The drafts of the 23 video interviews recorded at Relativity Fest have landed on my desktop for comment, for sending back for any amendment, and for sending out for approval.
I may be some time….
Normal service will be resumed shortly.
The drafts of the 23 video interviews recorded at Relativity Fest have landed on my desktop for comment, for sending back for any amendment, and for sending out for approval.
I may be some time….
Normal service will be resumed shortly.
English barrister Gordon Exall, he of the Civil Litigation Brief who is constantly informative as @CivilLitTweet on Twitter, reports on an interesting finding of fundamental dishonesty in a claim about an alleged motor accident. The judgment is Wise -v- Hegarty & Alpha Insurance (9th July 2019) and Gordon Exall’s blog post is here.
Craig Ball, former trial lawyer and doyen of US forensic experts, is rightly fond of saying that this is the “greatest time ever to be a litigator” in terms of the evidence which modern devices bring us. I interviewed him here on how mobile data increases lawyers’ ability to uncover the truth. By “mobile data” one generally means data created, collected and disseminated by the kind of mobile devices which most of us carry around with us. Years ago, however, I did a panel with Craig Ball on this subject in the US, and he gave us an illustration of a motor accident represented by two moving dots on a map. The data in the car (whether it was a property of the car or its passengers) would, he said, provide evidence about accidents and their causes. Continue reading
For some years, ILTA (the International Legal Technology Association) has had an event in London every November. Previously a one-day event called INSIGHT, it has been renamed ILTACON Europe and extended to two days. The website is here and the programme is here.
Disclosure has been given proper attention, with a panel on Thursday at 11:30 called The Disclosure Pilot: The Disclosure Review Document and Technology. The Big Questions! The panel members are Vince Neicho, Vice President-Legal Services at Integreon, Jeff Shapiro, eDiscovery Support Manager at Clifford Chance LLP, Andrew Haslam, eDisclosure Project Manager at Squire Patton Boggs, and Clare Chalkley, Vice President Legal Services at Integreon. I am the moderator. Continue reading
At Legaltech in New York, I interviewed Justin Tebbe who is Senior Director, Technical Solutions at Inventus. I was interested to know how he and his colleagues in other parts of Inventus work together for the benefit of the clients.
Justin Tebbe said that he is responsible for the US operation of Inventus, for hosting, and for working with development partners using specialised tools. He also gets involved in global initiatives, liaising with his counterparts in other jurisdictions as well as other departments.
Justin Tebbe gave a practical example of the benefits of working like this. A project which started in the US, with processing and review already well underway, had to be rolled out in Germany. The transfer was seamless, with the new team using the same templates and the same fields, and getting exactly the same experience as their US counterparts (who remained involved in the project).
Inventus tracks projects with its own ticketing system and workflow management system holding all the information about the project, including the individual tasks which need to be done. If one person deals with some stages, the next one can pick up where the last one left off.
It is also business intelligence software, with real-time data on how much has been reviewed and where it has got to.
Justin Tebbe said the clients are more global. Inventus is a global business with offices around the world but it offers a single experience to its users everywhere.
This blog falls silent when I go to foreign conferences – packing, panel preparation, travelling and the event itself push aside other things, and the post-event catch-up is inevitably tiresome. Some announcements are worth capturing now that I have settled back in.
Mary Mack and Kaylee Walstad, as the ACEDS Executive Director and VP Client Engagement respectively, have together turned ACEDS (the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists) into an educational force to be reckoned with, within and beyond the US. The announcement (reported here by Bob Ambrogi) that they were leaving ACEDS, came freighted with strong hints (“We’re not going away”) that a new venture was being planned. But what would that be?
While we pondered that, it was announced that Mike Quartararo would become the new Executive Director of ACEDS. The ACEDS announcement is here. Ari Kaplan will help build and chair a new ACEDS Global Advisory Board. I saw Mike Quartararo last week and it was clear that he is full of ideas for carrying on Mary Mack and Kaylee Walstad’s work. His Open letter to the ACEDS membership pays tribute to Mary and Kaylee and sets out his initial plans for ACEDS. Continue reading
I am told that we recorded 23 video interviews over the three days of Relativity Fest – I lost count, but the indefatigable Taylor Laabs of Relativity, who ran the schedule, says that that was the final total. My son Charlie set up the equipment each morning and I talked to a stream of interesting, knowledgeable and personable people all day, with gaps for copying data (we came back with almost 1.5TB of video), recharging batteries, and recharging me. You will forgive me in the circumstances if my account of Relativity Fest is rather short on reports of keynotes, panels and all the other things which comprised the packed formal agenda. I saw the beginning of the opening keynote, and I turned up to moderate my own International Panel, but I am dependent for the rest on the reports of others.
You might, for example, like to read Empowering the e-Discovery Community Today and Tomorrow by Chris Brown, Relativity’s Chief Product Officer, which summarises the opening keynote with a focus on product development which is unsurprising given Chris Brown’s role, two articles by Zach Warren of Legaltech News, always a source of timely and helpful reports (for which you may need to register) A New UI is Coming: 5 Things to Know From Relativity Fest 2019’s Keynote and, on the Judicial Panel 4 E-Discovery (Adjacent) Cases Judges Are Watching This Year plus a summary by Sarah Brown of Inventus called Relativity Fest 2019: Top Buzzed-About eDiscovery and Legal Trends
My own observations, drawn from my interviews, from what I saw of the opening keynote, from the reports of others, and from such opportunities as I had for discussions, include the following: Continue reading
I am often asked which conferences are worth attending on this side of the Atlantic. There used to be several to choose from, but they have been supplanted by the events like Relativity Fest London and the Nuix Insider Conference which, although primarily dedicated to specific software solutions, have always made a good job of covering topics broader than their own solutions.
ILTA has an event in November, this year extended to two days. ACEDS supports first-rate evening events which attract good audiences. The best broadly-based, product-neutral event in the calendar is, however, held in Dublin every November.
The eDiscovery and Legal Technology Conference 2019 is run by La Touche Training in Dublin on 29 November. I have been to all but one of the previous five such events, generally moderating the closing discussion panel. I was booked to go this year, but now cannot go, my wife having been offered a long-awaited knee operation shortly before that date. Continue reading
The Sedona Conference is organising a webinar on 6 November called US – UK – EU cross-border data transfers after Brexit.
As I write, it is far from clear what will happen on or before 31 October. Will there be a deal? Will UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson be forced to request an extension? If Brexit has not happened by 31 October, we can be reasonably sure that Johnson’s promise to be dead in a ditch will go the way of all his other promises. Merely to recite that he said this illustrates the absurdity of the whole business.
Whatever happens, it is important to consider what impact Brexit will have on day-to-day cross-border data transfers, and this is the subject of the webinar. What will be the impact of Brexit on day-to-day cross-border data transfers, on data protection regulation and enforcement, and on cross-border collection, processing, and transfer of data to meet litigation and regulatory requirements? Continue reading
A year rolls by very quickly, and it is time for Relativity Fest in Chicago once more. It runs from 20 to 23 October and the agenda, as always, is packed with sessions, panels, workshops and social events. It grows every year, but somehow manages to remain, if not exactly intimate, still friendly and welcoming.
My purpose in going, as always, is twofold. First, I am moderating a panel on Tuesday morning. Called simply the 2019 International Panel, it aims to cover the latest developments in cross-border e-Discovery, conflict of laws, and data privacy and protection.
The speakers are Meribeth Banaschik of EY GmbH, Kelly Friedman of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, and Manfred Gabriel of Holland & Knight. Continue reading
I will pick one point from Corey Tomlinson’s report. What is the purpose of discovery or, as he puts it:
Why is it important to make connections between phone numbers, email addresses, and the people who use them? What does it mean to help speed legal discovery with technology like continuous active learning? Is there a reason to be so fixated on processing so many terabytes in a given hour, day, or longer?
