Macro photo of tooth wheel mechanism with PROJECT concept related words imprinted on metal surface

Paralegals Are Project Managers Too!

I wrote this piece a few years ago for my own personal blog because I thought then and I still think now that paralegals are e-discovery project managers. I also wrote something similar for NALA’s Facts & Findings publication, and again, my argument holds up.

Whether you’re traveling a long distance, going on a short road trip, or just heading out to buy dinner, the most important piece of information you need is where you’re going, right? To figure out how you are going to get somewhere, you must know your destination. While this is more difficult as we traverse our goals in life, when it comes to success in e-discovery and the world of legal and litigation support this analysis is much easier.

Managing a project is like managing a case

Every case and each part of a case can and should be viewed as a project. A project is a temporary, non-routine endeavor limited by scope, time, and cost that creates a unique product, service, or result. Projects have a start and an end, and they are unique. Paralegals are drafting motions, performing research, working on discovery, or a trial –all of these are projects or sub-projects of a larger case. Project management principles will help get the work done more effectively and more efficiently.

Who’s a project manager?

Project management, defined, is the structured application of skill, knowledge, tools and techniques to organize project activities and efficiently bring about a desired outcome. Paralegals do this day in and day out as they apply their skills to casework at law firms and corporations around the world.

Paralegals and legal assistants are as much project managers as any attorney leading a case. A project manager is the person possessing the applicable skills, knowledge, and talent who is assigned by an organization and responsible for overseeing and actively managing, among other things, the scope, time, and cost of a project to achieve project objectives. A project manager, like paralegals, must manage the interests and expectations of stakeholders and ensure that the project is completed at scope, on time and within budget. Along the way, they also measure and manage risk, ensure the quality of deliverables, and manage the personnel and other resources associated with a project.

If this doesn’t describe the role of paralegals working on a case, then it’s not clear what does. From the time their phone rings and they receive a new case assignment, paralegals are helping to manage and organize as the case moves through the stages of the litigation spectrum. Drafting, filing, organizing, researching, managing documents or discovery, cite checking – each of these are projects that require specialized skills, have dependencies, and must be performed efficiently. Without a doubt each of these tasks have time constraints and cost limitations. So, lest there remain any doubt—paralegals are project managers.

What does Done look like?

But confusion remains regarding exactly how project management principles integrate with legal work. Perhaps the most important question a project manager can ask when he or she leads a project is “What does done look like?” That question, as simple as it seems, together with the answer, should resonate throughout the project. Otherwise, the scope of the project lacks definition, and when a project lacks proper scope definition the outcome will likely not be successful. When you take on a new case or assignment, it’s important to gather all the information, requirements, and parameters. Remember, successful projects have a vision, a purpose, and a goal, and they have time and cost constraints.

But scope management is just one aspect of project management. There are several components to project management that should be understood, starting with an understanding of the project lifecycle.

The Project Management Lifecycle

Projects have a life; they have a beginning and an end. The project lifecycle begins with the five pillars of traditional project management, called Process Groups. Process simply refers to the discreet steps, actions, or operations one takes to achieve project objectives, the tools used, and an understanding of what each part of a project will look like as well as the final result. Process is identifying the inputs, tools and techniques, and the outputs required to produce results.

The Five Project Management Process Groups

To begin a project, it makes sense to have an orderly framework. The project management process groups provide that framework:

The Five Project Management Process Groups

At each stage of a project, the project team should consider the following:

  • Initiating: Should we take on this project? What are the alternatives? Should we make it or buy it? Do we have necessary agreements in place?
  • Planning: What does done look like? What is and what is not included? What resources do we need? Who will lead the project? How much is it going to cost? How long will it take? What risks are involved? How will quality be maintained?
  • Executing: Project work begins and deliverables are prepared.
  • Monitoring & Controlling: Are we on time? On budget? Are we maintaining quality? How are we monitoring changes?
  • Closing: Document what was done, record metrics and perform post-project review.

The Project Management Knowledge Areas

The lifecycle does not end here. Within each process group are specific areas of responsibility that a project manager focuses on throughout a project. Known as the Knowledge Areas, these are the core elements in each of the five process groups that a project manager must manage:

  • Integration management
  • Scope management
  • Time management
  • Cost management
  • Quality management
  • Human resource management
  • Communication management
  • Risk management
  • Procurement management
  • Stakeholder management

The Knowledge Areas help to structure, categorize, and navigate the order of project work. They must be consistently integrated, managed, and monitored across the five process groups during a project.

Together, the five process groups and ten knowledge areas provide a consistent framework for project work. This framework has been time-tested and it works.

The Ins and Outs of PM

Within the framework, a project manager is responsible for the Inputs, Tools & Techniques, and Outputs in each knowledge area. The project manager first gathers information and identifies the requirements of the project (Inputs). Second, decisions are made about the equipment, methodologies, and resources necessary to achieve project success (Tools & Techniques). And third, the completed tasks and activities become deliverables and, ultimately, the final product, service or result (Outputs).

To illustrate the point, an example is helpful. Tasked with collecting electronically stored information (ESI) from a client for discovery, what Inputs are needed before beginning the project? What information is necessary to enable the collection project to move forward? In the very least you need the location, the names of custodians, and the sources from which you will collect the ESI.

Next consider the Tools & Techniques. Is there a particular collection methodology suitable to the case? What tools are required? Are there written protocols or best practices for performing a collection? Here you need to know if you’re going to forensically collect the ESI or use other less formal procedures. Ideally, you’re going to use a trained technician who employs software or hardware that write-protects the ESI to prevent it from being altered.

And finally, what is the Output? Obviously, one output is the collected ESI. But how is it maintained? What form is it in post-collection? Are there any other requirements or documentation that is required at the conclusion of an ESI collection? The expectation when collecting ESI is that it will be in native form and all the metadata will be intact. Additionally, you are going to want a collection log and, because the ESI is potentially evidence, you will need to prepare a chain of custody form showing who handled the ESI.

This is but one example of the how the traditional project management methodology works. The project management framework above and the process of moving from inputs to tools to outputs are a proven methodology. More than 1 million project managers across the globe in nearly every industry, including the legal business, use this methodology to achieve effective results. Paralegals should adopt these processes as well.

Conclusion

I began my career as a paralegal and made the move into legal technology, litigation support and e-discovery. Through hard work I built a reputation for getting things done, for educating and training attorneys and paralegals, and for managing people and successful projects. I have managed some of the largest class-action securities litigations ever filed. At some point, it occurred to me that there is a better way and so I began to look at the principles of project management and their applicability to case work in the legal industry. Doing so has served me well over the past two decades. My point here is simple: paralegals and legal assistants, like anyone working in any industry, are project managers too. They perform important project-oriented work that can only improve with the use of project management principles.

