine processes over time. In addition to preserving key metrics related to the various discovery activities, legal teams should conduct interviews with key players at the close of the matter to learn why certain decisions were made, how the process might be improved in the future and how resources might be better allocated going forward.

Juggling Tip #5: Avoid future e-discovery wrenches

In litigation that involves e-discovery, it is very easy for costs spiral out of control. Legal teams can better control costs by estimating scope at the earliest states of discovery to assess whether or not they are proportionate to the worth of the case. Once costs have been estimated, it is much easier for legal teams to establish and maintain a project budget and shore up inefficiencies before major expenses are accrued.

Michael Hamilton, J.D., is a Sr. E-Discovery Analyst focused on educating customers, prospects and industry experts on the issues solved with the Exterro Fusion® e-discovery software suite. Mike’s e-discovery knowledge, legal acumen and practical experience give him a valuable perspective on bridging the gap between the IT and legal teams. Hamilton earned his J.D. from the University of Oregon School of Law. To view other posts by Michael Hamilton, J.D., visit Exterro’s E-Discovery Beat Blog at
http://www.exterro.com/e-discovery-beat/

Predictive Coding & Judge Peck’s Decision

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

On February 24^th, Judge Peck of the New York Magistrate announced the first public approval of predictive coding by the US court system. The decision to embrace predictive coding as a legitimate technique to be employed in the eDiscovery process will have a tremendous impact on the industry as a whole. This is truly groundbreaking news as the litigation technology industry is now making a major leap forward, aimed at putting the monotony of document review in the past. We will now see hosted document review become a far more competitive market amongst the top vendors in the eDiscovery competitive landscape.  Companies like Recommind which have been at the cutting edge of implementing predictive coding into their list of developing technologies will likely see increased competition as their peers attempt to challenge their position as market leaders.

As it becomes apparent that predictive coding will grow and prosper one may be lead to ask; what does that mean for the job market? The answer is opportunity! We are going to see a spike in demand for specific skill sets associated with the pertinent technology. This means that eDiscovery organizations will be seeking software developers, project managers, and sales representatives. Being on the recruiting side of these recent developments here at the Glenmont Group, we have become inundated with requests for top talent within the predictive coding environment. Judge Peck’s ruling is creating outstanding opportunities in the eDiscovery space and will continue to keep our industry moving forward.