All this obviously applies to conventional discovery requirements, to meeting the demands of regulators, and to investigating the actions of bad actors, whether they come from outside an organisation or from within.
There is a wider purpose, however, to do with journalistic and other work with a public interest as well as a private and corporate one. The Panama Papers is the most obvious example. Continue reading
FTI Technology and Relativity have joined forces with Ari Kaplan Advisors to ask chief legal officers about the future of the legal industry and about what skills and expertise will be needed by the next generation of lawyers.
Ari Kaplan is very good at this, conducting personal interviews with senior people to get their views and to draw conclusions from them.
The key issues which arose from the interviews inevitably include risk, privacy, security and new technology. Reputational risk often follows from failure in any of these areas. Continue reading
I had some interesting interviews earlier this year with Paul Mankoo, CEO of Inventus. In one of them, he talked about the benefits of a UK base for a multinational eDiscovery and legal services company.
My write-up of the interview includes this:
Paul Mankoo said that more of Inventus’s business is outside the US than is inside it, and it offers more services in, and derives more revenue from, non-US locations. With two German offices (in Frankfurt and Berlin) it has a strong presence in mainland EU. This growth is greater in Asia than in the US.
It is important, Paul Mankoo said, to understand the markets and to emphasise that Inventus is not merely a US-centric business. Internally, having a UK CEO avoids giving the impression that one jurisdiction is more important than another. He might have added that London is more convenient in time zone terms for a business which operates at the outer limits of both East and West. Continue reading
I wrote last week about the session run by ACEDS and sponsored by Integreon on the first 10 months of the disclosure pilot. Vince Neicho of Integreon has also now written about it (see What We Learnt About the Disclosure Pilot 10 Months In) and I draw your attention to his article for its emphasis on one particular point.
That is the minimal take-up of the new Disclosure Guidance Hearings which, as Vince Neicho puts it, are “hearings designed to facilitate a discussion between the parties and the judge where agreement has not been possible on aspects of the disclosure process”. The emphasis, as Vince Neicho points out, is practical rather than legal. The court needs to hear from the “legal representative with direct responsibility for the conduct of the disclosure process”.
Vince Neicho suggests that we might separate legal questions (such as the list of disclosure issues) from arguments about getting the job done, and (as Vince puts it) “disputes on scope, accessibility and formats of data”. Continue reading
The practice of law and the practice of information technology have at least two things in common: both use terminology which is meaningful to insiders and incomprehensible to others; both have experts constantly reiterating concerns which audiences ought to deal with.
The combination often results in a blizzard of awful warnings couched in terms which dull the senses and provoke torpor rather than action. When you see your fortieth earnest warning urging you to take steps or refrain from doing something, you switch off. This is exacerbated by the fact that most of these subjects have a finite vocabulary, much of it technical in nature.
OpenText is refreshingly free from the worst aspects of this, producing articles which do more than reiterate awful warnings in quasi-mystical terms. Their blog posts identify risks and benefits in terms which are comprehensible, with meaningful examples. Continue reading
The speakers were Ed Crosse of Simmons & Simmons, Charlotte Hill of the Junior London Solicitors Association, Chief Master Marsh, and Lucinda Orr of Enyo Law. The moderator was the always-excellent Vince Neicho of Integreon.
They packed a lot into an hour. I serve you best, I think, if I set down the main points in a fairly short form:
Despite an intense campaign of information sessions and publicity, to say nothing of a general obligation to keep up with the rules, not everyone had got the message that the pilot existed, still less what its implications are. “Pilot? What pilot?” does not really seem an adequate response. Continue reading
Erin Plante is responsible for financial crime investigations and cross-border compliance at Inventus. I interviewed her in New York in January and asked her about the development of investigations around the world and, in particular, the role Inventus plays in conducting them. This is the first part of a two-part interview.
Investigations, and the triggers for them, take place in multiple jurisdictions and Inventus people work as a team all over the world to manage this. Inventus has data centres in many places and can set up collection and processing systems anywhere – this is particularly helpful in areas where it is difficult to move data around either because of deficiencies in communications or because of regulatory restraints. Continue reading
FTI Consulting is producing some interesting articles in conjunction with Corporate Disputes Magazine. A recent one is called Building a global information governance initiative and discovery programme – predictive analytics. Its contributors are Glenn Barden and Sonia Cheng of FTI Consulting and Patrick Oot of Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP, all names well-known to those who follow this subject.
The interesting thing about this article is that despite its title’s emphasis on the role of technology – the “predictive analytics” reference – almost everything in the article is about the role of people – the people with the relevant skills and the people who make the corporate decisions.
Glenn Barden opens, for example, by observing that there is too much data to review manually and says:
The use of statistical modelling maximises the value of the data that is already available – meaning that the experts are able to spend more time deriving insights, rather than locating the patterns.
So – the technology does the tiresome stuff and humans can spend more time drawing conclusions from the resulting information. Continue reading
The UK disclosure pilot enters its tenth month in October. We now have practical experience to add to the text of the practice direction and to the many talks and articles which heralded its arrival. It is time for a review.
The UK Chapter of ACEDS is presenting a discussion in London on 2 October in association with Integreon. The speakers are Ed Crosse of Simmons & Simmons, Charlotte Hill of the Junior London Solicitors Association, Chief Master Marsh, and Lucinda Orr of Enyo Law.
The moderator is Vince Neicho of Integreon.
In formal terms, these months have seemed fairly quiet, with few published judgments about disclosure. I take that to suggest that the new procedures have settled in without too much disturbance, and that parties and judges have just got on with it. Continue reading
This is the third and last part of my interview with Brendan Sullivan of SullivanStrickler and Fred Moore of Horison Information Systems about the increasing value of tape as an archive medium. You can find Part 1 here and Part 2 here.
This section first focuses on the security benefits of tape archives and then looks at the way the market is likely to develop.
Security issues and cybercrime have been steadily increasing over the last few years, and are among the primary concerns of most organisations and their IT departments. I asked Brendan Sullivan and Fred Moore if tape archives offered any help with security.
A tape archive is off-site and, except when it is actually being used, is off-line. The media is usually on a shelf, giving what is known as the “tape air gap”. Most cybercrime is effected on an online storage device; someone would have to break into SullivanStrickler’s vault and steal a tape in order to get access to its contents. Continue reading
OpenText’s Enfuse 2019 takes place in Las Vegas between 11 and 14 November. Adam Kuhn, Director of Product Marketing at OpenText Discovery, has written a preview of Enfuse called Chart your eDiscovery path at Enfuse 2019 which makes it clear that eDiscovery will be a major component of the panels and discussions at the event.
I attended this event for many years in its earlier incarnation as Guidance Software’s CEIC. While eDiscovery was always important there, the event’s primary focus then was on the identification, preservation and collection of data for a range of purposes including law enforcement and criminal and civil discovery. The pure eDiscovery component was relatively small – my role from year to year was to talk about eDiscovery in non-US jurisdictions and about privacy and data protection, at a time when these were seen as eccentric fringe subjects. Later, the focus moved to cybersecurity as that became the dominant concern of organisations and their IT departments. Continue reading
Most of what one reads about the use of forensic tracing of fraud is about the technology. This is neither surprising nor wrong in a world where crime investigators are constantly trying to catch up with technologically-skilled criminals.
There is more to it, however, than merely applying the latest technological tools to electronic evidence. What investigators are aiming for is a story to which the technology evidence is the underpinning.
The speakers are David Greetham of Ricoh USA, Inc and Mary Mack of ACEDS. Together they will give an explanation as to how forensic techniques were used to uncover the facts and identity of both the perpetrators and the money. Continue reading
The eDiscovery software and services market has developed in ways which few of us predicted. Three broad lines were, however, discernible a while back – that consolidation would reduce the number of players in the market, that the market would grow, and that the fastest growth would be outside the US.