Old Coins

A Matter of Pricing? A Running Update of Semi-Annual eDiscovery Pricing Survey Responses

The Semi-Annual eDiscovery Pricing Survey

Based on the complexity of data and legal discovery, it is a continual challenge to fully understand what is representative of industry-standard pricing for the delivery of eDiscovery products and services. With this challenge in mind, the semi-annual eDiscovery Pricing Survey is designed to provide insight into eDiscovery pricing through the lens of 15 specific questions answered by legal, business, and information professionals operating in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The survey was first administered in December of 2018 and has been conducted four times during the last two years with 334 aggregate individual responses.

Survey Background

The eDiscovery Pricing Survey is a non-scientific and non-comprehensive survey and consists of 15 multiple choice questions focused on information and metrics related to eDiscovery pricing for collection, processing, and review tasks. The survey is open to legal, business, and information technology professionals operating in the eDiscovery ecosystem, and individuals are invited to participate semi-annually primarily by direct email invitation from ComplexDiscovery and leading industry educational partners to include the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS).

Aggregate Results

While individual respondent answers to the pricing survey are confidential, the anonymized aggregate results for all previously administered surveys are published below without commentary. These results highlight eDiscovery pricing on selected collection, processing, and review tasks as seen by survey respondents since the inception of the survey in December of 2018. The aggregate results of all surveys as shared in comparative charts may be helpful for understanding pricing and its impact on purchasing behavior on selected services over time.


Comparative Charts: A Look at Four Surveys

n=334 Respondents (Aggregate All Surveys)

Collection Pricing

1. What is the per hour cost for a collection by a forensic examiner?

1-Collection-Pricing-Per-Hour-Cost-for-a-Collection-by-a-Forensic-Examiner

2. What is the per device cost for a collection by a forensic examiner?

2-Collection-Pricing-Per-Device-Cost-for-a-Collection-by-a-Forensic-Examiner

3. What is the per hour cost for analysis and expert witness support by a forensic examiner?

3-Collection-Pricing-Per-Hour-Cost-for-Analysis-and-Expert-Witness-Support-from-a-Forensic-Examiner

Processing Pricing

4. What is the per GB cost to process electronically stored information based on volume at ingestion?

4-Processing-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-to-Process-ESI-Based-on-Volume-at-Ingestion

5. What is the per GB cost to process electronically stored information based on volume at completion of processing?

5-Processing-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-to-Process-ESI-Based-on-Volume-at-Completion-of-Processing

6. What is the per GB per month cost to host electronically stored information without analytics?

6-Processing-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-Per-Month-to-Host-ESI-without-Analytics

7. What is the per GB per month cost to host electronically stored information with analytics?

7-Processing-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-Per-Month-to-Host-ESI-with-Analytics

8. What is the user license fee per month for access to hosted data?

8-Processing-Pricing-User-License-Fee-Per-Month-for-Access-to-Hosted-Data

9. What is the per hour cost of project management support for eDiscovery?

9-Processing-Pricing-Per-Hour-Cost-of-Project-Management-Support-for-eDiscovery

Review Pricing

10. What is the per GB cost to conduct predictive coding as part of technology-assisted review during the document review phase of eDiscovery?

10-Review-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-to-Conduct-Predictive-Coding-in-a-Technology-Assisted Review

11. What is the cost per hour for document review attorneys to review documents during the review phase of eDiscovery?

11-Review-Pricing-Per-Hour-Cost-for-Document-Review-Attorneys-to-Review-Documents

12. What is the cost per document for document review attorneys to review documents during the review phase of eDiscovery?

12-Review-Pricing-Per-Document-Cost-for-Document-Review-Attorneys-to-Review-Documents

Background Information

13. In which geographical region do you primarily conduct eDiscovery-related business?

13-Survey-Respondents-by-Geographic-Region

14. Which of the following segments best describes your business in eDiscovery?

14-Survey-Respondents-by-Organizational-Segment

15. What area best describes your primary function in the conduct of your organization’s eDiscovery business?

15-Survey-Respondents-by-Primary-Function

An Aggregate Overview of Survey Responses (Four Surveys)

16-Survey-Respondents-Aggregate-Overview

Past eDiscovery Pricing Surveys

Additional Research

Source: ComplexDiscovery

Palm Trees

Encryption’s Impact on Potential Liability Under CCPA

(This article is brought to you courtesy of the International Association of Privacy Professional (IAPP) and first appeared in The Privacy Advisor, IAPP’s original content publication for privacy professionals).

In the last decade, California has suffered twice as many data breaches as any other state, with roughly 1,493 breaches affecting nearly 5.6 billion records. For an organization that handles the data of California consumers, adopting a robust security system is prudent.

Encrypting consumer data is one strategy that an organization can adopt as part of a comprehensive information security and privacy program. Encryption benefits consumers by rendering compromised data unreadable, so that even if encrypted data is disclosed, the risk of harm to an individual, such as identity theft or physical safety, is significantly limited. Where California’s privacy laws apply to an organization, encrypting customer data will provide immunity from the private right of action under the California Consumer Privacy Act and limit obligations of notification in the event of a data breach under California’s data breach notification law.

How will encrypting data benefit your organization in California?

Under CCPA, California consumers are provided a private right of action, which permits them to file civil suits against businesses for certain types of data breaches and potentially recover either statutory damages of up to $750 or actual damages, whichever is greater. In class-action litigation involving millions of consumers, these damages can add up quickly. Compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, which allows for fines of up to 4% of global turnover, damages under the CCPA do not have a similar liability cap. As a result, a business’s damages under the CCPA could conceivably dwarf the fines permitted by the GDPR.

As mentioned above, this private right of action only applies to certain types of data breaches. First, the breach must consist of a California resident’s first name (or first initial) and last name in combination with one of the following: Social Security number, some unique identification number issued on a government document that is commonly used to verify an individual’s identity, account number or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code, medical information, health insurance information, or unique biometric data used to authenticate an individual. Collectively, all these categories are referred to as “covered personal information.”

Even if covered personal information is compromised, the private right of action under the CCPA only applies to breaches of nonencrypted or nonredacted covered personal information resulting from a business’s failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. In determining reasonableness, the attorney general may look to the 20 security controls promulgated by the Center for Internet Security, which the California Department of Justice identified in 2016 as establishing the minimum controls required to show a reasonable security system. These controls recommend encryption. Thus, for an organization seeking to limit liability under the CCPA, encrypting covered personal information of California consumers is a very effective way to do so.

Moreover, under California’s data breach notification law, an organization that does business in California and maintains personal information of California residents may be required to notify the residents if they have been affected by a data breach. However, if the compromised personal information is encrypted, it falls outside the scope of the data breach notification law and the obligation to notify is not triggered. Though the definitions of personal information are not identical under the CCPA and California’s data breach notification law, there is a significant amount of overlap.

