The importance of social media, including pictures, video, audio and and the increasing volume of potential evidence created on phones and tablets, has been properly receiving much attention recently.
It brings with it questions of costs, cuts, and proportionality as law enforcement, defence lawyers, and parties to civil or regulatory proceedings either gape in bewilderment at the size of the task or, in the case of the UK Crown Prosecution Service, close their eyes and hope that it will all go away.
The subject is currently topical in the context of criminal cases in the UK. While I have your attention for that reason, it is worth highlighting some of the points which apply equally in a civil context.
Let’s start with an article by Grania Langdon-Down in the Law Society Gazette of 18 June with the title Law enforcers struggle with electronic evidence challenges. It covers several aspects of what is effectively the same problem – people who “unwittingly give away more on their devices than they would tell their closest friend or relative”, police accessing phone data without a warrant, and police and prosecution authorities keeping back information (whether deliberately or by oversight) from defendants. Alison Saunders, the about-to-be-ex-head of the Crown Prosecution Service admitted that the CPS had been “too slow” and had been “taken by surprise – and shouldn’t have been” by the range and importance of data on the phones. Continue reading
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has given approval in principle to the proposed new disclosure rule for England and Wales. A LinkedIn post by Ed Crosse of Simmons & Simmons reports that the CPRC gave its approval on 15 June and that final approval will be sought at the next CPRC meeting on 13 July when the practice direction and disclosure review document have been checked.
I wrote about the proposed new rule following a presentation sponsored by ACEDS in February. I also interviewed Ed Crosse following a panel I did with him at Relativity Fest. I hope to do more of these as the rule roll-out develops.
The original proposals were published in November 2017 and have, Ed Crosse says, been “significantly approved as a result of the feedback received during the three-month consultation”. There were apparently 250 pages of written responses and 26 roadshow meetings and discussions. The pilot has been pushed back to 1 January 2019 in the Business and Property Courts in London and regional centres. It will last for two years and will be monitored during that time. Continue reading
At Relativity Fest in London, I spoke to Ben Shellie, CEO of Intelligent Voice. Intelligent Voice, Ben Shellie said, makes software designed to make audio review as simple as any other document review. It takes voice recordings, turns them into text, and helps reviewers not only to find what they are looking for but to identify things which they may not have had in mind.
The IICE eDiscovery Forum takes place at Lord’s Cricket Ground on 26 to 27 June 2018. IICE stands for Information Governance, Investigations, Compliance and eDiscovery.
This is the event which has for years been known to most of us as “IQPC” after its organisers. It has been running for 13 years and this is, I think, the 12th one which I have attended. This year I am chairing it.
You can find the agenda, registration form, event and venue details, and sponsor information on the website here. Sponsors include NightOwl Discovery, OpenText, EDT and Donnelley Language Solutions. Continue reading
One of the big attractions at Relativity Fest in London was a panel discussion about the right of US authorities to access data held abroad. The specific context was the case originally known as “Microsoft Dublin”, “the Dublin Warrant” or Microsoft v US.
The panel included the Honorable James Francis IV, Distinguished Lecturer at the City University of New York School of Law, and retired U.S. Magistrate Judge (S.D.N.Y.), who made the original Dublin Warrant decision. With him was Rachi Messing of Microsoft. David Horrigan of Relativity moderated. You can watch a recording of the panel here.
After the panel, I asked Judge Francis if he would distil into five minutes the really interesting discussion which had earlier taken an hour. Master of précis that he is, he did just that.
There is no substitute for reading the rules relating to disclosure, whether those expressly so – Rule 31 and its practice directions – or those with wider effect elsewhere in the rules. What happens, though, when something in the rules appears to conflict with common sense or with the duty to be proportionate? Judicial discretion goes only so far.
Back in July 2017, the excellent Gordon Exall wrote in his Civil Litigation Brief about a case in which he had been involved called Powell v Watford Borough Council. His article was headed Inadequate disclosure leads to defence being struck out – eventually.
I in turn wrote about the case in an article headed Disclosure obligations include the form and substance of list as well as its completeness from a purely disclosure angle (Gordon Exall’s remit is rather wider than mine).
I missed Gordon Exall’s later post of September 2017 (Non-compliance with peremptory orders – the full judgment in Powell v Watford Borough Council which links to and summarises the full judgment of Mr Justice Jay on the disclosure / relief from sanctions aspect of that case (let’s agree to ignore the procedural complications here – don’t even ask).
The extracts which Gordon Exall gives in his September 2017 post are primarily to do with the form of the disclosure statement, something you may consider an afterthought or an act of purely formal compliance which does not really matter. You would be wrong, as this judgment shows. Continue reading
The collection of data held abroad has long been a difficult (and interesting) subject for the US courts, state authorities and lawyers. 2018 has brought us the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the culmination of the battle between the US and Microsoft over emails stored in Dublin, and now the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Uses of Data (CLOUD) Act.
Relativity, FTI, the New England Chapter of the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS), and others come together on 13 June at Suffolk University Law School in Boston to talk about these things and about the very practical issues which arise from them for all those engaged in the keeping and collection of data held abroad. Continue reading
Posted in ACEDS, Cross-border eDiscovery, Data privacy, Data Protection, Discovery, eDisclosure, eDiscovery, Electronic disclosure, GDPR, Relativity
Tagged David Horrigan, Mary Mack
The merger between Consilio and Advanced Discovery, which I wrote about here, has now taken place. The combined company is presenting a webinar on 13 June with the title Mobile devices and the changing landscape of eDiscovery.
The amount of raw data and information generated by and stored in mobile devices increases all the time. The days are gone when discovery obligations could be met by collecting emails, loose files and corporate databases. Voicemail, texts, chat, social media, video and photograph files, GPS location information and more are all available from phones and tablets. Continue reading
Relativity, Ricoh eDiscovery and Commonwealth Legal are between them presenting two events this week with the title Using Active Learning for accelerated document review.
The first is a discussion / presentation on 13 June at 4.00pm in Toronto. The subjects to be covered include:
- Everyday analytics
- How to integrate advancements in analytics with traditional review approaches
- The case for Active Learning as a trusted assessor of legal risk
- The cost and time savings argument for advanced analytics
The presenters are Sean Lynch, Manager, Legal Solutions at Ricoh eDiscovery and Melissa Saniter, Solutions Specialist at Relativity. Continue reading
At Legaltech in New York in February, I spoke to Brad Scott, President and Chief Operating Officer at Epiq. More than a year had passed since Epiq and DTI were brought together as a single and very large global eDiscovery company, and I was interested to learn about the progress made since the merger.
One of the most interesting interviews which I have conducted this year was with Dean Kuhlmann, VP of Business Development at Brainspace. I took the opportunity then to write about the Cyxtera group of companies, including Brainspace, whose Continuous Multimodal Learning technology and dynamic visualisations were, as I put it, “augmenting intelligence, taking information, reorganising it, and giving the “good stuff” to the people who need it”.
Brainspace 6.1 takes this further with new features designed to improve the accuracy of investigative decisions, accelerate data analysis and reduce legal costs. Continue reading
Ed Crosse is a partner at Simmons & Simmons and a member of the Disclosure Working Group headed by Lady Justice Gloster. At Relativity Fest in London I took part in a panel with him and with Sir Colin Birrs at which which we discussed the proposed new disclosure rule.
Afterwards, I talked to Ed Crosse about the proposals, starting with the question “Why now?”.
Consilio is giving a webinar on 6 June about its new eDiscovery platform called Sightline.
Sightline has its own (rather good) section on the Consilio website which describes how Sightline was built from the ground up to manage eDiscovery, data exploration and investigations with new search, review, analytics and reporting tools. One of the points emphasised in the website is the fact that analytics – email threading, textual near dup and conceptual analytics – are built into every Sightline licence and that every document ingested into Sightline is analysed.
The webinar will focus both on the multiple uses for Sightline (including, for example, contract review as well as disputes matters) and on the advantages of Sightline over having to choose between “multiple disconnected technologies” with the resulting complication in workflows. Continue reading
Canada holds the G7 presidency from 1 January to 31 December 2018 and is the host for the G7 summit in Québec on 8 to 9 June.
The G7 is obviously concerned with overarching political and economic political, economic and security matters, but it is concerned also with various other topics like investment in growth, jobs for the future, gender equality, climate change, and clean energy.
Canada feels that it is important to understand what people think about these subjects and whether they react positively or negatively about them country by country.