It was always predicted that Relativity would continue to grow, and that part of that growth would come from partnerships with other established players. The most interesting of those relationships is the one with FTI Consulting, a partnership which has taken FTI to new and different heights as it combines its global technology consulting strength with Relativity’s software. Continue reading
Earlier this year, I took part in a discussion panel in Bristol hosted by Integreon. The panel members were Mark Brannigan of Aon, Nicola Woodfall of Travers Smith, Emily Wyllie-Ballard of RPC, Vince Neicho of Integreon, and Clare Chalkley of Integreon. I was the moderator.
I have not written this up hitherto because I knew that Integreon was doing its own summary. That has now been published with the heading When legal meets technology: exploring the future of eDiscovery.
The discussion in Bristol centred around a presentation given by many of the same people to the Judicial College. Their focus on that occasion was a practical consideration of the disclosure pilot, and that was the jumping-off point for a wide consideration of the factors to be considered in any discovery exercise. Continue reading
Her Majesty’s Government has been giving us some object lessons in discovery and data protection recently. We have had documents missing at court, reluctance to swear affidavits about documents, and curious redactions. Now we have been offered spurious GDPR / personal information reasons for withholding messages about government business, and a threat of tracking and data-harvesting on government websites in a way which suggests that Facebook’s morals and business methods have been imported into government. The whole thing stinks.
Look away now if you wish to be spared the political context in which all these things have become normalised. The context, of course, is Brexit, which began with a referendum won by fraud, by foreign interference, and by the skilful collection and use of data to target undecided voters. That has brought us Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, a man whose every word is a lie, an exaggeration or a distortion. He is in hock (political hock, I mean – I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that money has changed hands) to a group of far-right extremists and vulture capitalists who will benefit from a no-deal Brexit first by shorting the crashing Pound, second by picking over the carcass of British business and industry, third by the removal of regulatory protection for workers, food and other essentials, and last by US trade deals in which we will necessarily be the weaker partner. Continue reading
This is the second part of an extended interview which I did with Brendan Sullivan of SullivanStrickler and Fred Moore of Horison Information Strategies, Inc. in which we discussed the revival of tape as an archive medium. The first part is here and the third part will be published shortly.
The subject of this part is the reasons why tape declined as a popular archive until about 2000 and then revived. The technical deficiencies of tape proved inadequate for the changing demands – not just increased volumes but changed purposes and pressures. Since 2000, the technology of tape has advanced to meet the demands. This, coupled with two decades of experience, makes tape a valuable, yet still under-appreciated, means of archiving data.
Part of the problem derived from issues with the tape medium itself – there were multiple differing formats, tapes were easily damaged, and the material of which they were made was susceptible to decline over time. Continue reading
At Relativity Fest in London, I spoke to James MacGregor, Managing Director at Consilio in London, about Consilio’s ambitions in the worldwide market for eDiscovery and related services. There seems to be no end to Consilio’s global ambitions and every year bring at least one significant acquisition or extension of the Consilio empire.
James MacGregor said that the market is getting smaller in the sense that there are fewer companies doing what Consilio does, as a result of the consolidation in the market. The important thing to focus on was differentiation, meaning, in this context, why clients should choose Consilio from among the other big players.
As a specific example, James MacGregor pointed to Consilio’s data centre in France. That came with its own established business – a major client sensitive on the subject of data protection – but also brings in new business because Consilio faces little competition in that respect. Continue reading
FTI Consulting has been one of the Relativity’s most active partners in the use of Relativity’s SaaS platform RelativityOne. Some of the benefits of that are described in my most recent interview with Wendy King of FTI on the subject.
It is, perhaps, relatively straightforward to open a new project in RelativityOne. What, however, if your data and all its applications, scripts and workspaces sit in a different platform? To meet this challenge, FTI Consulting has launched a new set of services to help with RelativityOne data migration. The services include migration planning, data and workspace migration, application and script transfer, and post-migration evaluation.
AccessData is giving a webinar on 22 August called Accelerate incident response through automation. Its subject is the need to react very quickly to data breaches, and the ability to do so by the automation of incident response using AccessData’s new RESTful API.
The API alerts the AD Enterprise agent and initiates an immediate collection, preserving data related to the cause of the breach.
SullivanStrickler’s tagline is “Providing access to the world’s legacy data”. Over the course of three interviews, we cover the growing problem of legacy data – not just the growing volumes, but the increasing expectation that organisations know what data they have and can find what matters – and the solutions offered by SullivanStrickler.
I open by summarising the problem: data is kept for good reasons (such as pending litigation or regulatory requirements), and bad reasons (no-one is responsible for managing it and the lawyers have said “Keep everything” without thought as to the implications). Old formats and redundant systems make it near-impossible to comply with obligations which increasingly bring financial penalties and corporate embarrassment. How can you say you have found everything relevant when you don’t know what you have? If you can’t assess the risk, how do you know what resources to apply to that risk? Continue reading
Nearly a year has passed since Nuix acquired Ringtail from FTI. The development and marketing focus since then has, rightly, been on continuity and on expansion – continuity in the sense that development continued without a break, and expansion in the sense that Nuix has been astute in introducing its new discovery capabilities to its markets around the world.
Nuix has now announced that the newly integrated software is to be called Nuix Discover. I am not the only one who will be sorry to see the departure of the Ringtail name (but then I still remember Attenex with affection), but the renaming makes sense in overall branding terms.
Here is the Nuix press release. An article by JR Jenkins called Discovering more than just a new name is a punchy summary of the benefits of the transition and integration work, including new capabilities and the programme of user meetings which Nuix has held around the world. Continue reading
Christina Zachariasen said that Relativity was a leading review platform.
The decision to use it goes back more than 18 months as part of a significant transformation of both technology and people. Continue reading
A recent article in Corporate Disputes Magazine looks at some of the factors – notably leadership and strategy – involved in building a global information governance and discovery programme. It includes input from Craig Earnshaw and Sonia Cheng of FTI Consulting in London, and Daniel Lim of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in the US.
Two key things appear from the title alone – that information governance and discovery are interlinked and that, for many organisations, the implications are global. In the old days (about four years ago) the focus of most organisations, especially US ones, was the ability to find documents and information relevant to actual litigation or regulatory investigations. The concept of information governance to pre-empt or head off problems, not merely reduce their impact, is relatively new.
This basic idea was slow to take off because organisations failed to spot what now seems obvious – that control of information, including knowing where it is and disposing of useless information – reduces the time scale and cost of reaction to discovery requests. Continue reading
“Did you know that, until about 1990, time didn’t run for pleadings from 1 August to 1 September?”
This tweet from a barrister prompted this reply from me:
Note: Generally, the English don’t have “vacations”, but holidays. This use is an odd exception. The RCJ is the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, daunting when buzzing with life, haunting when empty.
In practice, it wasn’t just pleadings time limits which went to sleep in August – most deadlines in court orders took de facto account of the assumption that no one would be working. I loved it, in the days before I was concerned about school holidays, and would make sure that I took my holidays while everyone else was at work. It seemed almost incredible that they paid us the same in August as they did for the rest of the year (not that that was very much at the time). Continue reading
At Relativity Fest in London, I spoke to Wendy King of FTI Consulting’s Technology segment about FTI’s use of RelativityOne.
FTI is a global consultancy, offering Relativity across four continents. Most of its matters span multiple jurisdictions, Wendy King said, and FTI needed something scalable so they could focus on what they needed to do without worrying about limits on infrastructure. Continue reading
It has been quite difficult to keep up with the spate of announcements and other output from OpenText. It is a big company, which reaches into almost every corner of Enterprise Information Management (a subtle but important change from the old label, Enterprise Content Management) and its sub-classes, notably (for my purposes) eDiscovery.