Like the CCPA, California’s data breach notification law also provides consumers with a right of private action if they have been injured by a violation of the law. Unlike the CCPA, though, the data breach notification law does not provide statutory damages. As a result, if an organization encrypts the personal information it maintains on California consumers, it can avoid the obligation to notify consumers of a data breach and it reduces the likelihood of civil actions.

CCPA in action

On Feb. 3, a California consumer filed a class-action suit, arising from a data breach, against high-end children’s clothing retailer Hanna Anderson and Salesforce, a software-as-a-service company specializing in customer relationship management. The claim alleges, among other things, a violation of the CCPA and states that consumers’ unencrypted and unredacted personal information, including financial information, was compromised by a breach. The complaint alleges the information accessed by the hackers was for sale on the dark web. Had the personal information stored been encrypted, the plaintiff’s chances at recovering any damages under the CCPA would be significantly limited as their claims would not be covered by the CCPA’s private right of action. Moreover, any harm to consumers would have been limited or eliminated due to the hacker’s conceived inability to decrypt the data.

If your organization handles covered personal information, encrypting it would be a smart decision. Not only does it help mitigate the risks of harm consumers face in the event of a security incident, but it shields your company from liability under the CCPA’s private right of action.

Photo by Ev on Unsplash

A Pandemeconomic Indicator? Summer 2020 eDiscovery Pricing Survey Results

Editor’s Note: According to the International Monetary Fund, the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed the world into a recession. Initial estimates are that for 2020, pandemic-driven economic conditions may be worse than the global financial crisis that stressed financial markets and banking systems between mid-2007 and early 2009. The current pandemic has already dramatically influenced the eDiscovery ecosystem in areas such as the delivery of services, the pulse rate of investigations and litigation, and the frequency of merger and acquisition activities. However, we are still in the early stages of understanding how the pandemic will directly impact the economics of eDiscovery. With the need for this understanding in mind, the summer 2020 eDiscovery Pricing Survey from ComplexDiscovery may be helpful for legal, business, and information technology professionals as they seek to comprehend current sentiment and certainty regarding the pricing of core eDiscovery tasks.

The eDiscovery Pricing Survey

The eDiscovery Pricing Survey is a non-scientific and non-comprehensive survey designed to provide general insight into eDiscovery pricing as shared by individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem.

The survey consists of 15 multiple choice questions focused on information and metrics related to eDiscovery pricing for collection, processing, and review tasks. The survey is open to legal, business, and information technology professionals operating in the eDiscovery ecosystem. Individuals are invited to participate semi-annually primarily by direct email invitation from ComplexDiscovery and leading industry educational partners to include the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS).

Summer Survey Results

The summer 2020 survey response period was initiated on May 11, 2020, and closed on May 20, 2020. This was the fourth eDiscovery pricing survey conducted by ComplexDiscovery, the initial survey being conducted in December of 2018. This survey had 105 respondents.

While individual respondent answers to the pricing survey are confidential, the anonymized aggregate results for the 15 questions of the multiple-choice survey are published below without commentary. These results highlight eDiscovery pricing on selected collection, processing, and review tasks as seen by survey respondents in the summer of 2020.


eDiscovery Pricing Survey Questions (Required)

n=105 Respondents

Collection Pricing

1. What is the per hour cost for a collection by a forensic examiner?

  • Less than $250 per hour. 23.8% (Up from 18.8%)
  • Between $250 and $350 per hour. 61.0% (Down from 62.5%)
  • Greater than $350 per hour. 6.7% (Up from 2.5%)
  • Do not know. 8.6% (Down from 16.2%)
1-Collection-Pricing-Per-Hour-Cost-for-a-Collection-by-a-Forensic-Examiner

2. What is the per-device cost for a collection by a forensic examiner?

  • Less than $250 per device. 12.4% (Down from 12.5%)
  • Between $250 and $350 per device. 30.5% (Up from 16.2%)
  • Greater than $350 per device. 43.8% (Down from 51.3%)
  • Do not know. 13.3% (Down from 20.0%)
2-Collection-Pricing-Per-Device-Cost-for-a-Collection-by-a-Forensic-Examiner

3. What is the per hour cost for analysis and expert witness support by a forensic examiner?

  • Less than $350 per hour. 15.2% (Up from 15.0%)
  • Between $350 and $550 per hour. 62.9% (Up from 60.0%)
  • Greater than $550 per hour. 7.6% (Up from 5.0%)
  • Do not know. 14.3% (Down from 20.0%)
3-Collection-Pricing-Per-Hour-Cost-for-Analysis-and-Expert-Witness-Support-from-a-Forensic-Examiner

Processing Pricing

4. What is the per GB cost to process electronically stored information based on volume at ingestion?

  • Less than $25 per GB. 33.3% (Up from 23.8%)
  • Between $25 and $75 per GB. 45.7% (Down from 52.5%)
  • Greater than $75 per GB. 10.5% (Down from 13.7%)
  • Do not know. 10.5% (Up from 10.0%)
4-Processing-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-to-Process-ESI-Based-on-Volume-at-Ingestion

5. What is the per GB cost to process electronically stored information based on volume at completion of processing?

  • Less than $100 per GB. 44.8% (Up from 32.5%)
  • Between $100 and $150 per GB. 31.4% (Down from 42.5%)
  • Greater than $150 per GB. 9.5% (Up from 8.8%)
  • Do not know. 14.3% (Down from 16.2%)
5-Processing-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-to-Process-ESI-Based-on-Volume-at-Completion-of-Processing

6. What is the per GB per month cost to host electronically stored information without analytics?

  • Less than $10 per GB per month. 30.5% (Down from 23.8%)
  • Between $10 and $20 per GB per month. 50.5% (Down from 62.5%)
  • Greater than $20 per GB per month. 10.5% (Up from 5.0%)
  • Do not know. 8.6% (Down from 8.7%)
6-Processing-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-Per-Month-to-Host-ESI-without-Analytics

7. What is the per GB per month cost to host electronically stored information with analytics?

  • Less than $15 per GB per month. 37.1% (Up from 28.7%)
  • Between $15 and $25 per GB per month. 32.4% (Down from 45.0%)
  • Greater than $25 per GB per month. 16.2% (Down from 15.0%)
  • Do not know. 14.3% (Up from 11.3%)
7-Processing-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-Per-Month-to-Host-ESI-with-Analytics

8. What is the user license fee per month for access to hosted data?

  • Less than $50 per user per month. 21.0% (Up from 13.8%)
  • Between $50 and $100 per user per month. 60.0% (Down from 66.3%)
  • Greater than $100 per user per month. 12.4% (Down from 13.8%)
  • Do not know. 6.7% (Up from 6.1%)
8-Processing-Pricing-User-License-Fee-Per-Month-for-Access-to-Hosted-Data

9. What is the per hour cost of project management support for eDiscovery?

  • Less than $100 per hour. 6.7% (Up from 2.5%)
  • Between $100 and $200 per hour. 65.7% (Down from 73.8%)
  • Greater than $200 per hour. 22.9% (Up from 20.0%)
  • Do not know. 4.8% (Up from 3.7%)
9-Processing-Pricing-Per-Hour-Cost-of-Project-Management-Support-for-eDiscovery

Review Pricing

10. What is the per GB cost to conduct predictive coding as part of a technology-assisted review during the document review phase of eDiscovery?