Canada turned to OpenText (which is, of course, a Canadian company) to apply its data analytics skills to data collected from publicly-available sources such as G7 articles and tweets. To do this, OpenText uses Magellan, it’s artificial intelligence (AI)–powered analytics platform, to retrieve documents, display sentiment, and break down the key themes in an interactive way to show what issues matter most to citizens.
There is an article about this here. You can find the application here. Continue reading
Well, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is with us, and I am sure that you have all got your policies and procedures in order and your data classified, protected and secured. Perhaps not, not yet anyway, but you’ll be there soon, no doubt.
Even those who are well-prepared remain at risk of some kind of crisis. This may derive from oversight or omission, but it is as likely to come up because the bad guys, in their various flavours, often manage to be one jump ahead of the defences.
Research by FTI Consulting with more than 500 UK business managers in large companies shows that there remains considerable concern about the ability of organisations to cope with a GDPR related crisis, about their organisations’ vulnerability and about the potential damage to their reputation if such an event took place. Talk-Talk and British Airways are examples of companies which faced very substantial public backlash following some kind of failure (not just GDPR privacy-related failure) for which they were evidently unprepared. Continue reading
The Sedona Conference Working Group 6 is concerned with international electronic information management, discovery and disclosure. Its primary concern is organisations which are subject to litigation and regulation in multiple jurisdictions with potentially conflicting international laws.
WG6 is a global forum and think tank for sharing information, developing best practice, and educating on matters of national and international law and policy concerning eDiscovery the management, disclosure and protection of electronically stored information.
Every year, Sedona Conference’s WG6 holds an International programme on cross-border data transfers and data protection laws, each in a different jurisdiction with relevant issues; the most recent ones have been in Dublin, Berlin, Hong Kong and London. This year’s programme is in Budapest on 18 and 19 June. The details, including the agenda, the materials and faculty can be found here. Continue reading
The implementation date for the General Data Protection Regulation has come and gone with little obvious adverse effect except for those who gratuitously destroyed their own marketing lists after misunderstanding the new regulations about consent.
Companies have discovered that the world did not suddenly come to an end on a single big bang day and they can now settle down to and take a longer term view of their obligations in relation to private data as defined in the GDPR.
Many have been doing this already, and Nuix gives us a case study from a US-based Fortune 100 corporation which anticipated the need to rationalise, manage and control their data in advance of the GDPR. Continue reading
Relativity is presenting a webinar today, 30 May, in conjunction with Bloomberg. The title is Corporate cloud legal update: 2018 law, legislation, and regulation and, unsurprisingly, the principal subject is the Clarifying Lawful Uses of Overseas Data (CLOUD) Act, 2018.
That act, with its potential for US authorities to reach into foreign (that is, our) data sources, raises interesting and important matters of law relating to both privacy and jurisdiction. It also has practical implications for corporations, whether US ones or others. It is not the only legislation with cross-jurisdictional impact, with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) taking effect at the same time as the CLOUD Act. Continue reading
Posted in Cross-border eDiscovery, Data privacy, Data Protection, Discovery, eDisclosure, eDiscovery, Electronic disclosure, GDPR, Relativity
Tagged David Horrigan, Judge Francis, Patrick Zeller
Since the publication of Electronic Disclosure Law and Practice by Michael Wheater and Charles Raffin of Hardwicke (I reviewed it here), Hardwicke has been delivering a series of seminars on various aspects of using electronic documents in disputes.
The sixth seminar in this series takes place on 19 June and is about electronic document production in international arbitration.
Subjects to be covered include:
- Common approaches to document production in international arbitration – including the IBA Rules and institutional guidance.
- Dealing with the preservation, review and production of electronic documents in international arbitration.
- Key technology.
- The Future.
The seminar is free. You can register your interest by emailing events@Hardwicke.co.uk.
Every so often I write a post whose main purpose is to be a reminder that social media (including many non-conventional data forms) is both disclosable as a formal matter and potentially vital as a generally incontrovertible source of contemporaneous record.
The last few days have brought us several examples of dishonesty in law and politics. We have had the most eloquent judicial criticism of dishonesty I have ever seen in a civil case – nothing to do with social media, just an old-fashioned exercise of judicial credibility in the face of oral evidence which was beyond belief from witnesses whose demeanour failed to impress. We have had a reminder that the UK Ministry of Justice and its ministers have retained the idea, inherited from the fluently dishonest Chris Grayling, that truth is one of those luxuries, like functioning courts and an adequate supply of judges, which is easily dispensed with in hard times. We have also had a former junior justice minister refer to mounting volumes of evidence as “useless guff from social media”, saying this without any obvious self-awareness during a speech in which he criticised lawyers as “technologically-illiterate”. I will come on to him below.
At Relativity Fest in London, I interviewed David Horrigan, Relativity’s Discovery Counsel and Legal Education Director, on two subjects which had been well covered at the event. The first of those was the US government’s CLOUD Act which at a stroke made redundant the US Supreme Court’s consideration of the long-running case between the US government and Microsoft about data held on (in that case) servers in Dublin.
The other was the state of preparation and anxiety in the US about the then-pending General Data protection Regulation, which has since (today) come into force. At Relativity Fest, David Horrigan moderated a panel with former US Magistrate Judge James Francis IV (who gave the original Microsoft Dublin Opinion) and Rachi Messing of Microsoft. As I often do, I looked to David Horrigan for a high-level summary of the current topics.
I reported here on the merger between two already large players in the worldwide eDiscovery market, Consilio and Advanced Discovery including an interview with CEO Andy Macdonald.
That merger has now completed its formal stages and there is an infographic here showing the main quantitative features of the merged business, with figures for customer focus, scale, expertise, and technology. As I said in my earlier article, pure size tells only part of the story. The broad geographical spread matters very much to multinational clients, particularly those who need to give discovery simultaneously from locations around the world. The ability to invest in products like Nuix and Relativity, and in the skills to use them them, matters also. Perhaps the main point derived from my interview with Andy Macdonald was his saying that it becomes easier to attract talent because “people like to work at growing businesses.” Continue reading
Posted in Advanced Discovery, Brexit, Consilio, Data privacy, Data Protection, Discovery, eDisclosure, eDiscovery, Electronic disclosure, GDPR, Ireland
I take every opportunity to interview Karyn Harty of McCann FitzGerald. Over the years we have discussed her involvement in the leading TAR case Irish Bank Resolution v Quinn, the use of eDiscovery tools and skills for non-disputes purposes, the effect of Brexit on Ireland, and the development of court rules for proportionate discovery.
Karyn Harty was in London for Relativity Fest London and we did a panel together in which she gave the Irish perspective on the proposed new disclosure rule for England and Wales. I took the opportunity to talk to her afterwards about the need for eDiscovery training for judges and litigators.
If I come back now to a panel I moderated on technology-assisted review last November, it is partly because I think we are about to see a new focus on the use of TAR to achieve proportionate eDiscovery beyond the US. It is perhaps time for a jurisdiction-neutral survey of the points which arise when the use of TAR is under discussion – or to help kick-start such a discussion if it is not already happening.
The panel was one of three which I moderated at Technology in Practice in Toronto last November. Run by Commonwealth Legal and Ricoh, this event was one of the best I took part in last year. This was partly because they gave me a lot to do, and partly because the organiser, Jennifer Johnson of Commonwealth Legal, assembled an agenda which was both diverse and threaded through with some consistent themes. One of those themes was the human element in technology – thus the title I gave to my event review Law, technology and the human element at Technology and Practice in Toronto. Indeed, one of my three panels was devoted to that human element. Winning acceptance of technology-assisted review depends very much on understanding how people work; it is not just law and technology.
For my first panel, Jennifer Johnson allowed me not only to pick my subject but my panel. I chose technology-assisted review, and asked for Maura Grossman, formerly a red-hot New York litigator and now an research professor at the University of Waterloo and for US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck (now retired from the bench and Senior Counsel at DLA Piper). Constantine Pappas of Relativity joined us to bring the provider view. Continue reading
Posted in Analytics, Commonwealth Legal, Discovery, eDisclosure, eDiscovery, Electronic disclosure, Predictive Coding, Relativity, Ricoh, Ricoh USA, Technology Assisted Review, Technology in Practice
Tagged Judge Peck, Maura Grossman
Integreon is a global provider of legal, document, business and research support solutions for law firms, corporate legal departments, financial institutions and professional services firms.