I was away during Enterprise World 2019 in Toronto but caught the flavour of it from the many tweets, press releases, blogs and LinkedIn posts from and about OpenText. It has one of the best and most industrious marketing departments in the business, and one needs to concentrate to keep up.
This post is selective, pointing briefly to a handful of the things which matter most in my corner of the information world. Continue reading
Jon Chan is Director of Technical Services at Anexsys. I spoke to him at Relativity Fest in London about Anexsys’s partnership with Relativity and specifically in relation to its use of Relativity’s SaaS product, RelativityOne.
Jon Chan said that Anexsys had recently made a significant investment in RelativityOne. This was originally driven by a major government client with whom Anexsys has been working for some time. Like other government departments, it has a “cloud first” strategy, and it was their idea to make use of RelativityOne in a manner consistent with that strategy. Continue reading
The UK chapter of ACEDS (the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists) is running an event in London on 2 October called Disclosure pilot – 10 months in.
The title is self-explanatory – by the beginning of October, the disclosure pilot will be in its tenth month of operation in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. There is, as yet, little published case law on its operation, but those who engage in these courts will have had the opportunity to see how it works, both in their dealings with each other and in their dealings with the court.
As Relativity Fest in London drew to a close, I interviewed David Horrigan, eDiscovery Counsel and Legal Education Director at Relativity, about the event. Writing up that interview gives me an excuse to summarise some of the points which seemed important from the day. I have already published some of my photographs of the day.
As always, Relativity Fest London involved a packed agenda mixing company news in the form of Andrew Sieja’s opening keynote, technical sessions about the use of Relativity’s technology, and educational sessions devoted to the legal and regulatory context in which Relativity is used. The latter are David Horrigan’s responsibility and he was justifiably pleased with how they had gone.
They had included one on mobile data, a 15 minute primer on the new England and Wales disclosure rule with Ed Crosse of Simmons & Simmons, and two on data privacy. One of the latter, David Horrigan said, had been a general one on corporate compliance, with a focus on the concerns of those responsible for compliance in organisations. Continue reading
Ed Crosse of Simmons & Simmons is one of the members of the working party which drafted the draft eDisclosure rule now being piloted. At Relativity Fest in London in May, he gave a lively interview on stage with David Horrigan of Relativity. Afterwards, I took the opportunity to ask him some questions of my own.
Appropriately for a technology conference, I focused first on those parts of the new rule which involved the use of technology. The Disclosure Review Document seems central to how the new rule will operate. I asked Ed Crosse how that was going.
Ed Crosse said that it was too early for more than anecdote about the operation of the DRD, but it had been road-tested by various firms during the consultation. They were asked to apply it to their existing cases and to report on how it worked for them.
The chief message from the consultation was that the new rule should not overcomplicate matters before the first case management conference, and that is reflected in the pilot version. It looks daunting at first sight, I suggested, but it is well broken down when you focus on it. Continue reading
Susanna Blancke is Associate Director, Litigation and Client Services at NightOwl Discovery. At Relativity Fest in London I talked to her about different types of eDiscovery projects and, in particular, about multilingual eDiscovery.
There is, Susanna Blancke said, no such thing as a standard eDiscovery project. Investigations and litigation (one of which may lead to the other) vary in a number of ways. One of those is whether or not they include documents of various languages.
It is not enough, Susanna Blancke said, merely to have skilled linguists. They also need subject matter expertise – in finance or life science or whatever the case was about – with the language skills on top. The staffing might therefore be completely different between two projects. Continue reading
Brian Tuemmler is Information Governance Solution Manager at Nuix. He and I recently recorded a webinar called 9 ways to comply and get ahead. Its theme is that organisations face increasing requirements from all sides and in all jurisdictions, with new regulations defining appropriate ways to conduct business and not just in financial and health-related activities.
Our over-arching point was that the technology and the skills developed to face eDiscovery challenges are now required for proactive identification of data. Where once the requirement was a retrospective search for data which was “relevant” to the dispute, we now need to identify data before it became a problem. The once unfashionable concept of information governance is now having its day. The speed of technology (like the Nuix engine) is important not just for speeding up a retrospective investigation but for identifying current risk and alerting relevant people. Continue reading
Technology-assisted review is by now established as an appropriate way to meet discovery requirements for litigation and regulatory purposes in most jurisdictions. As with predecessor technologies, TAR has incited debate, filled conference schedules, and appeared in court judgments and opinions. The eDisclosure pilot in England and Wales refers expressly to technology-assisted review and, although the rule’s wording may need a little tidying up, it is clear that the concept is accepted there.
That does not mean that it is easy to make choices. The market has been confused by competing terminology, by rival solutions and, not least, by the development of a second phase of TAR technology called TAR 2.0. Continue reading
The Inventus website shows 11 US office locations, plus one in the UK, two in Germany, one in Japan and one in Taiwan. Judging solely by the preponderance of US offices, one might expect it to have a US CEO or, at least, one who is based in the US.
Paul Mankoo is CEO of Inventus. He is English, and based in England. When interviewing him about Inventus’s international business, I began by asking him about this expectation.
Paul Mankoo said that more of Inventus’s business is outside the US than is inside it, and it offers more services in, and derives more revenue from, non-US locations. With two German offices (in Frankfurt and Berlin) it has a strong presence in mainland EU. This growth is greater in Asia than in the US. Continue reading
The annual Nuix User Exchange takes place at Huntington Beach in California from 15 to 17 September. In a blog post called 2019 Nuix User Exchange – Focus on Community and Growing Together, Andrew Nester of Nuix writes about the reasons for attending this event and about the communal emphasis in the programme for this year.
The conference is called an “Exchange” for a reason – the word connotes learning from each other rather than merely being told things, which is the formula which has made ILTACON so successful over the years. The trick is to strike a balance between having a full programme and leaving enough time for people (whether actual users or potential users) to talk among themselves, to share experiences and to trade ideas. Continue reading
Brian Stuart said that Relativity Trace is a communications monitoring tool used, for example, for the surveillance of traders and others whose actions and behaviours can influence markets, for example by insider trading. Relativity Trace gives real-time insight into such manipulation. Continue reading
I am very lucky in the panels I am asked to moderate. The speakers are either people I know already, or are experts whose reputation has gone before them so that I know to expect interesting things from them. Dera J Nevin was known to me by reputation and from her very useful Twitter feed, but it was not until this year that we presented anything together.
Dera Nevin is a lawyer and legal technologist. At Legaltech in New York she was an articulate speaker on a panel which I moderated for Relativity called Discovery, security, and business considerations.
One of her subjects on the panel was the questions lawyers should ask and have answered before moving to the cloud. Afterwards, I interviewed her about wider subjects arising in her work helping lawyers to choose and use legal technology.
Dera Nevin said that implementation runs more smoothly when the lawyers have been involved in its selection and understood why it was to be used. It works best if they have been involved in articulating the need for a technology solution, and see some examples. Continue reading
At Legaltech in New York, I interviewed Al Park, Global Technology Consulting Leader at Control Risks. Control Risks is a major Relativity partner and, Al Park said, often has several investigations running concurrently. It needs the stability and security which RelativityOne can bring it.
It is not uncommon for a regulatory investigation and an internal investigation (and perhaps also litigation) to be running at the same time about the same facts or events. Relativity’s analytics and data visualisation help users to get to the facts more quickly. Continue reading
I was away speaking at a discovery event when the news broke that Relativity has appointed a new CEO and that Andrew Sieja is moving up to be executive chairman. Since I have no aspirations to be a first-with-the-news journalist, I can be content that others had the splash, and can look at a couple of aspects of the story which seem important to me.
The facts are set out in the Relativity press release. Mike Gamson comes to Relativity from LinkedIn where his most recent post was Senior Vice President of Global Solutions, and brings deep experience of setting up and managing products at LinkedIn, which had not defined a monetisation strategy when he joined it.