  • Less than $75 per GB. 49.5% (Up from 40.0%)
  • Between $75 and $150 per GB. 13.3% (Down from 25.0%)
  • Greater than $150 per GB. 8.6% (Up from 5.0%)
  • Do not know. 28.6% (Down from 30.0%)
10-Review-Pricing-Per-GB-Cost-to-Conduct-Predictive-Coding-in-a-Technology-Assisted-Review

11. What is the cost per hour for document review attorneys to review documents during the review phase of eDiscovery?

  • Less than $25 per hour. 2.9% (Up from 1.3%)
  • Between $25 and $40 per hour. 42.9% (Up from 31.3%)
  • Greater than $40 per hour. 42.9% (Down from 52.5%)
  • Do not know. 11.4% (Down from 14.9%)
11-Review Pricing-Per-Hour-Cost-for-Document-Review-Attorneys-to-Review-Documents

12. What is the cost per document for document review attorneys to review documents during the review phase of eDiscovery?

  • Less than $0.50 per document. 4.8% (Down from 11.3%)
  • Between $0.50 and $1.00 per document. 31.4% (Down from 35.0%)
  • Greater than $1.00 per document. 36.2% (Up from 26.3%)
  • Do not know. 27.6% (Up from 27.4%)
12-Review Pricing-Per-Document-Cost-for-Document-Review-Attorneys-to-ReviewDocuments

Background Information

13. In which geographical region do you primarily conduct eDiscovery-related business?

  • North America – United States. 86.7% (Down from 87.5%)
  • North America – Canada. 2.9% (Down from 5.0%)
  • Europe – United Kingdom. 2.9% (Up from 2.5%)
  • Europe – Non-UK. 2.9% (Up from 1.2%)
  • Asia/Asia Pacific. 2.9% (Up from 0.0%)
  • Middle East/Africa. 1.9% (Down from 3.8%)
  • Central/South America. 0.0% (No Change)
13-Survey-Respondents-by-Geographic-Region-Summer-2020

14. Which of the following segments best describes your business in eDiscovery?

  • Law Firm. 40.0% (Down from 52.5%)
  • Software and/or Services Provider. 37.1% (Up from 27.5%)
  • Consultancy. 11.4% (Up from 10.0%)
  • Corporation. 8.6% (Up from 5.0%)
  • Government Entity. 1.9% (Down from 2.5%)
  • Media/Research Organization/Educational Association. 1.0% (Down from 2.5%)
14-Survey-Respondents-by-Organizational-Segment-Summer-2020

15. What area best describes your primary function in the conduct of your organization’s eDiscovery business?

  • Legal/Litigation Support. 71.4% (Down from 78.7%)
  • Business/Business Support (All Other Business Functions). 22.9% (Down from 18.8%)
  • IT/Product Development. 5.7% (Up fro 2.5%)
15-Survey-Respondents-by-Primary-Function-Summer-2020

Past eDiscovery Pricing Surveys

Additional Research

Source: ComplexDiscovery

Cellebrite ACEDS Partnership

ACEDS Partners with Cellebrite

May 19, 2020EAGAN, Minn. – The Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), the world’s leading e-discovery training and certification professional association and part of The BARBRI Group, today announced a partnership with Cellebrite, Inc., the global leader of Digital Intelligence (DI) solutions for law enforcement, government and enterprise organizations. As an ACEDS Affiliate Partner, Cellebrite will work hand in hand with ACEDS to address the data deluge that its global membership of eDiscovery professionals are facing with education, training and professional development.

“We are proud to join the ACEDS community of leaders and experts in e-discovery training, to help shape the legal profession’s technological evolution,” said Steve Altman, Senior Vice President at Cellebrite. “This partnership will help us expand our reach to educate the global community about the importance of Digital Intelligence in mobile, computer and cloud forensics.”

The partnership will drive collaboration with ACEDS global members, leveraging and contributing to the community’s collective knowledge and expertise, as well as the association’s education, marketing, training and professional development resources. Employees and partners of Cellebrite can now access ACEDS’ breadth of job tools and networking forums, global chapter network and events, and best-practice-oriented worldwide community of professionals.

“We are excited to provide Cellebrite’s Digital Intelligence solutions to our global membership of eDiscovery professionals so that they can more effectively collect, process, integrate, and manage customer needs,” said Mike Quartararo, President, ACEDS and Professional Development.

About ACEDS
The Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), part of leading legal education provider The BARBRI Group, is a global member-based association for professionals who work in e-discovery, information governance, compliance and the broader legal community. ACEDS provides training and certification in e-discovery and related disciplines to corporate legal departments, law firms, the government, service providers and institutions of higher learning. Our CEDS certification is recognized around the world and used to verify skills and competence in electronic discovery for organizations and individuals through training, certification and ongoing education. The CEDS credential is held by practitioners at the largest Fortune 500 companies, Am Law 200 firms and government agencies. ACEDS has 23 chapters, with locations in most major US cities, the UK, Ireland, Canada, the Netherlands and South Africa (with Australia and South America chapters coming soon). Our goal is to help professionals and organizations reduce the costs and risks associated with e-discovery while helping to improve and verify their skills and advance their careers and overall technology competence in e-discovery and related fields. http://www.aceds.org/

About Cellebrite
Cellebrite is the global leader of Digital Intelligence solutions for law enforcement, government and enterprise organizations. Cellebrite delivers an extensive suite of innovative software solutions, analytic tools, and training designed to accelerate digital investigations and address the growing complexity of handling crime and security challenges in the digital era. Trusted by thousands of leading agencies and companies in more than 150 countries, Cellebrite is helping fulfill the joint mission of creating a safer world. To learn more visit us at www.cellebrite.com

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Cindy Parks
913.526.6912
cindy@parkscommunications.com

Apple iphone pro on laptop keyboard

Apple iPhone Forensics: An Update from the Trenches

Since the first-generation iPhone model released in 2007, thirteen years have passed with more than twenty different style iPhones being released. With each model comes better hardware specs alongside newer features contained within every major iOS update. Digital forensic capabilities have grown over time and examiners are able to recover and analyze more data than ever before that may prove vital to your case during litigation. The increase in capability allows for new types of data to be extracted and recovered, including communications and other important user generated data.