That function includes identifying software and services which Integreon can deploy on behalf of its clients. Integreon has a partnership with Venio Systems, a provider of eDiscovery technology, whose web-based eDiscovery solution is designed to help lawyers reduce costs and risks while improving the management of litigation. There is more information about the Venio solution here.
Integreon and Venio are today presenting a joint webinar called The power and future of automated discovery. Its focus will be on automated self-service discovery and other trends in eDiscovery processing technology.
The speakers will be Jamie Berry, Managing Director of Litigation Services at Integreon, and Chris Jurkiewicz, co-founder of Venio.
There is more information and a registration form here.
Note the point towards the end – I am not seeking mere anecdotes about bad disclosure conduct but judgments in which aggressive or abusive disclosure – not just cock-up or incompetence – was punished
An interesting question came my way from Zander Goss @zandergoss, whose Twitter bio describes him as “Future pupil barrister; UCL LLM student”. It originated in the form of a tweet to Gordon Exall @CivilLitTweet who is the Oracle on all things relating to the Civil Procedure Rules with his Civil Litigation Brief.
Gordon Exall passed his question to me.
The question as originally put was this:
It is narrowly framed – not about whether one jurisdiction requires broader discovery / disclosure than the other but about the prevalence of tactical abuse and “exploitation” of discovery.
This was my reply:
The UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has an investigative role which is rather different from that of most regulators or law firms. It is investigator and prosecutor, taking on only seven to ten new cases each year, each of which might last between five and seven years.
The SFO has taken OpenText Axcelerate (which it acquired with the purchase of Recommind) to help it deal with the serious and complex fraud, bribery, and corruption cases which it manages, each involving huge volumes of documents and data which must be analysed to see if criminal activity has taken place and to run a prosecution where relevant. The Rolls-Royce fraud investigation which was settled in 2017 involved about 30 million documents. One case presently in hand has already turned up 50 million documents.
The OpenText press release is here. It quotes Ben Denison, Chief Technology Officer at the SFO, as saying that Axcelerate gives the SFO a way to “simplify its document review process, quickly capturing, categorising, and analysing data through a combination of advanced analytics features and built-in proprietary machine learning algorithms”. Continue reading
At Relativity Fest in London last week we heard positive things about FTI’s relationship with Relativity under which FTI is able to offer RelativityOne alongside its own Ringtail.
The messages were much the same as those which I got from interviews at Relativity Fest in Chicago last October. I talked there to Wendy King and Daryl Teshima from FTI at a point when the relationship was still new.
Daryl Teshima said that FTI saw significant benefits for clients in combining FTI’s own technology with a review platform on which many of FTI’s clients have standardised, in order to give clients the widest possible choice. The combination of Ringtail and FTI’s much respected consulting team offers a toolkit for solving problems big and small. Continue reading
You are probably secretly relieved when this happens, but I always feel I should explain when there is an interruption in the flow of blog posts. Gratifyingly, if slightly disconcertingly, the number of page views on my blog were higher in the week in which I published nothing than in any of the four preceding weeks. I could draw from that the conclusion that I could push off for weeks on end, but that would perhaps be unwise when new stories are appearing all the time.
Although there was some pleasure in it, the week away involved two events in different countries. The first was Relativity Fest London, at which I took part in a panel about the new disclosure rule, did several video interviews on a range of subjects, and had a lot of useful and interesting conversations. The one I always feel sorry for at these events is my son Will, who has to spend the whole day in a corner of a conference centre guarding the equipment and waiting for the next interview.
It takes most of the day to prep for the videos alone, let alone the panel and the rest. The time and effort is amply repaid by the video content we get from it. Almost none of this is time-sensitive, so an event like Relativity Fest gives me a library of interviews to spread out over the coming months. Continue reading
On Thursday 3 May I will be in Milan to take part in a discussion with Accuracy Italia about the use of Relativity.
Accuracy is a business advisory company with offices around the world. Its work includes transactions, disputes, turnarounds and other services for a wide range of industry sectors. These include Accuracy Review which is hosted in the Milan data centre, where Relativity is used for investigations and litigation document review.
The panel includes local experts and people from Relativity. My role is to moderate a discussion which will introduce the benefits of electronic review generally and of Relativity specifically. There is more information about this event here together with information about attending.
Electronic Disclosure Law & Practice by Michael Wheater and Charles Raffin. Oxford University Press | £175
I don’t think I betray any secrets by saying that I was asked to review the outline, the table of contents and the structure of this book as long ago as May 2014. I disclaimed personal knowledge of the authors, Michael Wheater and Charles Raffin, but said that the fact that they were barristers at Hardwicke was “a reference in itself”.
We were then in the middle of the compliance frenzy caused by the Court of Appeal’s daft decision in the Mitchell case in November 2013 ( Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd  EWCA Civ 1537). Mitchell was not a disclosure case but its elevation of nitpicking, rules-centric point-scoring over the practical and proportionate dispensing of justice gave rise to a series of pointless judgments about disclosure, shifting lawyers’ attention away from getting the job done and towards picking holes in their opponents’ disclosure, and in satellite litigation about alleged defects in procedure.
The Court of Appeal came more or less to its senses with Denton (Denton & Ors v TH White Ltd & Ors  EWCA Civ 906), rightly emphasising that breach of the rules was not a licence for opportunistic point-taking, and restoring the idea that parties should cooperate and that courts should look at all the circumstances of the case. Continue reading
There are many people who know a little bit about the General Data Protection Regulation, in some cases, just enough to be dangerous. Jonathan Armstrong of Cordery in London is an acknowledged expert on the subject of the GDPR and a range of other compliance subjects such as modern slavery.
I caught up with him in New York at Legaltech, where he had been taking part in a panel on the overlap, often amounting to conflict, between the requirements of the GDPR and US eDiscovery obligations, and I thought it would be interesting to capture some of his views on this.
The problem is a magnification of one which is familiar to anyone who has tried to reconcile the often broad demands of US eDiscovery with the ever-tighter restrictions on the use of personal data in jurisdictions outside the US. The EU has always been the leader in setting standards for the protection of personal data, and the GDPR takes this to a much deeper level. Continue reading
Since its establishment in 2016, the UK chapter of ACEDS (the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists) has been organising panel discussions in London which have rightly attracted large audiences.
The next one, on 16 May, is called Demystifying Blockchain – What is it? How is it relevant to legal technology professionals and how does it relate to eDiscovery?
The speakers are Dr Ben Gardner, Chief Scientific Officer – Wavelength Law, Gary Nuttall, Managing Director – Distlytics Ltd, Lee Bacon, Partner – Clyde & Co, Alexander Carter-Silk, Partner – Brown Rudnick and Spencer Lynch, Managing Director – Stroz Friedberg
… and the moderator is Richard Troumans – Editor, The Artificial Lawyer. Continue reading
As I have mentioned before, Hardwicke has been organising a series of eDisclosure seminars following the publication of the OUP book Electronic Disclosure Law and Practice written by Michael Wheater and Charles Raffin of Hardwicke.
The next seminar in the series is tomorrow, 24 April, with the title Processing and filtering electronic documents. It is given by Michael Wheater and Emma Hynes of Hardwicke.
Subjects to be covered include: Continue reading
With Relativity Fest London nearly upon us (it is on 1 May) it is timely to publish an interview which I did with Nick Robertson, Chief Operating Officer at Relativity at the end of last October’s Relativity Fest in Chicago in which he summarised the main points which interested people at that event.
Lorraine Medcraft is Senior Director of Sales at Epiq in London. I spoke to her at Legaltech in New York, mainly to hear about Epiq’s TMX bundling software which I had written about shortly before.
TMX is an Epiq proprietary tool which allows clients to structure and build bundles, to collaborate (by, for example, letting the other side come in and comment) and then making them available for a hearing. There is more information about TMX here.
Dean Kuhlmann is VP of Business Development at Brainspace. I interviewed him at Legaltech about the way technology is changing search for eDiscovery and and for wider business purposes.
The “story” in Dean Kuhlmann’s interview ends with a senior lawyer running down the corridor in his office after 15 minutes use of Brainspace, urging others to come and see what he is able to do with it. The context is the advances in technology which enable, as he puts it, five million documents to be visible on one screen, and the reduction in the time and labour required to review them. The technology, Dean Kuhlmann says, is not replacing humans but using them to get a lot more done more quickly.
Before looking at the interview itself, it is worth looking at Brainspace and the group of companies of which it is part, because that complements the picture of a very broad funnel at the top and a small pool of very relevant documents at the bottom. That five million documents reduced to a small pool for review is a microcosm of a business group which begins in volume terms with more than 50 data centres worldwide.