It is no small thing to step into the shoes of a company founder who brought the business from nothing to global dominance, and who has been its public face for so long.
The questions which interested me at a press call earlier this week were firstly why Mike Gamson and secondly what will Andrew Sieja do next? Continue reading
Its theme may be deduced from the title. Those responsible for drafting the new disclosure rule referred expressly to past judicial failures as a reason for beefing up disclosure obligations. The new rule has been accompanied by a determined attempt to make judges play their part in reducing the expense of disclosure. If there are few published judgments as yet, anecdote suggests that the judges are doing just that.
Integreon’s Vince Neicho has written an article called Innovation, destruction and frustration: breaking the vicious cycle, a follow-up to an earlier article which I wrote about here.
Vince Neicho begins by identifying some of the reasons why lawyers are willing to change the way they work. It is, he says, because the court requires it, because the client requires it, or because the competition is already doing it. Continue reading
AccessData has been collecting data for criminal and civil purposes for decades. A lot has changed over that time – not just volumes, and the types and sources of data, but the urgency with which it must be collected and analysed.
Data used to be reasonably predictable – it was generated on static computers, stored in predefined places, and consisted of a limited range of data types. Today, the urgent need to collect data may spring up from anywhere at any time, not least as a result of some criminal or terrorist activity. It is recorded in multiple formats by law enforcement, by CCTV, or by any passer-by with a smartphone. Its volumes can be enormous, and the need to analyse it may be extremely urgent where, for example, it may help prevent a further incident.
These things are the subject of two recent blog posts by AccessData. One is called Access data is assisting law enforcement with deployment of massive investigation capabilities in the face of evolving terror and critical incidents. The other is called Could we be more proactive with the cloud for a “hot” crime scene? Both deal with slightly different aspects of the same thing. Continue reading
Inventus is producing a webinar on 16 July called Accelerating International eDiscovery: The Challenges of Multilingual Litigation. The speakers are Dominic Piernot, eDiscovery Consultant Germany/France at Inventus, John Tinsley, CEO of Iconic Translation Machines, and Jérôme Torres-Lozano, Director of Professional Services at Inventus. The moderator is Sarah Brown, eDiscovery expert at Inventus.
To supplement the webinar, Inventus has published a two-part article on multilingual edisclosure by Jérôme Torres-Lozano called It’s all Belgian fries to me: the art of multilingual disclosure. Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.
Jérôme Torres-Lozano was brought up bilingual, and his first job was working with a major translation corporation. He now brings specialist language skills to electronic disclosure / eDiscovery at Inventus. Continue reading
Rishi Khullar said that Heretik Forge is the first solution for running data science experiments in a Relativity instance, allowing customers to build custom machine learning models. Uses include contract review, M&A, regulatory response, and vendor management.
The customer is able to build machine learning models which are theirs and which stay with them. By allowing customers to tailor analysis models to suit their business, they enable competitor differentiation. Continue reading
Although we will be looking at the new discovery rule, the focus is much more on the practical aspects of dealing with electronic documents and data in any context, and on the feedback from judges gleaned when Integreon’s Vince Neicho spoke at the Judicial College.
There will also be a demonstration of Brainspace, showing how visual analytics plays a part in preparing to give (or receive) discovery / disclosure in any context.
Our aim is to bring together the problems and the solutions, to look at what is new and what is not, and to suggest how a good understanding of technology enables the required discussions with the other side and with the court. Continue reading
eDiscovery, originally the main focus of this blog, has properly become seen as a subset of wider document management functions. OpenText’s roots lie in document management, and it has met the changing market by acquiring eDiscovery and forensics companies (notably Recommind and Guidance Software) to bring those specialist activities to its corporate clients while continuing to develop its broader document management and information governance tools and skills.
eDiscovery itself has broadened, its remit extending beyond disputes to other areas of corporate activity (such as M&A) which require the collection and searching of large bodies of data. At the same time, security concerns have risen to the top of the list of risks which concern lawyers and their clients. The risks are both external and internal – third party actors intending loss or harm to a company, or insiders, perhaps abusing privileged access to data.
OpenText eDocs is designed to deal with threats like data breaches and insider risk threats – see this OpenText web page Organizations require additional security layers and this one about the latest release of eDocs which summarises the threats and the solutions, not least encryption of documents at rest, which OpenText eDocs brings. Continue reading
At Legaltech in New York I spoke to Sean Lynch, who is is Director, Review Services, at Ricoh eDiscovery in Canada. One of the most discussed topics at Legaltech was artificial intelligence, and I asked Sean Lynch what was happening with AI and what was useful.
Sean Lynch said that AI had perhaps been overhyped and given more importance than it currently had in practical terms. The term “AI” covers a lot of sophisticated software, used by sophisticated people, which produces data models of enormous value to lawyers.
The software itself doesn’t know anything, Sean Lynch said. This kind of software is good at learning that this type of document is good and that one is not, and can amplify that conclusion across very large datasets. It will, however, never replace lawyers. It can make their lives easier and less complex, and enable them to take on more diverse matters. This makes it of particular value to smaller firms. Continue reading
Integreon has assembled a panel to visit Bristol on 26 June to talk about technology and effective resourcing, primarily in the context of the disclosure pilot scheme.
The focus will be on practical things – on getting the disclosure job done within the rules, and done on time and at the lowest realistic cost. The principles set out in the pilot scheme, not least the obligations to plan ahead and to cooperate, are equally applicable to other forms of document management, including investigations and arbitrations.
The subjects also include training, and particularly training for the judges who have the task of managing disclosure. Vince Neicho of Integreon spoke about this at the Judicial College a few months ago, and he will cover that and some of the feedback he got from the judicial delegates.
The speakers come from industry, from law firms and from Integreon. They are:
Mark Brannigan – Vice President, EMEA – Cybersecurity at AON
Emily Wyllie Ballard – eDiscovery Manager at RPC
Nicola Woodfall – eDiscovery Manager at Travers Smith
Vince Neicho – Vice President, Legal Services at Integreon
Clare Chalkley – Vice President, Legal Services at Integreon
I am to have the pleasure of moderating the discussion. Continue reading
Ricoh is running a set of webinars in June under the general title Techtalks Webinar Series on the theme Intelligent Information Management.
This consists of four one-hour webinars about solutions for managing unstructured data, contract analysis, compliance and digital transaction management. Each of them will be done in conjunction with one of Ricoh’s partners.
There is a website here about the series which includes registration links for each webinar. The first one is called Take control of your data and will be presented in conjunction with Active Navigation. Its main message is that management of data is more than just questions of control and compliance, important though they are; there is also valuable business intelligence and insight to be extracted from properly-managed data. Continue reading
David Lapresi is eDiscovery and Litigation Support Manager at Phillips Lytle. I interviewed him at Legaltech in New York at the suggestion of OpenText and asked him if he was optimistic about lawyers’ use of technology like OpenText’s Axcelerate.
David Lapresi said that he is now optimistic where it was a struggle twenty years ago to persuade lawyers to use technology. More lawyers know that they must embrace it, he said. Volumes are now so high that traditional methods of document review cannot be competitive. Continue reading
At Legaltech in New York, I interviewed Roger Miller, Senior Vice President leading the compliance and investigations group at Consilio. Our subject was the use of technology in investigations and about the growing and changing imperatives in global eDiscovery.
The skills and tools developed for litigation eDiscovery are being repurposed and applied to regulatory and other investigations. While this is not a new development, Roger Miller said that this kind of use is increasing considerably, and extending to the far left of the EDRM so that organisations can identify compliance issues ahead of investigations. For example, he says, new technology, particularly the use of artificial intelligence in contextual searches, is being used to find out quickly if a complaint has merit so that the organisation can anticipate problems. Continue reading
Here are some pictures from Relativity Fest London which occupied large premises in Houndsditch, and (pleasurably) a large amount of my time, earlier this week. Bigger and better than ever, was the general view.
