Georgetown Law E-Discovery Law Blog carries an article by George Rudoy of Shearman & Sterling which moves away from the certification argument (see my post Rudoy on eDiscovery certification – reality or myth) and on to the question about who should actually provide eDisclosure education.

His new article is called Let’s hear it one more time for education.

The central problem boils down to this: the only people outside law schools with the combination of motive and money to provide free eDiscovery education are the suppliers. A supplier who became a monopoly or dominant provider of education is in a position to influence, by subliminal as well as tangible means, the ideas of the coming generation for its commercial advantage.

George Rudoy kindly gave me as an example of one way round this. He says:

ILTA manages this properly by being sponsored by a large number of providers.  Another who has adopted this approach is Chris Dale of the UK-based e-Disclosure Information Project.  That is transparently sponsored by a number of providers, which allows an objective platform for all of them to bring their separate and combined expertise to lawyers, judges and others who need to know about the rules, the technology and the practical ways of using them together.

Lord Justice Jackson referred to the role which suppliers could have in the continuing education for lawyers and judges which was the subject of his sole recommendation under the e-Disclosure heading of his Final Report.

Whatever comes of that in the longer term, my formula, which mixes guidance on rules and practice with practical demonstrations by a range of suppliers, offers a way of carrying educational messages without the imputation of supplier monopoly. I am teaming up with Professor Dominic Regan to give these events the broadest spread of black letter law and technical illustration. More on this soon, I hope.

Home