Brainspace is part of the Cyxtera group of companies which between them manage, secure, and make available very large populations of documents. Cyxtera owns 57 data centres around the world. Before anything else, therefore, it is an infrastructure company. It goes far beyond that, however, integrating security as a core service and providing other analytics and specialised services for key verticals such as financial services, public sector and health care as well as applications for broader businesses. Continue reading
A good interview does not have to be formal and structured to be effective and informative. By the time I came to interview David Horrigan, Relativity’s eDiscovery Counsel and Legal Education Director, at Legaltech, I had done 16 interviews over three days and this was our last. I had even discarded my tie.
David Horrigan is a fluent and articulate man, and we covered quite a lot of ground in our recap of the Relativity events at Legaltech and in looking forward to the next event (Relativity Fest London on 1 May).
We talked about the panel which I had just moderated for Relativity on cloud and regulation. It was part of a Relativity series on discovery at home and abroad and was, obviously, the “abroad” bit. Continue reading
Among the out-takes on the virtual floor of our virtual video editing room are several clips of me interrupting interviews when people talk about the GDPR fines of up to 4% of global turnover. They are, I have to say, slightly embarrassing to watch as I lay into people to ask if they have something more constructive to talk about, and I apologise to them. They are not the real targets of what have, with some justification, been called my “GDPR rants”.
As I have observed here before, I have been known when moderating panels in the US to ask the audience to name the first thing that comes to mind when the GDPR is mentioned. Always it is the fines. It is time to move the discussion to the actual likely effect on businesses large and small, not ignoring the fines, but equally not implying that every organisation is at risk of being handed fines at the maximum level for the slightest default.
At Legaltech, I was invited to go and talk to Rob Robinson, Doug Austin and others from CloudNine. I don’t usually agree to such invitations from non-sponsors because they take me out of an already overflowing stream of things to do at Legaltech, but I have known Rob Robinson for many years and he gave me my first introduction to US eDiscovery writing. There was also an invitation to be interviewed by Doug Austin whose eDiscovery Daily Blog came top of the recent list of Top 60 eDiscovery Blogs and Websites for eDiscovery Professionals assembled by Feedspot (I wrote about it here) and I welcomed the opportunity to reach his wide audience. Continue reading
Michael Conner is Director of Global Business Development at NightOwl Discovery. I interviewed him at Legaltech in New York about the relationship between clients, lawyers and eDiscovery providers.
Much of NightOwl’s business involves offering services directly to clients, generally on multi-year agreements. The clients have direct relationships with both the eDiscovery provider and the lawyers and this, Michael Conner says, can set up “a nuanced relationship”. Continue reading
As I have observed before, one of last year’s most interesting eDiscovery developments was the new partnership between FTI Consulting and Relativity, enabling FTI to supplement its own widely respected Ringtail with the ubiquitous Relativity and with Relativity’s cloud offering RelativityOne.
That relationship has taken a significant step forward with the announcement that FTI is to provide Relativity and RelativityOne in Hong Kong.
FTI has been offering eDiscovery services in Hong Kong for a long time and I have taken part in events with them there. They know as much as anybody (and more than most) about the difficulties specific to Asian eDiscovery, not least the difficulty of handling cross-border eDiscovery matters. Continue reading
Brandon Mack is Director, Analytics and Advanced Technologies at Epiq. I have interviewed him before, and jumped at the chance to do so again at this year’s Legaltech because of his succinct and positive descriptions of the way technology can be used for eDiscovery.
He drew a distinction in opening between conventional eDiscovery tools primarily designed to minimise data volumes to more conceptual tools such as predictive coding and advanced pattern matching. Continue reading
ILTA is the International Legal Technology Association whose function is to spread understanding about legal technology by organising events and by encouraging the sharing of information between people facing similar problems.
Although ILTA itself is a year-round educational resource, its name has become synonymous with its big annual event, called ILTACON, this year taking place at National Harbor in Maryland, just outside Washington. ILTACON is an event whose benefits extend from listening to expert speakers to informal discussions with others, as well as a strong calendar of social events.
ILTA recognises that the cost of attending ILTACON can be prohibitive for some and has established a number of scholarships to enable deserving people in various categories to attend, with their registration fee, accommodation and reasonable travel costs covered by the scholarship. Continue reading
Relativity Fest London takes place at 155 Bishopsgate on 1 May. That and the Nuix event which I attended recently (I wrote about it here) have effectively displaced most of the more generalised eDiscovery / eDisclosure events in the London calendar, offering a mixture of product-specific technical sessions and panels to do with the context in which the technology is used.
I am involved in one of the latter events called Court rules, regulations, and roles: the law and your part in the eDisclosure process. It is perhaps worth setting out its description:
From a potential new disclosure rule for England and Wales to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) affecting Europe and beyond, new rules and regulations are changing the duties and the roles of the participants in the e-disclosure process. Senior judges and rule-makers on both sides of the Atlantic have called for more judicial “stewardship” of the discovery/disclosure process, but many judges have resisted taking on this role. With the UK’s GC100 calling for comprehensive change in the disclosure process, what other legal professionals could see their roles change? Will judges in the UK become more active in the disclosure process, and will lawyers cooperate more? Mr. Justice Birss joins United Kingdom and international experts to apply the rules and regulations to your role.
The panel member of most interest in this context is Mr Justice Birss. His was the judgment in Smailes v McNally which I wrote about here, describing it as “the disclosure case of 2014” and referring to “its analysis of almost every point which can arise in an argument about electronic disclosure”. Continue reading
Posted in CPR, Discovery, eDisclosure, eDiscovery, Electronic disclosure, FTI Technology, Relativity, Relativity Fest
Tagged David Horrigan, Ed Crosse, Judge Francis, Karyn Harty, Rachi Messing, Wendy King
We do not have many good events in London dealing with eDiscovery and its surrounding subjects. The annual Nuix Insider Conference is an exception, one of the few events I go to whether or not I am participating in it.
An article by Jessica Lyford in Forensic Focus gives a good summary of the day which I do not need to recapitulate here. The theme which she refers to as “the convergence of investigations, eDiscovery, incident response and governance” is much the same as was covered by CTO Stephen Stewart in my video interview with him here, particularly the move by companies to put compliance, security, information governance, risk and HR matters under the umbrella of “risk” with a Chief Risk Officer taking overall control.
CEO Rod Vawdrey made two observations in his opening speech which are worth recording – that we are seeing a shift from recording the past to tracking what is happening now, and another shift from “silo subjects” to “problems we solve”. The accumulation of risk areas under one umbrella brings one benefit beyond the concentrated focus – once all the subjects are treated as part of the same problem, it becomes possible to aggregate budget towards tools and, services and staff to deal with them. Continue reading
The US Federal Rule of Evidence 902 (14) allows a forensic investigator to confirm that electronic evidence is authentic without having to appear in person to testify to that effect.
AccessData, makers of AD eDiscovery and other forensic tools, is running a webinar in conjunction with ACEDS on 11 April to talk through compliance with FRE 902 (14), about reducing the risk of data spoliation, and about reducing the overall cost using AD eDiscovery and the other AccessData forensic products.
There is more information and a registration form here. Continue reading
I have been interviewing Hal Marcus since his Recommind days, always getting useful insights into current topics on eDiscovery and analytics.
Recommind is now owned by OpenText and, more recently, OpenText has acquired Guidance Software. Catching up with Hal Marcus at Legaltech in New York, I asked him about the OpenText master plan for these acquisitions.
Hal Marcus said that OpenText’s ambition was to manage the full life-cycle of enterprise information management. The acquisition of Recommind and its strong analytical tools showed that OpenText was serious about discovery. Bringing in Guidance Software and EnCase takes this to a whole new level. Continue reading
At Legaltech, I had the opportunity to interview David Perla who is Co-Founder and Managing Director of of The 1991 Group and a member of the Board of Directors of Integreon. David Perla has worked in a law firm, and as President of Bloomberg BNA Legal Division/Bloomberg Law, and he was co-founder and co-CEO of Pangea3, a provider of outsourced legal services. He is better placed than most to talk about the present state of the legal market.