Relativity CEO Andrew Sieja opens the show:
__________ Continue reading
Michael Conner is Director of Global Business Development at NightOwl Discovery. I interviewed him at Legaltech in New York and asked him to explain what actually happens when NightOwl wins a new client.
NightOwl Discovery’s main clients are corporations. The usual form of agreement is a multi-year outsourcing arrangement under which NightOwl Discovery has the opportunity to become familiar with the client’s processes and requirements, and brings its own skills and processes to bear on addressing the many business problems posed by the management of data.
What is the right format for discovery and legal technology conferences? The fashion is to criticise them, with their purpose, speakers, agendas, venue, room layout, and food all sneeringly dismissed because they don’t match some notional ideal – an ideal which none of the critics ever quite manages to define.
Leaving aside those for whom sneering is the purpose of being, there are some things we are stuck with. You can’t knock something for being “too commercial” without offering some other basis on which they are funded. In any event, “commercial” seems an odd swear word in an industry which generates billions of £ and $ worldwide and helps support a much larger activity of law, regulation, security and the rest which are not only major businesses themselves but are vital to the wider commercial world.
We are stuck with the venues on offer. Agendas are driven by what the delegates want to hear. The speaker pool always needs widening, as well as diversifying. Organisers have to walk a line between bringing on new voices and ensuring that the content quality remains high – these aims do not exclude each other, and those who simply sneer should be required to append the name of at least one new speaker to their sneers.
Recent years have seen the decline of the general-purpose eDiscovery conference, in the UK at least. They have been replaced by ideas-led events driven by forward-looking legal technologists, by events based around specific problems (such as the new disclosure rule or the GDPR), and by product-specific events organised (usually) by a software provider and designed to appeal to their existing and hoped-for users and partners.
It is called Whose data is it anyway? Data Privacy and Data Subject Access Requests. The other panel members are Mark Anderson, Senior Project Consultant at CDS, Jonathan Armstrong, Partner at Cordery, and Meagan Sauve, eDisclosure Consultant at Special Counsel. David Horrigan of Relativity is the moderator.
There were those who predicted that the GDPR would be like the Y2K or “Millennium Bug” situation, where everyone predicted disaster and then sneered when nothing much happened on the due date.
I criticised that approach on two grounds. One was that a great deal of work by some very clever people went into making sure that nothing happened as we moved to the new millennium; there was not much of that in evidence in advance of the GDPR’s introduction last May. Continue reading
The Junior London Solicitors Litigation Association is a sub-group of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA), open to litigators with up to 8 years post -qualification experience. They are holding a summer party at the Sky Bar at Leonardo Royal Hotel London – St Paul’s, on 29 May.
“JLSLA members are the future of the practice of law, driving innovation forward. Our support underscores our commitment to enabling that innovation and future legal leaders in delivering cutting-edge services and solutions to the global legal clients.” Continue reading
D4 was an early adopter of RelativityOne and, Kris Wasserman said, had recently made a significant further expansion in its RelativityOne capability. This was not just in the US. D4 was one of the first RelativityOne certified partners in the UK. Continue reading
At Legaltech in New York, I interviewed Scott Sterkel, Director of Sales at NightOwl Discovery. I asked him if he was seeing differences in how corporate legal departments procure services.
Scott Sterkel said that there are now more people involved in the procurement process. It is a more structured process, often involving RFP’s, and generally takes longer than it used to. Continue reading
This is the third in a series of interviews which I did with Paul Mankoo, CEO of Inventus, at Legaltech in New York.
The subject of this short segment is the changes in the way organisations are spending money on eDiscovery and related services. Historically, most of this money went to lawyers. Now, although the spending is up, lawyers are getting less of it. Where, I asked Paul Mankoo, is the money going?
Paul Mankoo said that organisations continue to take increasing control of the discovery process. They are doing more of it themselves as well as exerting more control over those to whom they delegate work. Continue reading
At Legaltech in New York, I interviewed Adam Rubinger, whose role at NightOwl Discovery is Chief Client Officer. What, I asked, does that role cover?
Adam Rubinger said that that his role is to ensure that clients have the best possible experience in their dealings with NightOwl by creating a strategy to deliver a level of service they are used to and demand. His job is to create a culture which tends towards client excellence.
The relationship between providers and lawyers, on the one hand, and their clients, on the other, has changed. Service providers had got into the habit of telling clients what ought to be done, but clients are becoming more sophisticated, not least because of the webinars, conferences etc which they attend, and are becoming more demanding.
Their expectations range from simple things like getting an acknowledgement to their requests through to complex matters like workflow design.
Clients will have their own goals and missions. Sometimes they come up with what they want, and the provider may have to consider the difference between what they want and what they need. It is down to NightOwl, Adam Rubinger said, to work cohesively with both inside and outside counsel. The approach was not as prescriptive as in the past, but involves working towards blending mutually acceptable ideals.
There is a trend at the moment (and a good one) for providers to create senior posts for things which are not merely technical, sales or marketing. We are seeing softer functions like improving diversity and improving the client experience which is Adam Rubinger’s role.
Adam Rubinger just said that Nightowl’s culture is focused on things like that. NightOwl is a Midwest company with a certain set of values, and it works to align those with the interests of the clients.
I asked if there were other planned initiatives. Adam Rubinger said that NightOwl is moving towards a new client experience initiative which covers obvious things like response times, dialogue and communication, but aims also to give clients the comfort that when they go to bed, things are being taken care of and that NightOwl is on their case. That is not easy and involves a significant training element.
Data protection has long offered the uninformed the opportunity to excuse their unwillingness to help by reference to half-understood principles.
Attempts to get simple answers from organisations, including those with whom you have a contractual relationship, are too often met with “Can’t tell you that cos of dita protexshun”. Policemen and other public servants try to prevent you taking photographs of them going about their public business with similar cries.
The culprits are often the same as those who blame “elf ’n’ safety” for stupidly unnecessary bans on normal activities. Often this comes from organisations for whom being unhelpful is a deliberate policy – shysters in telecoms or energy providers, for example, whose business model assumes that users will stop complaining if they make it hard for them to do so – or from public bodies like local authorities staffed by low-end pen-pushers who get the illusion of importance from making life difficult for the public. Continue reading
As always, it offers a wide range of subjects, covering both Relativity’s technology and the context in which it is used. Registration is free and the registration form is here.
I will be there as always with the family video team, taking advantage of the concentration of interesting and informed speakers to do more of our video interviews. Continue reading
Integreon’s business is document review, for litigation, regulation and other purposes, including litigation content management, and compliance due diligence. Its business involves using a mixture of technology, human skills and well-honed processes to deliver document review services as quickly and cost effectively as possible. Its business model depends on delivering the agreed output on time and to budget. As a company, it therefore has a close interest in any developments which speed up delivery while maintaining accuracy.
Vince Neicho is VP – Legal Services at Integreon in London, after a long career as litigation support manager at Allen & Overy. He has written an article for Legaltech News [registration required] called Intelligently reinventing AI: using human intelligence to leverage the artificial kind (also available here on Integreon’s site)
The term “artificial intelligence” is widely used at the moment. There are a few software providers who can legitimately describe their products as bringing “artificial intelligence” to data and business problems, but the term is widely used to cover almost anything involving a computer. For example, the present issues in UK criminal law about disclosure of mobile phone data are often said to be soluble by “AI”, leading me to post this on Twitter recently: Continue reading
The speakers were Catrina Smith and David Wilkins of Norton Rose Fulbright. Catrina Smith is a partner in the employment department at Norton Rose Fulbright who, it quickly appeared, has a comprehensive and practical approach to dealing with and advising clients on dealing with Data Subject Access Requests. David Wilkins is Legal Technology Project Manager at Norton Rose Fulbright, advising NRF lawyers and clients on how technology can be used to address the challenges of handling personal data disputes, investigations, and information governance projects. Continue reading
In the beginning was eDiscovery and, alongside it, the barely-regarded business of records management. EDiscovery brought obvious risk – of losing a case or, in the US, of being sanctioned for non-compliance with a court rule. Records management appeared to bring neither risk nor profit and its problems, so it was thought, could be solved by buying another server.