Deleted Data

One of the most common types of forensic analysis performed on Apple iPhones is the recovery of deleted data. It is often possible to recover significant amounts of deleted information, including internet history, search queries, along with communications and attachments (iMessages, text messages, and third-party chat applications.) When information is deleted from an Apple iPhone device, data is stored within the free space of the device or the structure of a database file (mainly SQLite format) and can potentially be overwritten with new information coming onto the phone. Unfortunately, overwritten data is unrecoverable. Attorneys should be wary if an expert guarantees the recovery of any specific deleted information the attorney is seeking.

Since Apple’s implementation of the encrypted file system on its iPhones, when images and videos are deleted they are immediately removed from the device and cannot be recovered. However, deleted images and videos may exist within a previous backup of the device, so be sure to ask users about those. iPhone backups can exist within Apple’s iCloud Service or as a locally created backup stored on a computer system. In addition, thumbnail views of the deleted images may be recoverable from the device.

Location Data

Phones rely upon location data to improve overall user functionality and experience. Examples of this include using GPS coordinates for travel directions, health information – such as how far you walked, and location data that is collected and used for targeted advertisements. Location data can be stored within photographs taken from the device, just one of many Exchange image file format (“EXIF”) metadata values stored within a photograph. On iPhones, location data is stored by default within photos taken with the device. There may also be additional metadata of interest such as the creation date, time, and the model of the original device the photo was taken with.

Communication Data

Another popular type of forensic analysis is examining the recovered communication history, including active and deleted content. Messages from third party applications may not be stored locally on the device but rather a server. Messages contained within these applications cannot be recovered during a forensic examination of an image, but possibly through the “live” application itself. Consulting with a digital forensics expert will be your best bet if messages from a third-party application are of the utmost concern. This will allow your expert to determine the best course of action to preserve and obtain the third-party communications.

New Capabilities

Recently, a new Apple iPhone exploit has surfaced allowing even more data to be collected and extracted from iPhones. This game changing exploit has been named “checkm8” (pronounced: ‘checkmate’) and is a potential evidence goldmine for forensic examiners everywhere. This bootrom jailbreak allows for alternative software to load at device start up when the phone is powered on, providing the examiner access to additional areas of the file system not previously available through the typical acquisition process of an iOS device.

The forensic science and capabilities of Apple iPhone examinations are rapidly changing, just like the technology and software of the devices. It is best to consult with a forensic expert who specializes in mobile device forensics before any steps are taken to extract content from the device to ensure best practices are followed when dealing with potential evidence that may be vital to the case.

globe_world

How to Manage Global Data Under CLOUD Act Governance

(This article is brought to you courtesy of the International Association of Privacy Professional (IAPP) and first appeared in The Privacy Advisor, IAPP’s original content publication for privacy professionals).

It’s common knowledge that the U.S. government, with a subpoena or warrant, can compel companies to disclose data about companies and individuals. All governments have some type of legal capability to request data from information providers.

What is surprising to many, even those of us in IT, is that with the 2018 Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, the U.S. government can compel a U.S. company that is hosting data in another country to comply with such information requests. For example, if a Malaysian company is hosting data in Amazon Web Service’s Singapore region, Amazon will have to comply with U.S. subpoenas and warrants to disclose the data.

The CLOUD Act was passed to amend the Stored Communication Act of 1986, after Microsoft took a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to not disclose data that was stored on a Microsoft server in Ireland. There are also similar laws in other countries, such as Australia, that go beyond the CLOUD Act, as they can be executed without disclosure.

Banks, health care providers and other large companies are highly concerned about the U.S. government having access to their data outside of their own countries’ legal process for accessing data.

If your company is storing German data and the German government can legally request the data, this should, of course, always be complied with and be expected by your German customer. If your company is storing Kuwaiti data in Canada, the Kuwaiti customer will be very concerned if the Australian government can access that data without following either Kuwaiti or Canadian laws and processes.

So how can a U.S.-based company that is storing regulated data globally alleviate these customer concerns?

Disclose governmental access possibilities to prospects and customers

First off, when selling to international customers, be proactive in describing the jurisdictional controls that would apply to their data. It is better to address these issues head-on and upfront rather than when your software deal hits legal and compliance. Being proactive will save both your prospect and you wasted time and effort in case they are not willing to have their data disclosed to the U.S. government outside of their country’s legal procedures.

Restrict where data is hosted and which staff can access data

One option is to avoid U.S. cloud vendors and evaluate foreign clouds promoting themselves as hosting solutions beyond the reach of the CLOUD Act. It’s also important to have controls in place that restrict access to data. Specifically, for technology companies, engineers should never have access to production data. Do you think the front-end engineer that works on your bank’s website should make their debugging job easier with access to your personal bank records? Absolutely not. Every company needs to have strict data controls. 

Move your US-based company to a data-friendly jurisdiction

If storing regulated data is a company’s primary business, consider moving your company’s headquarters to a data-friendly jurisdiction. Countries like Singapore and free trade zones like Abu Dhabi General Market are increasingly attracting high tech companies that need to instill customer trust in data storage. In countries where data disclosure of foreign data can be compelled, employees should work for a distinct subsidiary with absolutely no access to data or the right to direct employees in other countries to access data. For example, a company that is headquartered in the United Arab Emirates would have subsidiaries in the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. subsidiary would comply with U.S. government subpoenas and warrants for U.S. data but would not be able to comply with U.S. government subpoenas and warrants for Russian data.

Work with a systems integrator or local hosting partner to manage customer data

New technology trends, such as cloud native and Kubernetes, enable a partner to deploy and manage a software deployment on their own servers. With this mechanism, a systems integrator or local hosting provider can host your software on behalf of a customer. This may sound familiar to those that have been around IT for a while because it is very similar to a customer or partner running an on-premises version of your software. You provide the software, but you have no control or access to the servers running the software or the data within the servers. This type of deployment may not be suitable to your company as it requires a very modern software stack and deep technical support team.

As the world’s data laws become increasingly fragmented, companies that store and manage regulated data need to seriously consider exactly under which jurisdictions they are storing data. International customers are making this part of their selection criteria.

Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash

George Socha_CEDS Spotlight Headshot

CEDS Spotlight: George Socha, CEDS

Welcome to our “CEDS Spotlight” where we will feature ACEDS members who have recently become CEDS certified. Every one of our members is unique and so are their e-discovery journeys. We hope this will be a terrific way for you to get to know the ACEDS community.