There was a time when clients gave instructions to law firms, and law firms did the work and sent in a bill. Those times are long gone. We sit now, David Perla says, at an intersection between law firms, end-user clients and a range of companies in the surrounding ecosystem. Continue reading
FTI and its long established eDiscovery platform Ringtail get more interesting all the time. Ringtail 9.4 brings a Software Development Kit, social networking enhancements, Mac compatible document review, customisable browse panels and a range of other developments which, when added to its solid processing capability, its strong visual analytics and its user-friendly interface have helped Ringtail keep its place at the top of the market.
It was Ringtail which BLP used in its successful application of predictive coding in the UK BCA Trading case which I wrote about here.
In parallel with software developments, FTI has been making strategic partnerships with others. The big story of last year was its partnership with Relativity, giving FTI’s top-of-the-range consulting practice a wider set of choices for document review. Continue reading
David Greetham is VP of eDiscovery Sales and Operations at Ricoh Legal. Just before Legaltech, Ricoh launched Remlox Cloud, a system designed to enable the easy collection of discovery data. There is information about this here, and an explainer video here (and linked to below). I took the opportunity to talk to David Greetham to find out more.
David Greetham said that Remlox Cloud is derived from Remlox™ Remote ESI Collection tool which is designed for full forensic collection. It has been used in 37 countries, across six continents, and for several types of matters including cases involving the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and other government agencies. Continue reading
Stories of the Law and How it’s Broken, by the anonymous author known as The Secret Barrister, describes the present appalling state of the criminal justice system and is one of those books which make you hate politicians. The decisions which underlie the conditions described in the book are the product of more than just budget-cutting; ideology and ignorance play their part, along with a cynical calculation about who votes for what.
I recently took a cab from Fleet Street and was treated along the way to a diatribe from the driver about the income of fat cat lawyers. Unusually for me, I engaged in the discussion. What made him say that? “Well”, he said, “The place I picked you up from, that’s Freshfields. They all earn fantastic money”. I patiently explained that there was much difference between a glossy world-ranking commercial law firm and a criminal barrister hurrying from dilapidated court to dilapidated court. He seemed genuinely not have considered this. Unfortunately, I doubt that he will read SB’s book.
What he will do is vote. He will have read his newspaper’s latest attack on legal aid being “given” to some “obvious” crook (probably one with a foreign-sounding name), or on an apparently derisory sentence handed down by a judge, and he will share its editor’s faux outrage. The editor will have used the headline precisely to attract this kind of reader, and they feed on each other’s prejudices. Politicians of all shades will take note and conclude that they can attack the justice budget as much as they like. Very large numbers of people will approve; most of those directly affected don’t vote anyway; and most of the rest don’t think they will ever come into contact with the criminal justice system. Continue reading
Consilio and Advanced Discovery, each of them already a major player in the global eDiscovery market, are to merge, with investment company GI partners taking a majority stake in the merged business.
The Consilio press release says that the combined company will have more than 2,500 employees, 14 data centres and 23 document review facilities in 11 countries, offering information governance, risk management, eDiscovery and document and contract review services.
Few dissent from the view that electronic discovery, and the growing number of business services which depend on eDiscovery skills and tools, will continue to grow, and even more quickly outside the US than in it with the spread of regulation, the growth in International trade, and the increasing need to meet cyber security and data protection demands. As companies become increasingly global, they expect the professional service providers to march with them and to be able to meet their increasing demands. Continue reading
Stephen Stewart is Chief Technology Officer at investigations and cyber security software company Nuix. I talked to him at Legaltech New York about the ever-wider uses for eDiscovery skills and tools, about the uses for artificial intelligence, and about our transition from investigating the past to confronting unwanted activity as it happens.
Stephen Stewart said that AI and technology-assisted review are “rehashed algorithms from 30 years ago”. TAR addressed an existing problem – the time and cost of eDiscovery review – and made it go faster. Continue reading
Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Cyber security, Data Security, Digital investigations, Discovery, eDisclosure, eDiscovery, Electronic disclosure, GDPR, Nuix, Technology Assisted Review
Tagged Stephen Stewart
I wrote here about a helpful presentation, under the auspices of ACEDS and moderated by Vince Neicho of Integreon, about the proposed new disclosure rule. Since then, the date has passed for representations to the working party and it is helpful, perhaps, to gather some of the comments together.
Legal IT Insider has published comments from Vince Neicho and from independent consultant Jonathan Maas of the Maas Consulting Group. The comments from ILTA (the International Legal Technology Association) are published here. I draw on my own submissions for this article as well as a warning from the Law Society.
A better understanding of the basics
All of us stress the need for a better understanding by lawyers and judges of the basics of electronic disclosure both in preparation for the pilot and case by case.
One of the issues here (as I said in my article on Triumph Controls) is of terminology. The term “technology-assisted review” is used vaguely, both in the rules and in various judgments, as if it had a single generalised meaning rather than being a specific example out of a wide range of different technologies. The problem is compounded by the fact that “technology assisted review”, “computer-assisted review” and “predictive coding” are used for much the same thing without differentiation from more everyday analytical tools like email threading, deduplication, and near deduplication. The ILTA comments include a strong section on this. Continue reading
I use the term “predictive coding” in this article because that is the term used a) in the relevant judgment, b) by BLP whose successful use of the technology is the subject of the article, and c) by FTI Consulting, whose Ringtail eDiscovery software was used. I wrote about the varied terminology (TAR, CAR, etc) in my article on Triumph Controls. Whatever you call it, we are talking of a system which “harnesses human judgments ….on a smaller set of documents and then extrapolates those judgments to the remaining document collection [Grossman and Cormack, TAR Glossary, 2013].
2016 saw two judgments in the courts of England and Wales in which the use of predictive coding was upheld, both from disclosure applications rather than at trial. The first was Pyrrho which, since the parties consented to the use of the technology, is more an example of the wisdom of cooperation than a clear sign of court approval – once the parties had agreed and explained their positions cogently to the court, it was unlikely that the master would have declined to convert their agreement into an order.
The second was BCA Trading which drew less attention than Pyrrho but which is more significant because BLP’s proposed use of predictive coding was hotly contested. The registrar inevitably drew on Master Matthew’s careful analysis in Pyrrho and said “I reach the conclusion based on cost that predictive coding must be the way forward”.
BCA Trading is back in the news again, following a 12 day trial at which BLP’s client was successful. BLP has written about it in an article called BLP wins case for BCA using predictive coding in disclosure. It says that “the disclosure provided was thoroughly tested at trial and the judge relied heavily on it for his findings”. I have not seen the judgment, but I understand that there is little in it about the discovery process – nor would one expect there to be in a judgment after trial. Continue reading
Posted in Analytics, Data visualisation, Discovery, Early Case Assessment, eDisclosure, eDiscovery, Electronic disclosure, FTI Technology, OpenText, Predictive Coding, Technology Assisted Review
One of my recurring themes in my occasional interviews with Matthew Geaghan of Nuix is the ever-wider application of eDiscovery skills and tools to tasks and functions beyond eDiscovery. As he says in this interview, it is “all about the data” and about the skills used for identifying, assessing and categorising data. Waymo v Uber has settled, but it has lessons for the recipient, as well as the owner, of wrongfully-removed data.
Information governance is a term which, useful though it seemed to me, did not attract as much attention as it should have done when it came up as a subject three or four years ago. It did not then have behind it the compelling reasons which have appeared since then, including awareness promoted by the imminent General Data Protection Regulation and realistic concerns about cyber security risks. It has become more evident that bad things happen when you do not secure data, quite apart from increasing duties to preserve the privacy of data subjects. Continue reading
With its acquisition of Guidance Software, OpenText has inherited the annual Enfuse conference which Guidance Software ran successfully for many years, originally with the name CEIC. I was a speaker there for many years and always learnt something and always enjoyed it.
As always, Enfuse has an agenda packed with technical and industry topics. As a special attraction this year, the industry keynote speaker is former FBI director James Comey. At the FBI he confronted terrorism, cyber threats, cyber attacks on political processes, and ethical challenges, and he is bound to be a big draw at Enfuse.
Enfuse takes place this year in Las Vegas between 21 and 24 May. If you are quick you can catch the early bird rate which ends on 9 March. You will find registration details here.
The latest iteration of Relativity’s analytic tools is called Active Learning. Roland von Borstel has written about it on the Ricoh / Commonwealth Legal blog Technology in Practice under the title Five reasons Active Learning is better than TAR.
The post is a description of Commonwealth Legal’s pilot use of Relativity’s Active Learning in Canada, and briefly summarises why Commonwealth Legal concludes that Active Learning is a considerable step up from Relativity’s earlier TAR 1.0 offering.
