Archive for August, 2009|Monthly archive page
Your current litigation support software may not measure up to the demands of today’s electronic document based litigation. Why? Perhaps it’s built on 80’s technology and unable to manage large volumes of data. Maybe it can’t handle certain document types or foreign languages. or maybe it’s jut not all that easy to use.
Let’s face it. Some of today’s popular litigation support systems were designed and built back when Milli Vanilli was still riding high on the charts. These systems have attempted to keep up with the times, but, due to their architectures, they struggle under the demands of the ESI productions that firms are seeing today. And while most of us acknowledge these faults, we continue to use the old programs because that’s what they’ve “always used,” and we believe that migrating to a new platform would be difficult or expensive to do.
But leveraging the latest litigation technology does not call for a drastic “rip and replace” of your existing technologies. Instead a migration and/or co-exist strategy can
- Be painless to an organization
- Provide uninterrupted litigation process support
- Easily transfer data back and forth
- Allow users to continue leveraging the features of their legacy system
- Be cost effective
- Lead to rapid litigation process acceleration
Next Wednesday I’ll be moderating a webinar hosted by Anacomp’s CaseLogistix on how to accomplish such a migration and with the economy set to turn around, now is the time to prepare for the inevitable litigation activity upswing by understanding how to handle such a migration.
Presented by Mandi Ross, CEO & Managing Director, Prism Litigation Technology and Jeff Friedman, Senior Product Manager, Anacomp, this webinar will answer the following questions:
- What are the limitations of older litigation support systems?
- What can modern litigation support platforms do that legacy systems can’t?
- How can my firm or legal department migrate to or co-exist with a next-generation platform?
- What are the best practice paths and processes to do so?
- What firms have done so, and what can I learn from them?
- How can data be converted and shared from one system to another?
- How can I maximize my success with a new platform?
Boy do I wish I said that. But the award for third consecutive well turned phrase in a publication regarding electronic discovery goes to Craig Ball.
It all started with a post on Monday morning by Monica Bay on the EDD Update blog. She reported that while at a lunch with John Roman, head of IT at Nixon Peabody, the two of them discussed the idea of no longer using the “e” in front of e-discovery. Said Monica, “ After all, it’s discovery — and 99% of it involves electronic files.”
I demurred, saying that I thought e-discovery is still a phrase with a useful distinction. I noted that back in March Judge Scheindlin had made much the same comment in an interview with Ralph Losey and my response to her comment was equally relevant to Monicas. (it is set out below) At that point the gauntlet was thrown, the line was drawn in the sand, the Rubicon had been crossed … ok, I give up … I can’t think of a better phrase then Craig used.
But I’m told by numerous vendors that their requests for paper productions and blow backs has increase as their ED business has declined (I think the S-G Survey figure of a 9% decline in ED revenue is grossly underreported but that’s a comment for another post): the response to the economic decline by many firms has been to resort to what they know best: plain old paper discovery.
So don’t drop that “e” quite yet …there’s still plenty of other discovery around to make the phrase useful.
You can see all the comments at http://www.eddupdate.com/2009/08/is-it-time-to-lose-the-e.html#comments and mine below:
“Second is a quote from Judge Scheindlin I found of interest: “We used to say there’s e-discovery as if it was a subset of all discovery. But now there’s no other discovery”
Now with all due respect to the Judge, I have to disagree. First, of course, we still have Depositions and Request for Admissions and Subpeona Dices Tecum and …well, you get the point. But also, down here in the the streets and out here in the fields, if I may mix a musical metaphor, where the people who don’t make it into Federal court with mega-milion dollar cases are, to paraphrase Chris Berman , rumblin and stumblin through plentiful paper productions, it’s not all about e-discovery at all.
All those general practitioners Ralph mentions on his bog are working with general counsel and city attorneys who still haven’t entered the digital era and routinely practice with bankers boxes of paper and not jewel cases of CD’s. I live in New Orleans … believe me, it’s true.”
Two new whitepapers based on webinars sponsored by our host, Anacomp’s CaseLogistix, are now available on the Anacomp website at http://www.anacomp.com/resources/wp/. They are The Top 10 Steps to Take When Purchasing Litigation Support Software, written by me, and How to Leverage Technology to Enable Information Cooperation in eDiscovery written by me and Chuck Kellner, Vice President of eDiscovery Consulting at Anacomp.
That page will also give you links to the recordings of the actual webinars as well as a number of other resources including the CaseLogistix Cost Savings Calculator and several case studies.