 

[Maribel] Hi everyone I am Maribel Rivera I am the Senior Director of community relations at ACEDS. Welcome to our CEDS spotlight where we will feature ACEDS members who have recently become CEDS certified. Everyone of our members is unique and so are their E-discovery journeys. Today I’m excited to feature George Socha. George, welcome.

[George] Thank you very much.

[Maribel] George, you just recently got your CEDS certification I’m really excited for you, congratulations we want–

[George] Thank you.

[Maribel] You’re welcome, we wanted to talk a little bit with you today about the whole process that you went through but first could you share a little bit about your e-discovery background and expertise with our audience.

[George] Well I, as we were chatting earlier, I do have a little bit of e-discovery background. I– when you see me looking up like that I am a very visual person that the EDRM diagram might suggest and when I’m looking up at that it’s because I’m looking at a picture in my head to help describe things or see a chronology or whatever so what I was thinking about there is that I first got involved in E-discovery probably somewhere between 1991 and 1993 I don’t really know because who was paying attention to those things at that time and I got involved in E-discovery not because I had any intention of spending any time doing that but rather because once upon a long time ago back in 1972 I took a computer programming class. And then in 1973 I took my last computer programming class. In the interim between 1973 and 1991 or ’93 I spend my high school years or way too much of them writing code just for the fun of it not with any object in mind that’s what my friends and I did for entertainment. Went off to college where I had nothing to do with computers off to west Africa where I had even less to do with computers, I was a Peace Corp volunteer there but came coming back from West Africa spent a few months bicycling through Europe where I stopped to visit my middle brother who was in Austria for the summer sequestered away at a friends cabin writing a book called Inside the IBM PC and I looked at the content he was writing The machine he was using ironically a compaq portable if that means anything to anybody and not an IBM PC and thought well the world has changed while I was gone. When I got back to the states I taught myself how to use those early IBM PCs using WordStar which was a word processing program long before we got to things like Word or even WordPerfect before that Wrote an inventory management system for my father’s business Sort of to teach myself how to use the computer and then headed off to law school where I brought along the computer I had recently purchased, an Apple Macintosh purchased in January of 1984 the same month as the at that time the same as the superbowl ad for the introduction of the Apple Macintosh. I brought that to law school used that to write up my papers and because I had a computer and because I was very involved in the legal aid clinic and the reason for that I was a Peace Corp volunteer I had worked very much with my sleeves rolled up. Law school, especially at a place like Cornell can get in the classroom it is not a sleeves rolled up type of experience or at least it wasn’t in those days, it was much more actuarial experience if you will and I needed something practical to work on. Got involved in the legal aid clinic, IBM donated half a dozen PCs to the law school the then Dean of the law school Peter Martin by the way went on to form the legal information institute along with Peter Brusha I think his name is at Cornell said we don’t really have a place for computers in the classroom but maybe the clinic can use them, the head of the clinic turned to me and said “Well you have a computer, maybe you can figure out what we can do with them.” and I ended up writing a sneakerware matter management system for the legal aid clinic. Sneakerware because at the time you could not yet network PCs together. Came out of law school, took a job at a law firm, they handed me a Dictaphone and said “See how technologically advanced we are.” So I looked at that thing and I thought well I can’t do anything with this and I brought my trustworthy Macintosh into the office. I very shortly had a steady stream of senor associates and junior partners come into my office, close the door, sit down and deliver almost verbatim the same message which essentially was lose the computer. If you have a computer you will never be taken seriously as an attorney, you will never be anything other than a glorified word processor and secretary. Well I didn’t lose the computer. I’m no longer a practicing attorney, I guess they were right

[George] But what did happen is that the firm landed what would be the largest set of cases they would ever have and it was a set of nation wide fight for the company life toxic tort matters where we were going to have what we used to refer to in those days as the mythical millionaire, million documents or a million pages of documents no one was ever very clear about that because there were going to be so many and there were we had more than that ultimately, and it really was a lot for those days. We were going to have someone sit down with copies of those documents, read them and type information from those documents into a computer and code them and someone needed to help manage that whole process and there was a computer involved and I had a computer on my desk so I was tapped to help out with that process, that meant I got to know the people in our IT operations at the law firm I was at it also meant that I got more and more involved in automated litigations support, worked with schools such as concordance and summation which were the dominant product in the field in the day before anyone really was thinking or almost thinking on really was thinking about electronics discovery. And then sometime in the early 90’s we started getting the first of our e-discovery matters. I was tapped on the shoulder, you know, I had a computer I was working with these tools, I must know what to do about this, of course I hadn’t a clue what to do with it One of the very first matters I worked on we were representing the plaintiffs on that one which was not typically what we did, we were mostly a defense firm. And I was assigned the task of flying, I think it was so Kansas City, I don’t remember for sure, and taking the deposition of the IT director where I was supposed to find out everything including where all the dirt and the secrets were just by asking him questions on the deposition about their electronically stored information which we call it now. It was, without question the worst deposition of my career and that what got me launched in e-discovery.

[Maribel] Excellent, well thank you for sharing that and I know I guess right after that is when you founded the EDRM model.

[George] Well a decade later.

[Maribel] A decade later right

[George] A decade later I was no longer at that first firm nor the second one, the first firm collapsed, a group of nearly thirty of us left the first firm to start another law firm and I was at that law firm through into 2003, left in 2003 to start a new discovery consultant practice. One of the first projects I was asked to work on was one that called for me to do a survey of the E-discovery market, who were the leading providers, what are the challenges people are facing and how much money is involved in this anyway . They wanted me to do some things I did not have experience doing and felt like I needed to pull someone in and help me out and I brought in someone I had worked with when I was at that first law firm right about that same time as I began working on the first E-discovery projects. He had been the IT director at another law firm in town they had fired him thinking they had reached technology nirvana and did not need him nor the entire level of staff underneath him. So he was freelance consulting at the time I contacted him and said, “Tom, have I got a deal for you, these folks want me to do a project I don’t know how to do it, they’ve got a ridiculously short timeframe here we are never going to make the deadline the expectation are ridiculously high we are never going to please them, are you in or not?” and Tom said, “Well with an offer like that how can I say no.” So we went on to do the first of what would be six years of the Social Gelman Electronic Discovery Survey. As Tom and I were gathering data and evaluating data for that survey we realized that especially when we were talking with folks at providers but also when we were talking with people at law firms and at corporations we were getting a common response from people and that response was some variation of look you guys you just don’t understand what e-discovery is let me tell you it’ what I do its what we do those other people that’s not E-discovery. We heard that from people whose primary focus was preserving data and people who only spent their time collecting it or processing it or reviewing it. Each one of them thought they did the one true electronic discovery and the rest of those folks were I don’t know, posers or something So we said maybe it would be useful if somebody sat down and did maybe a one year project, get together a small group of people to try and answer two sets of questions. One, what is e-discovery because obviously there’s confusion and disagreement and two, what are the basic steps involved in the actions people take. And tom, he has a formal IT background, I don’t said these things I’ve worked with in the past called reference models maybe we can use that as sort of a conceptual framework and I said yeah okay and we are dealing with electronic discovery here so how about we call this thing for a lack of a better name the Electronic Discovery Reference Model and that’s a mouthful so let’s just say EDRM And that’s where we all started we sent out a call for participation to folks we knew had I think 35 people show up for our first meeting in May of 2004 in Saint Paul. They arrived at the meeting and said, “okay sounds like you all are doing something interesting but we don’t really understand what you’re doing so why don’t you explain to us why were are all here.” And that of course lasted for a lot more than one year. Become the EDRM that so many people are familiar with today and as well the diagram that many people use without even knowing that there is such a thing as EDRM out there.