Commonwealth Legal is unequivocal in its conclusion that Active Learning’s new analytic review tools are better than the original ones. It is quick and easy to set up for review and to monitor; it gets to its results faster, and they are more accurate; it is easier to set a “threshold value” and to see where the incidence of relevant documents tails off; crucially, the number of documents sent through for review is significantly reduced. Continue reading
AccessData has been in the business of producing forensic investigation software for decades. Its latest development in digital investigation technology is called Quin-C which is designed to speed up data access, processing and analysis and to offer a customisable user interface to investigators of every skill level to help them conduct difficult investigations quickly.
As you would expect from a company whose product set has been designed to work together, Quin-C is designed to work either independently or jointly with existing AccessData tools such as FTK, AD Lab and the eDiscovery application Summation.
To introduce Quin-C, AccessData is running a live training webinar on 7 March and 14 March. There is more information and access to registration details here.
It is only a little over two months since I wrote about Integreon’s acquisition of litigation management software company Allegory. Already, the resulting combination of technology and human inventiveness have produced Allegory dashboard, an evidence management tool designed to help inside and outside counsel to collaborate properly.
The dashboard allows case information to be analysed for a single matter or across all matters on a single platform, and is designed primarily to help with the management of large and complex litigation. This reinforces a trend, visible over the last three to four years, under which in house counsel want more transparency and greater control over cases which they have in hand. The dashboard includes, for example, a key events overview and a tasks and deadlines module. Continue reading
At Relativity Fest in Chicago last October, I spoke to Chris Haley, the Director of Legal Technology at Troutman Sanders. I asked him what led his firm to choose Relativity for eDiscovery.
Chris Haley said that when the firm reviewed the software market, they were looking for the ability to take control of the application and to use it to differentiate themselves so that clients would understand the benefits of using them. Continue reading
eDiscovery blogs in South Africa and New Zealand were recognised in Feedspot’s recent list of Top 60 Global eDiscovery Blogs. The South African one is by Terry Harrison who wrote about the recognition here; the New Zealand one comes from Andrew King whose equivalent post is here.
When I first started getting involved in eDiscovery / eDisclosure in the UK, Terry Harrison was one of the first people I came across. We gave several presentations together, not least in Manchester.
A few years ago, Terry Harrison moved to South Africa and set up an eDiscovery consulting practice there. In addition to his work for clients, Terry threw himself into the subject of civil procedure rules reform in South Africa, making the case for eDiscovery rules changes designed to bring technology and proportionality together in civil proceedings.
Recognition in a US eDiscovery list is no small achievement for someone practicing in a jurisdiction so unfamiliar with the concepts of eDiscovery which are developing in the rest of the common law world. Continue reading
One of the more interesting partnerships to emerge last year was the one between FTI and Relativity, with FTI now offering Relativity solutions alongside its own Ringtail. I wrote about that here and mentioned it in my report on Relativity Fest, where the relationship was one of the big news items.
FTI has now announced that it is bringing Relativity, and its cloud-based platform RelativityOne, to the UK, continental Europe and worldwide, with immediate effect.
The FTI press release about this stresses two things: one is its ability to focus its attention very quickly on large-scale matters for international clients; the other is the combination of FTI’s long-established consulting practice which supplements software (whether FTI’s own Ringtail or Relativity) with workflows and advanced analytics designed to reduce the cost and complexity of large discovery matters.
As a moderator of GDPR panels, I sometimes ask the audience what is the first thing which comes to mind when they come across the letters “GDPR”; every time it is the bloody fines.
There has been no particular focus on what the fines are actually for, or on the other remedies available to regulators. The impression has been given that organisations will be hit with a fine of 4% of their global turnover for any GDPR breach.
Perhaps this got board attention in the early days of GDPR marketing. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office did its best to calm down the misperceptions; one of its very good series of articles on “GDPR myths” emphasised both that there are alternative remedies and that its intention was a graded series of steps towards enforcement.
The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party has issued Guidelines on the application and setting of administrative fines for the purposes of the Regulation 2016/679 aka the GDPR. These were adopted in October 2017 and have recently been issued in different language versions. Continue reading
I wrote recently about the Nuix Insider Conference 2018, due to take place in London on 22 March.
The full agenda has now been published and it is here. As always, it is a mixture of pure technology sessions and sessions designed to encourage discussion about the context in which the technology is used. The GDPR and digital forensics appear alongside eDiscovery, mobile investigations and the detection of fraudulent behaviour.
Of special interest is the launch of this year’s Nuix Black Report findings on cyber security risk, due to be published in March (you can sign up for a copy here).
Registration for the London event is here.
Judgment in Triumph Controls UK Ltd & Anor v Primus International Holding Co & Ors  EWHC 176 (TCC) was delivered by Coulson J on 7 February 2018, the same day as the very good session explaining the new disclosure rule of which I wrote here. There are interesting crossovers between the two developments, links between Triumph Controls and other cases criticising disclosure management, and other factors which make Triumph Controls part of a continuing thread focusing on how disclosure is performed.
The advantage of sitting tight for a bit before writing about judgments is that someone else will leap in and do a summary, saving me the wearisome task of paraphrasing the thing. We have had summary reports from Masood Ahmed (who is on the Rule Committee), from Ed Spencer and Lizzie Hancock at Taylor Wessing and from Pinsent Masons Out-law.com and I do not intend to cover the same ground – the judgment is only 42 short paragraphs long anyway.
What might be more helpful is to pick on some specific points which have implications beyond the bare decision. Continue reading
When I first saw the length of my interview with Karyn Harty of McCann FitzGerald, filmed at Relativity Fest in Chicago, I wondered if I ought to pare it down a little. Having listened to it, I find the whole thing valuable and have kept it all (it runs for less than 10 minutes).
Karyn Harty was the partner who persuaded the Irish court (and then the Court of Appeal) to permit the use of technology-assisted review in Irish Bank Resolution v Quinn. Since that case, she says, the use of TAR has become more widespread, at least in bigger Irish firms, partly because there is now judicial authority for its use and partly because lawyers and their clients are more familiar with TAR and the value that it can deliver in keeping eDiscovery costs down while complying with the discovery rules. Continue reading
An article on the JD Supra site manages somehow to convey the idea that I am positively agitating for eDisclosure rule reform.
The article is headed After panel sponsored by UK ACEDS, Chris Dale calls for rules reform. This exaggerates slightly the enthusiasm conveyed in my full report of the panel session about the proposed changes. Although, as I said in that article, the panel had converted me to the view “that the present piecemeal rules and PDs should be replaced”, I did not intend to cast myself as an agitator for change.
I think a better summary of my position is this – if some thoughtful people have been prepared to do a draft rule, and if the result actually forces judges and lawyers to focus on proportionate disclosure, and if the Rule Committee can spare the time to look at it, then since we are going to have to tackle disclosure sooner or later, it might as well be now.
I am not manning the barricades for or against it, but since it is going to happen anyway, I might as well contribute as positively as possible to the debate.
FTI Consulting has been offering information governance services since before the General Data Protection Regulation was a twinkle in the eye of the EU. It was among the first of the major players to draw attention to the fact that both eDiscovery and compliance obligations become easier to manage if you have less data and more understanding of the data which you must keep. In addition, the ability to keep better control of corporate data enables organisations to extract value from the data they have – to make a better business, not just to anticipate and defend against risks.
Sonia Cheng, European Information Governance Leader at FTI Consulting adds a further point in her article Perfect storm: navigating the compliance landscape in 2018. While the chief focus in 2018 is on the GDPR, she says, that is only one of several regulations which affect the collection, storage, processing and sharing of data. Organisations face not just jurisdictional conflicts (where the law of one country conflicts with those of another) but apparent conflicts between obligations in different regulations within a single jurisdiction. One regulation appears to require you to keep data while another imposes restrictions on keeping that same data. Continue reading
On 27 February, Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law is the host for an evening in honour of retired US Magistrate Judge James Francis and about-to-retire US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck. You will deduce from its title From Da Silva Moore to Microsoft: The Jurisprudence of Judge James Francis IV and Judge Andrew Peck that the focus will be on the opinions delivered by these two judges, and specifically on those related to eDiscovery.