The concept called “information governance” showed its face briefly in about 2012, but did not take off because there was nothing obvious to buy to solve a problem which organisations barely regarded anyway.
Then cybersecurity risks brought damaging outcomes – expense, reputational damage and lost customers. Regulatory expectations and regulatory interventions began to equal or exceed the demands of litigation discovery. Privacy and data protection requirements rose to the top of the pile with the advent of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which induced first indifference, then panic (at the expected level of fines), then the comforting illusion that only Google, Facebook and other organisations whose business was data collection were the targets.
Better organised, or better advised, organisations came to realise that, while the big fines were indeed aimed at those who collect data in order to sell it, they all collected and held data which included personal information ancillary to whatever their main business was. It became clear, eventually, that all these subjects – litigation discovery, regulatory requirements, cybersecurity threats and privacy duties – were all interlinked. The ideas about information governance came back to life. Continue reading
Adam Kuhn is Director, Product Marketing, at OpenText Discovery. I interviewed him at Legaltech in New York, where we talked first about the wide range of technologies which OpenText has collected for the legal market, and then about how they are being used by both in-house lawyers and law firms.
OTEX Legal Tech Overview
Adam Kuhn said that OpenText has a history of acquiring and integrating successful companies, and has collected a portfolio of technology which makes it the leader in enterprise information management. He was at Recommind, and came into OpenText when its acquisition of Recommind provided the core of the OpenText eDiscovery offering.
After that acquisition, OpenText saw that it had a gap on the left side of the EDRM and bought Guidance Software (a company with which I had been associated for over a decade). Guidance Software’s EnCase is, Adam Kuhn said, the “gold standard” of data collection. Integrated with Recommind’s Axcelerate, it gives OpenText a comprehensive end to end eDiscovery offering. Continue reading
I wrote in February about the work of the ILTA UK’s Special Interest Group to help lawyers devise and agree the “appropriate methodology” section of the new Disclosure Review Document. Its output is a best practice data exchange protocol
The data exchange protocol can be found here.
The official launch of the protocol, sponsored by Nuix, will take place on Tuesday, 30 April at RPC’s London office, starting at 5:30pm. There is more information and a registration form here. Continue reading
I have just published an article whose heading was (or was meant to be) UTB v Sheffield United – interpreting PD51U in a way that makes it work.
As I was about to publish it, I half saw a mention of “PD31B”. That would be an unsurprising slip, since the Disclosure rules have been in Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules since 1999. My motto RTFR (Read the F*** Rules) is accompanied by another, RRTBBPUTBPI (Re-Read the Bloody Blog Post Umpteen Times Before Publishing It) and, alerted to the possibility of error, I duly re-read it umpteen times.
What I did not re-read, it seems, was the title, and it was there that PD51U had become PD31U. That meant that the url contained the error and, worse, that those who get email notification of my posts will have the uncorrected version on their emails.
I have corrected the title and replaced the tweets and LinkedIn posts. I decided against amending the url, because all the emails would then point to the wrong place.
My thanks, as so often, to the observant Jonathan Maas, who sent me a spluttering email entitled PD31u??????
UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd & Ors  EWHC 914 (Ch) (09 April 2019) has caught attention mainly for the observation by Sir Geoffrey Vos that the White Book is wrong on one point in relation to the coming into force of the disclosure pilot.
There are helpful observations also in relation to the thought needed in relation to extended disclosure under PD51U, and to the principles on which privilege can be claimed.
Lastly, there are serious strictures aimed at parties and lawyers who “permit their mistrust of their opponents to become the driving force behind the litigation”. Court proceedings, the judge said, are not “a stage for a grudge match”.
It came as a surprise to many that the disclosure pilot in the new PD51U took effect on 1 January 2019 in relation to all relevant applications thereafter, whatever the date of issue. This meant, for example, that those preparing during December for an application in January had to take account of the more onerous provisions of PD51U, including the obligations to discuss and agree the disclosure model to be used, along with the consequential matters relevant to the chosen model. Continue reading
I have known JR Jenkins, now at Nuix with the rest of Ringtail, for many years. We have had long discussions over that time once or twice a year, talking not only about Ringtail but also about the developments in the market in which Ringtail has been a major player for so long. Now he has moved from FTI to Nuix, and our discussion was my first opportunity to catch up with developments in the (then) five months since the acquisition.
JR Jenkins emphasised that Nuix and FTI had had a working relationship for many years before the acquisition. To a great extent, developments since then have been business as usual, and we have seen versions 9.4 and 9.8 of Ringtail with no interruption in development. This, JR Jenkins said, is not just because of the pre-existing technical and business relationship but because the Nuix leadership was emphatic that Ringtail development should continue as before under its new banner. Continue reading
At Legaltech in New York, I interviewed Ashley Legel, Enterprise Account Executive at NightOwl Discovery. Our subject was changes in the way law, business and technology interact and, sometimes, pull in different directions. I was interested to hear what changes Ashley Legel was seeing in the relationship between organisations, lawyers and external providers of services.
Ashley Legel said that internal automation represented both a challenge and an opportunity for organisations. They were, she said, going to have to learn how to use it and to reconcile the sometimes conflicting requirements of the business and its lawyers. Continue reading
Consilio’s business was founded on electronic discovery, the (usually retrospective) collection, analysis and production of documents and data required for litigation or for regulatory investigations.
Discovery remains important, of course, but it has become increasingly important also to identify behaviour which is likely to lead to litigation or regulatory intervention, is likely to generate poor publicity, or is in some way contrary to the policies and ethos of an organisation.
This is usually thought of as something with a financial motive involving, perhaps, insider trading or bribery. Increasingly, organisations are fearful of a wider range of activities such as discrimination and sexual harassment. The #MeToo movement generates much the same reaction as the FCPA or the UK Bribery Act. Continue reading
I have had several conversations over the years with Matthew Geaghan of Nuix about the cross-over between eDiscovery tools and skills and other areas beyond eDiscovery. I interviewed him again at Legaltech in New York and asked him where we were going with these developments.
Matthew Geaghan said that there are many overlaps between discovery and forensics, information governance and security. Nuix delivers large indexed repositories of data – “data intelligence lakes” – perhaps for discovery purposes. News spreads round the organisation of the capacity to search these large pools of data, and Nuix gets calls from compliance departments of clients; they have heard that all the company’s data is searchable and want that ability for their own purposes – for proactive identification of potential problems not just reacting to them. Continue reading
I recently published an interview with Paul Mankoo, CEO of Inventus, in which he talked about the race to the top for talent – how a company’s people are a differentiator between it and its rivals, and specifically in the context of discovery and related services.
In this interview, Paul Mankoo expands on this subject, in response to my question “What is the first thing you want people to know about Inventus?”
Paul Mankoo’s answer was about the “Why?” of a business. When Inventus recruits people, or when it discusses its business internally, the discussion is about the essence of Inventus’s business – what are they in business to do? The answer is to deliver legal services more efficiently. Continue reading
At Relativity Fest, I interviewed Matt Lan of icourts and asked him first about the uptake of analytics in Australia.
Matt Lan said that there had been real uptake of analytics in the last 12 to 18 months. The clients expect their providers to engage with analytics to help them with volumes of data for discovery and related purposes. They appreciate, he said, that you can’t just “throw bodies at the problem”. Continue reading
As I have reported earlier, the 2019 Nuix Insider Conference takes place at County Hall, Westminster Bridge in London, on 4 April. There is also a Ringtail Nuix User Group meeting and a Partner Summit on 3 April.