[Maribel] Yes, well thank you for sharing that. Given that whole experience, everything I mean that’s decades of work and decades of dealing in law firms and litigation what made you decide this year to become certified in e-discovery?

[George] Well you know after I took the bar exam in whenever that was, 1987, I said, “I am done with that type of test, I am never taking that type of test again and I had been steadfast in my resistance until this year. And really the primary reason I sat down to prepare for and take that test, all the while worrying and what if I fail– Was that–

[Maribel] We would have had to talk to you if you failed

[George] That’s right you would have had to have a discussion with me. The reason I went for the materials and then took a test is that ACEDS has a newly reformulated and revived global advisory board and one at the meeting at legal leap we were asked please all to try and make it a priority. That was part of it, the other part though is as I thought about what it means or should mean to be a member of a global advisory board like that I thought well I really should see what the materials are like for preparing for the test and I really should go through all of those and take the test test and sample test and take the test itself because otherwise I don’t really understand one of the key things that ACED does then how can I be as productive and useful member of the global advisory board if I haven’t done that so that is what finally prompted me to agree to back off my thirty plus year opposition to take any farther test like that and sit down and go through that exam.

[Maribel] Well thank you for taking that and I know you’re newly appointed as part of the global advisory board but you’re also a chapter leader for our twin cities chapter so that, it’s doing that as well becoming CEDS certified I think is a really great thing for the chapter just to see that their leaders are going through it.

[George] And we had a call, we have monthly calls for our chapter we had our monthly call last week I think it was maybe the week before you know the days run by right

[Maribel] Yeah

[George] They all combine, and one of the topics I said at the global advisory board meeting one of the suggestions was for as many of us as could to see if we could become ACEDS certified, I frankly don’t know how many people in our local board are that and we need to take that on as a task for ourselves well it sounds like almost everyone is already. So we’ve got a few people two or three maybe just two who aren’t yet but we are largely there locally at least so I guess we are ahead of the curve once again here in Minnesota.

[Maribel] Excellent, well that’s great to see and I think across we are starting to see more and more of our chapter leaders looking at the E-discovery executive or the CEDS training programs so that they can also get CEDS certified. Just given the whole process what are you thoughts on the certification training, the exam what’s your feedback on the whole thing?

[George] I did not really know what to expect going into it what I did to prepare was to go to the recorded preparation sessions, I think there were three of them what a combine three or four hours of time–

[Maribel] Yeah

[George] I forget exactly–

[Maribel] An hour and a half each.

[George] So I watched all of those, yeah watched all of those and then when I was, and then there are also available from thee same site its own little website you can watch the recording which I did you can participate in live sessions which I didn’t mostly because of scheduling challenges and the time I had available to look at those sets, those recordings did not match up with any live sessions here is the time I can so it so this is what I’m going to do, I went as well to the various materials that could be be downloaded, at least skimmed through those to get a sense of what was in there and then and I think it was a very useful piece in this there is a version of thee test, a much shorter version that you can take and take on your own and it has the advantage of letting you know right away if you get a wrong answer, A that the answer is wrong and B it helps you figure out a bit of what you got wrong with the answer and then at the end you can see what your score is and how you did on that test as a percentage that’s compared to what you’re going to have to do if you want to pass the overall test, I did well enough on that test that I said you know what, I think I’m just going to schedule a time go in, take the test, see what happens, cross my fingers and hope I don’t have to slink away with my tail between my legs for having failed the thing.

[Maribel] Well that’s good so what advice would you have for someone preparing for the exam right now?

[George] I think its, if you look kind of a sliding scale because my impression at least from going through the material and from taking thee full exam is that it really is intended to have two audiences if you will there are those people who have more of a legal background, they were practicing lawyers, practicing paralegals and alike and then there are those people who have more of a technical background their the people running the tools and they’re going to have different areas of experience and different areas of expertise and then there are some of us who are going to have spent quite a bit of time in both worlds and for more I spent a lot of time in both worlds both sides of that the content was quite familiar to me already if you go though those recordings or go to the live sessions, if you go through that sample test and you understand the content presented there’s nothing new no surprises no areas where you’re going wait a minute I don’t really understand that you go through the sample test you do well, I think you’re ready to take the exam. If however, you go well I get all this about legal and those types of things but now you’re talking about how to do preservation of content out of Microsoft exchange or office 365 or you’re talking about some other technical things that I don’t understand of well that’s a pretty good indication that you need to learn some more about those areas so going through thee prep materials going through the test exam on the one hand can let you know that you’re ready to go ahead and take the overall exam it also can let you know these are areas where you could do something to get yourself more up to speed that’s useful for the exam of course it’s also useful however for your general well-roundness professionally because the better you understand both sides of this equation and the better you understand the different parts on both sides of the equation the more effective you are going to be able to accomplish the work you have no matter where you sit in this process.

[Maribel] I think that kind of leads right into my last question for you is why should those in the e-discovery legal technology field kind of consider going through this CEDS or eDiscovery Executive Training Program so is there anything else you want to add on to that?

[George] No I think there is once again no one answer for everybody, some people, for example are in organizations where obtaining certifications is something that is important, emphasized and valued and if you are in an organization like that well this is one more certification that potentially can help you in your career advancement and your advancement within the organization, helps you toward a bonus or whatever it might be If you’re not in an organization like that and you’re still interested part of the value of going through all of this goes back to what I was just talking about which is it can help you have a more fulsome a more well rounded, a more complete understanding of all of what goes into electronic discovery so that you can be more effective wherever you are and it can help if you decide that what you want to do is push yourself some and live in the areas you are not already experienced with or familiar with it can give you an opportunity to identify for you some challenges to pursue if that how you’re so inclined.