The Cardozo Data Law Initiative is joined by Relativity and ACEDS (the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists) in the persons respectively of David Horrigan, Discovery Counsel and Legal Education Director at Relativity, who will moderate the discussion, and Mary Mack, Executive Director at ACEDS, who will introduce the evening. The invitation to the event is here. I would like to be there, but 3,5000 miles of ocean stands in my way. Continue reading
There is a lot in here – preparations for the GDPR, the growing realisation of the implications of holding the data of other organisations, contractual certifications of GDPR compliance, unwitting indemnification of other parties, WP249 and its assertion that discovery may amount to the “monitoring” of employees, the balancing of one set of obligations against others, and improvements in security in discovery review.
At Relativity Fest 2016 I asked Patrick Burke, then at Bennett & Samios LLP and now Director, Financial Services Innovation at the New York State Department of Financial Services, about the motivation of organisations who were preparing for the General Data Protection Regulation. What was the most compelling factor which drove them towards compliance?
Most people, at that stage, would have answered “The fear of 4% fines”. Patrick Burke’s answer was “They want to keep doing business”, something I have been quoting ever since. I put the question to him again at Relativity Fest in 2017.
The management of electronic documents does not end with the completion of discovery. Between then and trial, documents must be collated and reviewed for the trial itself and for intermediate purposes such as witness statements and, in the US for depositions.
Epiq has launched a hosted SaaS (Software as a Service) platform called TMX. TMX allows documents to be annotated, tagged and hyperlinked to ease the process of case preparation, collaboration and presentation. It builds electronic bundles quickly and easily with concepts which mirror those which lawyers and courts expect such as folder structure, pagination and index generation.
TMX is available immediately in Europe and will shortly be available elsewhere. There is more information about it here.
The Nuix Insider Conference 2018 takes place at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London on 22 March 2018.
As always, the agenda has a set of parallel tracks which between them cover compliance, investigations eDiscovery, cyber threat and the detection of fraudulent behaviour. In parallel with all that are labs covering the latest Nuix technology.
You can register here.
Posted in Cyber security, Data privacy, Data Protection, Data Security, Digital investigations, Discovery, eDisclosure, eDiscovery, Electronic disclosure, Nuix, Nuix Insider Conference
Although this post is about our arrival in New York for Legaltech, it is not really about Legaltech. What you hope for after a long flight is a hushed hotel lobby and a friendly receptionist welcoming you to the rooms you booked months ago…..
As we draw up outside our hotel in Manhattan it is evident that something is going on. Crowds of mainly young people line the steps and gather on each side of the lobby, held back only by a single rope. A few relaxed-looking NYPD officers stand around. There are a some large men, nearly as broad as they are tall, wearing those curly earpieces which signify Security. There is a lot of excitement, but it is well-mannered, restrained excitement.
There are four of us – me, my sons Charlie and William, and Charlie’s wife Kat. As we struggle by with our enormous quantities of luggage, I overhear something. “The Grannies”. How sweet, I think, all these kids assembled for their grannies.
“Grammys”, said one of my more switched-on companions. “It’s the Grammys tomorrow”.
The Grammys, I later find, is some kind of award for achievement in the music industry. Some of its contenders are apparently visiting in this hotel and the crowds are there to meet them. Not their grannies. And not us. Continue reading
I went last week to a panel discussion called Have your say on the proposed disclosure rule changes. It was held under the auspices of the UK Chapter of ACEDS (the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists), organised largely by the extremely efficient James MacGregor of Inventus, and hosted by Clyde & Co, with drinks and food sponsored by Inventus.
My starting point, as you may have gathered from an earlier article, was that it seems rather heavy-handed to give us a whole new rule, with all that that entails, when the disclosure working group itself makes clear that many of the existing problems arise because nobody, lawyers and judges alike, is reading and applying the existing rules. Lady Justice Gloster’s time, I reckoned (see my 2018 SCL predictions here) might be better spent visiting delinquent judges with RTFR (“Read the F* Rules”) tattooed on her knuckles.
I earn my living, in part, from talking about rules, and to have the General Data Protection Regulation and a proposed new disclosure rule in one year is not something to complain about. I came away with a modified view of the merits of the proposed new rule, and it is worth setting out in some detail the facts and arguments which persuaded me of its potential value. Continue reading
By “London” in my title, I mean “the courts of England and Wales”. Probably, in fact, I mean “disputes business”. This is not one of those “we’re all doomed” articles, just some pointers to the possibility that other jurisdictions may offer more attractive venues both in terms of procedure and facilities.
One of the motivations behind the new disclosure rule, so we were told this week, was a threat by GC100 companies that they will find alternative ways of resolving their disputes if the courts of England and Wales do not address inefficiencies, particularly inefficiencies of procedure and specifically disclosure, in our courts.
A couple of straws in this wind came my way yesterday. Neither necessarily indicate a flight from London in the short-term, but they do add substance to fears of an erosion of London’s position. Continue reading
I am surprised, and very pleased, that this blog should have been ranked at number 6 in a list of Top 60 eDiscovery Blogs and Websites for eDiscovery Professionals assembled by Feedspot
Inevitably, the list has a strong US flavour, and it gives me particular satisfaction to rank high in a jurisdiction which is not my own and with a blog which (for reasons to do with its origin) carries the word “eDisclosure” in its title rather than “eDiscovery”. Continue reading
Hardwicke is running a series of seminars about electronic disclosure. The next one is on 13 February it is called eDisclosure – preparing for the new pilot program. The speakers are Charles Raffin, co-author of Electronic Disclosure Law and Practice, and Lesley Anderson QC, a member of the disclosure working group.
They will review the proposed changes – not merely the rules but the changes in practice required under the pilot program, the revised menu of disclosure options, the handling of case management conferences, and anticipated changes to the cost budgeting regime. Continue reading
One of the attractions of Relativity for its partners and customers is the ability to customise it and to add functionality to meet client needs.
This was the main theme arising from my interview with Charlie Kaupp, Product Manager for H5, at Relativity Fest.
H5’s clients range from those who are expert themselves and know exactly what they what they want through to those who need a lot of hand-holding, education and consultation. Both benefit from the fact that Relativity is an open development platform which allows H5 to access the databases and APIs to develop applications. Continue reading
“…users can collect request a collection in the morning… and be reviewing their data that same evening, utilising one of Ricoh’s’s several document review tools. There is no technological knowledge required by the end user, nor hardware requirement…”
This description is of Ricoh’s Remlox Cloud service on offer from this week as part of Ricoh’s Digital Forensics Services offering.
I open with this description of what is involved because this simple kind of statement about what actually happens is to be encouraged. Marketing appeal should be to the intended users and, preferably, to those new to the technology on offer – that’s where new customers lie. The more technical stuff is of course important, but it does not grab the attention of the users in quite the same way. Continue reading
Kelly Atherton is Senior Analytics and Review Manager at NightOwl Discovery. I have interviewed her before and was glad to have the chance to do so again at Relativity Fest in Chicago.
As subject, as before, was the growing use of analytics in cutting down the time and cost of discovery reviews. In the year since I last interviewed her, Kelly Atherton has seen the development of default workflows at NightOwl for the use of structured analytics tools such as email threading. It is what clients expect for every case.
Increasingly, Kelly Atherton is making use of the conceptual analytics tools which Relativity provides. She refers specifically to clustering as a tool which lawyers can pick up very quickly when removing junk or hunting for key documents. Continue reading
The Sedona Conference remains the most thoughtful of the organisations producing guidance for those involved in electronic discovery in all its forms. Two recent publications are of particular interest, one about privacy and one on BYOD – Bring Your Own Device.
The Sedona Conference Data Privacy Primer produced by Sedona’s Working Group 11 aims to provide a practical framework and guide to basic privacy issues in the US, and to identify key considerations and resources in federal and state law, regulations and guidance. Its final version can be downloaded here.
The Sedona Conference Commentary on BYOD: Principles and Guidance on Developing Policies and Meeting Discovery Obligations is designed to help organisations develop and implement workable BYOD policies and practices, as well as addressing how the creation and storing of an organisation’s information on devices owned by employees affects the organisation’s discovery obligations. It can be downloaded here. Continue reading
Legaltech 2018, taking place next week in New York, is now part of a wider set of events called Legalweek.
I have for some years taken part in a Corporate Counsel Roundtable organised by William Belt, now at CDS, as co-moderator of the judicial panels which are always part of the programme. The combination of the judges and senior people from the legal departments of major corporations always makes for an interesting session.