At Relativity Fest, I interviewed James Neath, president of the Information Management and Discovery market team at Morae Global. Morae Global has been using Relativity for a long time – Relativity is its platform of choice and it has many Relativity experts. It is proud to have been the first RelativityOne partner.
Morae Global is a legal management consulting business whose primary customers are corporate general counsel. It provides solutions to GCs wanting to transform or organise their departments. Among many other things, Morae Global covers information management, including (but not limited to) eDiscovery services. It has a large and expanding consulting business on the left side of the EDRM, giving advice on information governance and records management, and generally helping GCs take control of eDiscovery spending. Continue reading
Stripped of its refinements, information governance is the management of information, including the policies and governance rules which dictate what is kept and how it is stored and tagged, and what is destroyed. The aim is to be able to find what you need without having to plough through everything you have ever created or received.
It would be fair to say that my late mother’s approach to domestic IG was to keep everything. Where an organisation would buy another server, my ma would get another piece of furniture to store her papers in, moving existing furniture along the wall to make room for the new shelves or cabinet. The council tax demands for 2007, and all the self-exculpatory waste paper which councils send out with their demands, lie side by side with potentially important documents about planning permissions. Grocery receipts share a box with documents which ought to be kept. The shredder has run hot, but I can’t just drop whole files into it for fear of losing something of value or interest.
I am in no position to criticise her for this, nor do I. I have boxes of paper, much of which was pretty dull when I filed it 20 or 30 years ago. I have vast stores of scanned images – all carefully indexed but nevertheless needing more than bulk deletion. Most of my 21 terabytes of storage consists of photographs and work videos and their backups, but the hard part is the fraction of that volume which represents the equivalent of paper – emails, Word documents, spreadsheets, presentations – the stuff of any discovery exercise. Continue reading
The subject is the value which the VenioOne OnDemand self-service interface has brought to the Ricoh team, and the major benefit it has brought to their clients.
The speakers are David Greetham of Ricoh and Chris Jurkiewicz of Venio Systems. There is more information and a registration form here.
Last week was meant to be one of high output. Most of the videos from earlier events are completed and published, and my son Will is filling my Inbox with drafts of the Legaltech videos. There are pending events to promote (like the Nuix one which I have just written about) and a new disclosure judgment in England and Wales (Serco v MoD, which I have also just written about).
One interruption last week was a scheduled one – to hospital going under anaesthetic so that a camera could be winched down my throat (all clear, thank you). The open road to a publication stream lay before me.
That night, however, my mother died down in Suffolk. This was not truly unexpected – she was 89, and we were told she was dying last June, so she had a pretty good run after that. I mentioned this briefly on Twitter and was quite overwhelmed with the reaction, from people I actually know, people I know only on Twitter, and people I don’t know at all. It was an uplifting experience. Continue reading
The Nuix Insider Conference is a one-day event in London covering all aspects of working with data, including forensic investigations, eDiscovery, incident response, and governance. This year it takes place on 4 April at County Hall by Westminster Bridge.
The aim, in Nuix’s words, is to show how you can achieve ‘Total Data Intelligence’.
The agenda supports that ambition with a broad mixture of subjects. One of the points I made in my enthusiastic review of last year’s Nuix Insider Conference was that it is designed to encourage conversation – “talking to people with the problems and with the solutions” as I put it. Continue reading
The UK’s Ministry of Defence has, unfortunately for it, become the reverse poster child for disclosure by UK government departments. Its most recent reverse comes in a judgment by Mr Justice Fraser in Serco Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence  EWHC 515 (TCC) (28 February 2019).
My thanks to Litigation Futures for spotting this and for its helpful summary.
I have more sympathy for the MoD over the 2010 Al-Sweady judgment than I did when I first wrote about it (see Al-Sweady v Secretary of State for Defence: blame for e-Disclosure failures gets personal – and public.
This is partly because of what we now know about the origin of those proceedings, and partly because of other factors, including lack of investment in IT systems, the nature of military operations, and the need for military secrecy. The judgment’s continuing value as a source of instruction lies in its lessons about the importance of explaining properly and timeously what the problems are, and for the fact that a named army officer was criticised personally for his work by the Court of Appeal. I wrote this, quoting the Court of Appeal:
Accordingly, if [insert your own name here] continues to be put forward as a principal or even a significant witness in judicial review proceedings or if he is in any way responsible for disclosure, it is our view that any court seized of those proceedings should approach his evidence with the greatest caution.
The words in brackets which stand substitute for the officer’s actual name are mine. I added that “I would work quite hard to ensure that the name in that sentence was not mine”. Continue reading
Roland von Borstel is Director, Discovery Solutions, at Ricoh in Canada. I spoke to him at Relativity Fest in Chicago and asked him about the take-up of discovery analytics in Canada.
Roland von Borstel said that Canada is embracing analytics. Analytics is helping to deal with increasing volumes, making sense out of documents, and putting them into context with other documents. The clients really like it. Continue reading
While in New York for Legaltech, I interviewed Paul Mankoo, CEO of Inventus, on a range of eDiscovery subjects. I first met Paul Mankoo about 20 years ago, and his present position as CEO of a global eDiscovery company gives him a range and depth of experience which I was keen to tap.
The resulting interview has been broken into a series of short snippets, each on a discrete subject. The broad question in this one was about changes in the industry. Paul Mankoo’s answer was not, as you might expect, about new technology, but about people as a differentiator between providers.
Two articles in Counsel Magazine cover the growing concerns about disclosure in criminal proceedings. They emphasise the pressures, mainly on defendants but also on the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, caused by increasing volumes of data, by the technical complexity of multiple data types and sources, and by the lack of resources available to manage them.
The first of these articles is called R v E and the great disclosure debate – Measured working guide in an imperfect world, and is by senior defence barrister Jerry Hayes. He was the prosecutor who brought to an end the 2018 trial of Liam Allen because of multiple disclosure failures. His focus is on the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in R v E  EWCA Crim 2426 which, in addition to the helpful practical guidance which it gives, is:
…a useful talisman against that new breed of young, aggressive, careerist judges who are obsessed with the minutiae of process, clock watching and just want ‘to get on with it’, who are slithering onto the circuit bench. Continue reading
Behind the headlines and the high politics, the White House is a government department whose Executive Office must deal with information governance, records management and IT like any other department.
ACEDS (the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists) recently took a team into the White House to deliver an on-site training session to 26 employees responsible for these things.
Several years have passed since DLA Piper first launched its comprehensive handbook reviewing data protection laws of the world. The 2019 edition has now been published.
It came to my attention thanks to a LinkedIn post from former US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck who, freed from the proper restraints of his judicial position, and now a senior counsel at DLA Piper, has turned out to be an adept user of LinkedIn, and the source of much good information.
DLA Piper’s blog post about the Data Protection Handbook emphasises that 2018 was a significant year for privacy and data protection laws; the subject will, they say, “continue to be one of the most dynamic and fast-developing areas over the course of the next year.”
The handbook opens with a helpful map showing countries as having heavy, robust, moderate or limited regulation and enforcement in this area, and allowing comparison between two jurisdictions.
At Relativity Fest in Chicago, I interviewed Grant Whiteley of Australian advisory and forensics provider KordaMentha. Shortly after that interview, Relativity and KordaMentha announced that KordaMentha had become Australia’s first RelativityOne certified partner.
My interview was not about that yet-to-be-announced partnership but about the take-up of analytics, and specifically of technology-assisted review, in Australia. Grant Whiteley said that KordaMentha had used technology-assisted review for years. For a long time, it was hard to get clients interested, but now they are expecting it and the costs savings which it brings. They are also asking about yet more advanced technology, including artificial intelligence. Continue reading