[Maribel] Thank you George, well that’s everything I have thank you so much for taking some time out of your day and spending it with us and sharing a little bit about you and the whole process of getting certified with us, for anyone who is interested in learning more about becoming ACEDS certified you can visit our website at ACEDS.org and George, any last thoughts?

[George] I don’t know just go forth and do good work out there

[Maribel] Thank you so much

[George] Okay, thank you.


Like what you’ve read? Keep up to date on the latest #CEDSCommunity updates by subscribing to our blog or by following us on LinkedIn or Twitter.

Judge gavel and tablet computer on table

3 Common Mistakes with Presentation Technology and How to Avoid Them

In part one of this three-part series, I gave an overview of presentation technology for legal advocacy. Part two covered the essential elements of software, equipment and people. The final installment highlights three of the most common mistakes in using presentation technology – and strategies to avoid them.

Common Mistake #1: Treating Technology as an Afterthought

The best presentations are the product of significant planning and preparation. It takes time, attention and forethought to:

  1. Gather the information you need to make informed decisions. Research topics include:
    • Type, subject matter and length of the proceeding;
    • Audience – judge, jury, hearing officer, arbitrator, mediator, opposing party;
    • Room layout and display system;
    • Building hours, security, parking, elevator;
    • Number of exhibits and video depositions;
    • Anticipated use of demonstratives;
    • Case value and budget.
  1. Assess technology needs, wants and what you can afford.
  2. Choose your presentation software.
  3. Choose your display system. Buy, rent or reserve equipment.
  4. Obtain approval from the court or other decision maker. Seek cost-sharing for equipment vendors.
  5. Assemble the presentation team. Provide training as needed.
  6. Set up and test technology at the venue.

The most common mistake legal professionals make in using presentation technology is treating it as an afterthought. The usual consequences are ineffective use of technology and cost overruns. The worst-case scenario is a courtroom horror story.

Common Mistake #2: Not Testing in Advance

Five minutes before start time is self-evidently not the ideal time for an equipment test. Yet this scenario recurs again and again. Not testing presentation technology in advance is a surprisingly common mistake.

Testing has two parts. First, an equipment test of the display system and the presentation computer. The computer’s display settings often must be adjusted, especially in courtrooms outfitted with older, square monitors. Projectors frequently need a lot of tinkering.

After confirming the equipment is working like it should, you need to confirm your content looks and sounds the way it’s supposed to.

It’s important to display a representative sample of each type of content (exhibits, depositions, demonstratives). The conditions of the test must simulate the actual presentation; in other words, using the presentation computer connected to the venue’s display system. Dynamic content like PowerPoint slides and animations can look very different from one computer or monitor to the next.

Common Mistake #3: Not Having a Communication Plan

Case teams need a common language and workflow for exhibits. The effects of poor preparation are felt most keenly once proceedings are underway. Teams who don’t have a communication plan suffer confusion, frustration and embarrassment.

Worst of all is the unnecessary delays. People hate having their time wasted. The people deciding your case are no exception.

When I’m filling the “hotseat” role in the courtroom I tell my team members that I speak exhibit number. I ask the examining lawyers to send me their witness outlines with exhibit references the night before the witness is expected to testify. That allows me to identify key passages in advance and have exhibits queued up as I follow along with the questions.

Of course, I understand trial is fluid and they may go off script at any time – or have no script. Cross-examination especially often goes in unexpected directions. I can quickly put anything on the screen so long as they ask for it by exhibit number.

In addition to witness examination, have a plan in place for communicating content changes. Exhibits and demonstratives may be added, modified or redacted during the proceedings. Video deposition clips for direct designations are subject to change until they’re played, whether by choice or necessity (i.e., rulings on objections).

Lastly, know who to call for technology troubleshooting and include support staff back at the office in the communications plan.

Presentation technology is a powerful persuasive tool for legal advocacy. With planning and preparation, you can avoid common technology mistakes and present your best case.

Currency-Keyboard-Pricing

Priced to Sell? The eDiscovery Pricing Survey (Summer 2020)

The eDiscovery Pricing Survey (Summer 2020)

Based on the complexity of data and legal discovery, it is a continual challenge to fully understand what is representative of industry-standard pricing for the delivery of eDiscovery products and services. With this challenge in mind, the eDiscovery Pricing Survey is designed to provide insight into eDiscovery pricing through the lens of 15 specific pricing questions answered by legal, business, and information technology professionals operating in the eDiscovery ecosystem.

The non-scientific, non-comprehensive, and multiple-choice survey is focused on establishing a pricing baseline for a specific selection of collection, processing, and review tasks. The survey is not designed to be all-inclusive but developed to provide a general overview of the pricing landscape with a market basket of eDiscovery offerings that can be analyzed over time to help establish an eDiscovery Pricing Index (eDPI*) that will be reported systematically.

The eDiscovery Market Basket for the survey consists of the following offerings:

Collection

  • Per Hour Cost for Collection by a Forensic Examiner
  • Per Device Cost for Collection by a Forensic Examiner
  • Per Hour Cost for Analysis, Affidavit, and Expert Witness Support by a Forensic Examiner

Processing

  • Per GB Cost to Process ESI (At Ingestion)
  • Per GB Cost to Process ESI (At Export)
  • Per GB Per Month Cost to Host ESI Without Analytics
  • Per GB Per Month Cost to Host ESI With Analytics
  • Per Month Cost Per User License for Access to Hosted Data
  • Per Hour Cost for Project Management Support

Review

  • Per GB Cost for Predictive Coding
  • Per Hour Cost for Document Review Attorney Review
  • Per Document Cost for Document Review Attorney Review

ComplexDiscovery anonymizes responses to this survey and does not share any individual or organizational contact data, demographics, or answers.

All 15 questions are multiple-choice and the entire survey can be completed in less than five minutes.

The summer 2020 eDiscovery Pricing Survey response period will be between today and no later than May 27th, 2020. Upon completion of the survey, the results will be anonymized, provided to all participants, and published on the ComplexDiscovery website during the summer of 2020.



To participate in the eDiscovery Pricing Survey (Summer 2020), please click here to complete and submit the short 15 question, multiple-choice survey. (https://complexd.blog/eDiscovery-Pricing-Summer-2020-Survey)

As your opinion is important in helping form a picture of industry-standard pricing on selected eDiscovery tasks, please do take the time to complete this short survey, as the anonymized results will provide professionals in the eDiscovery ecosystem an additional and helpful reference for considering pricing decisions.

Past eDiscovery Pricing Surveys

Additional Research

Source: ComplexDiscovery

* eDiscovery Pricing Index: A normalized average of price relative to a set of twelve eDiscovery offerings (eDiscovery Market Basket) for a given interval of time.