Corporate Counsel Roundtable 2018 takes place on Monday 29 January and attendance is limited to corporate eDiscovery professionals, both lawyers and non-lawyers. It includes an eDiscovery case law update, various topics chosen by regular attendees, and a Rules update two years on from the last amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
My own involvement is in the closing panel, a Q&A session with Judges Andrew Peck, Jay Francis and Frank Maas. The moderators are William Belt, Ann McCray of McGuire Woods, and me. Continue reading
The most helpful articles and blog posts by providers and suppliers are those which convey useful information or suggestions without overtly ramming product down your throat. Those who, like OpenText, are confident about their products and their place in the market, are content to leave the subliminal message that they can help while conveying something useful to readers.
Opentext is one of the largest providers of Enterprise Content Management (ECM) tools, and has been adding to its range with the acquisition of Recommind and Guidance Software, giving it a strong position in electronic discovery and the forensic acquisition of data.
The OpenText blog carries an article by Janet de Guzman called Brexit – how do you prepare for the unknown? It focuses on the potential for disruption in a major market, on the potential changes to the regulatory framework which affects companies well beyond the UK and the EU, and on what organisations should be thinking about in circumstances where not all the facts are yet available. Continue reading
Nuix is presenting a webinar on 25th January with the title Theory to practice: insider threat lessons from Waymo v Uber. Nuix’s description of its webinar begins thus:
Well-placed insiders, comfort media meetings, secret world changing technology, and huge sums of money changing hands – sounds like the latest spy novel, right? But it’s not; this is a true story, where data is the main character in the Waymo v Uber case.
The themes here are the value of data, particularly intellectual property information, the increasing cybersecurity risk that comes with it and, in particular, the risk posed by those inside the organisation.
The webinar is given by Nuix Chief Technology Officer Stephen Stewart and by Keith Lowry of Nuix. There is more information and a link to a registration form here.
We are part-way between Relativity Fest in Chicago last October and the next Relativity Fest London on 1 May. I looked back at the interview I did with Nick Robertson of Relativity after the London version of Relativity Fest in April.
The point to be made here is that, while obviously a US Corporation with a very large US customer base, Relativity has become an international brand, one which manages to appear “local” in any of the jurisdictions in which it operates. That, perhaps, is easiest in the UK where, as Nick Robertson says, Relativity found its some of its earliest customers. Many of its best new ideas, he says, originated in the UK.
This was the fourth year of Relativity Fest in London and, like its big brother in Chicago, it mixed material which is specific to Relativity with legal content applicable to the venue and the audience. The Relativity Fest agenda is packed with both, as well as with the social side of these events for which Relativity is renowned. Continue reading
ACEDS, the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists, has organised some well-attended evening events since its launch in London last year.
The next one, on 7 February, may be the most interesting yet. It is about the proposed disclosure rule changes, and the panel includes Lady Justice Gloster who chaired the working group which drafted the proposed new rule.
The most straightforward and factual article about the proposals is on Simmons & Simmons’ Elexica site. It summarises the proposals and the main reasons for the changes, and has links to the draft rule.
Vince Neicho, now VP eDiscovery at Integreon, will be the moderator of the panel, drawing on his many years of responsibility for disclosure at Allen & Overy as well as his more recent involvement at Integreon. The other panel members are Ed Crosse, of Simmons & Simmons, Tim Brown of RPC and Caroline Field of Fox & Partners. Continue reading
I generally stick to single subjects in these blog posts, but AccessData has been busy announcing things and it is convenient to combine them in a single post.
Webinar on 17 January
I have written before about the current series of webinars which AccessData is running, mainly about forensic matters (I make that distinction because AccessData’s products and services cover a very wide range of subjects).
There is a list of the webinars in their Coffee Break Webinar Series – 2018 here. The next one, on 17 January (that is, tomorrow) is called How to examine mobile evidence in FTK. It is about the use of AccessData’s MPE+ and nField products to collect and analyse mobile devices properly and quickly. You can register from the webinar schedule mentioned above.
AD User Summit 19-22 June
I was a moderator and speaker on several panels at last year’s AD User Summit in San Diego, and I wrote about it here. It was as enjoyable as it was useful. Continue reading
Terminology matters when trying to interest people in new products or developments. The expression “artificial intelligence” has the potential to put people off, not least the lawyers, who pride themselves on their own application of intelligence to business problems.
The reality is that a few computer applications, particularly in business and legal business, are capable of performing the whole function expected of lawyers. It is better, perhaps, to think in terms of AI as meaning “augmenting intelligence”.
The human element remains important – I moderated a whole panel at Technology in Practice in Toronto on the subject of the continuing and important role of humans both as clients and as the doers of work. Continue reading
It may seem rather odd to go away for a week at the beginning of January. The British, after all, take their Christmas and New Year break rather more seriously than they do in the US, and you might think we have had enough rest.
That is not unfair, but this is the last week of relative peace for a while. My first event is next week. Then it is time to prepare for Legaltech in New York – I am doing two panels there, fitting in as many video interviews as possible, having as few formal meetings as I can get away with, and doing lots of bumping into people in corridors, which is what I really go there for.
We used to come down here to the North Cornwall coast in the autumn, when schools have gone back, the roads are clear of Chelsea Tractors and prices are sensible. That was great, but it increasingly conflicted with the conference season and having to flog to Heathrow for yet another long-haul flight. Two of our boys work on the technical side of entertainment, and January is quiet for them; all three are here for part of this week. Continue reading
Many years ago, Nigel Murray began a tradition of organising a Commonwealth Brunch on the Sunday before Legaltech (now part of Legalweek) in New York. The Commonwealth “qualification” effectively brings in anyone except those from the US (and they are welcome too if they work outside the US).
Nigel Murray cannot be with us this year, and James MacGregor of Inventus in London has has kindly offered to organise this year’s Brunch.
The venue, as so often in the past, is the Tavern on the Green, a short walk from the 6th Avenue Hilton. The time is 12.00pm on Sunday 28 January and the cost per head is $80. Continue reading
FTI Technology has appointed Sandeep Jadav as its new managing director for Asia. He will be based in Hong Kong with responsibility for FTI teams in Shanghai, Tokyo, Singapore, and elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region.
Any thought that I might interview him before he goes has been anticipated by Kate Holmes, Managing Director of FTI Consulting in its marketing department, who has already done a comprehensive Q&A with Sandeep Jadav. You will find it here, and all I need to do is point to the key points arising from it.
Asia is particularly complex region
It is idly convenient to bundle the whole of the Asia-Pacific region together as if it were one place. It is, of course, a large number of economically-important countries with a range of languages, laws, data protection regulations and, not least, cultural differences between themselves and distinct from those obtaining in the US and Europe. China’s data protection rules, comprehending state secrets as well as commercial and legal issues, tend to dominate discussion, but each part of the region brings its own laws, problems and customs. Continue reading
Posted in China, Cross-border eDiscovery, Cyber security, Data privacy, Data Protection, Data Security, Discovery, eDiscovery, FTI Technology, Hong Kong, Singapore
Tagged Sandeep Javid
Ben Rusch is a solicitor and Vice President of Document Review Services at Consilio in London. He took part in a panel discussion on privacy, data protection and cross-border discovery which I moderated at ILTA 2017 in Las Vegas, where his subject was the practical problems of collecting data in the EU. This aspect gets relatively little coverage compared with discussion about the legal difficulties, and I wanted to hear more from him as someone who deals with these issues daily.
Two issues come up in this interview. One is to do with practical things like getting hold of equipment and premises. The other is about the added implications which EU privacy and data protection rules and expectations put in the way of those who are used to how things work in the US.
Each December, Computers & Law editor Laurence Eastham asks for predictions for the year ahead. I used to be very serious about this, straining to think about how eDiscovery / eDisclosure law, technology and practice would develop in the next twelve months. Others would be doing the same, and we all came up with more or less the same predictions. I think it was the Mitchell case, and the absurd consequences as judges tried to implement its stupidity, which tipped me towards a less serious approach.
Laurence Eastham has kindly permitted me to republish my 2018 predictions, originally published here on the Computers & Law site with the heading Chris Dale has made a habit of sending SCL a great set of somewhat acerbic predictions. Here is another glorious product of his warped crystal ball.
We are urged this year to think back to our predictions for earlier years and to see how they fared. Most of mine fall under two main headings: one was that judges would become militant enforcers of the rules of civil procedure as they relate to disclosure; the second was that the Ministry of Justice will foul something up or close something down, generally undermining the purpose inherent in its name. Other themes include the growing importance of the data we create with our smart devices, often without knowing it, and how that can come back to bite us. Continue reading