EDiscovery leaders and career opportunities highlighted by US legal publications

January 16, 2014

Electronic Discovery / eDisclosure is a new discipline. It has passed the Wild West stage but it is still new enough and small enough that the contribution of its founding members can be recognised with the perspective of time. Three US legal publishing companies have produced lists recently of individuals whose contributions have helped shape the industry.

What value lies in reciting other people’s lists? I hear you ask. Well for one thing, my coverage is selective, with a bias towards people I know or have some connection with. For another, two of these articles are not readily available and it is not open to me to just link to them. Third and more importantly, I am keen to encourage people to see a promising career path in eDiscovery; we can’t all be Laura Kibbe or Andrew Sieja, but we can see opportunities in this young and growing business area.

NLJ’s inaugural list of 50 Business Law Trailblazers and Pioneers

Most recent of the articles is the National Law Journal’s inaugural list of 50 Business Law Trailblazers and Pioneers (you see where I got the Wild West imagery from).

This, as its name implies, is concerned with the practice and development of the wider legal scene; I am not sure that electronic discovery would have rated a mention in such a list ten or even five years ago.

Epiq - Laura KibbeOne of the people on the list is Laura Kibbe (pictured left), a Managing Director at Epiq Systems, whose career, summarised in this Epiq press release, has encompassed all sides of the eDiscovery battlefield – as outside counsel, in-house counsel, and currently as Head of Expert and Professional Services for Epiq’s eDiscovery business. I have the pleasure, from time to time, of sharing platforms with Laura, most recently in Hong Kong last year. Not everyone in this industry has the ability to explain lucidly what are the business benefits (as opposed to the pure technology benefits) of eDiscovery tools and processes. Laura has this ability, and it is always a pleasure to share a platform with her. Read the rest of this entry »

Moving forward with eDiscovery in the Hong Kong civil courts – the Epiq Systems / ALB Round Table

November 4, 2013

I have reported briefly in earlier articles the round table which I moderated in Hong Kong on 13 September at which leading eDiscovery lawyers assembled at the invitation of Epiq Systems  and Thomson Reuters’ Asian Legal Business to discuss the discovery in the civil courts. Celeste Kemper, Director of Epiq’s Document Review Services Asia was in the chair.

HKRoundtableEpiq Systems / Asian Legal Business eDiscovery Round Table (photo by ALB)

The main interest lay in plans by the Hong Kong judiciary to produce an eDiscovery practice direction based on Practice Direction 31B used in England and Wales since 2010. A consultation draft is expected before the end of 2013.

We now have a report of that round table from Asian Legal Business in an article called eDiscovery: Wheels in motion for HK which passes on the key points made by some of the those who were present. The article is here and the whole issue of Asian Legal Business can be downloaded here.

Although Hong Kong civil procedure is largely based on that of England and Wales, the Practice Direction of 2010 (I was a member of the working party which drafted it) is part of a sequence of developments which began with the new Civil Procedure Rules in 1999. One of the key differences is the definition of a disclosable document – Hong Kong retains the Peruvian Guano test of relevance which, like the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is very wide; the test in England and Wales is whether the document is supportive of or adverse to the case of the giver or any other party and that, and other rules designed to limit the scope of disclosure are picked up and expanded in PD 31B. Read the rest of this entry »

Hong Kong judiciary working on a pilot scheme for management of electronic documents

October 3, 2013

I mentioned when I got back from Hong Kong that the eDiscovery roundtable organised by Epiq Systems and Asian Legal Business had been told of an interesting development – that the Hong Kong judiciary are working on a pilot scheme for the management of  electronic documents.

This was brought to us by Menachem Hasofer, a partner at Mayer Brown JSM, one of the most active law firm promoters of proportionate eDiscovery in Hong Kong.

There has not been any formal announcement of this work, but the following wording has been approved for release:

“The Hong Kong Judiciary is actively engaged in creating a pilot scheme for discovery and inspection of electronically stored documents in the Commercial List. The pilot scheme is expected to be implemented by way of a Practice Direction (PD) to be issued in the first quarter of 2014. Preparation of the PD is presently a work in progress. The Judiciary expects to release a draft of the PD for consultation in the final quarter of 2013, at which time it will hear views from the wider legal profession and other concerned stakeholders on the proposals contained in the consultation draft of the PD.”

This is obviously good news for those who believe that it is very much for the court to take a lead in encouraging the proper discovery of electronic documents within the bounds of proportionality. It makes sense for the pilot scheme to be limited to the Commercial List to begin with.

I look forward to getting involved in the consultation later this year and will bring more news as I have it.


Hong Kong (again) with Epiq and pending events with iCONECT, Cicayda and kCura

September 18, 2013

I have just been back to Hong Kong, this time to moderate a panel of litigation lawyers brought together by Thomson Reuters’ Asian Legal Business and by Epiq Systems. Epiq’s Celeste Kemper was in the chair.

Our agenda was cut from under our feet as we began our session by the news of pending developments in the Hong Kong civil procedure rules relating to the management of electronic discovery. The ad hoc agenda which followed was very much more interesting as a result. I will write more about this in due course. I also had lunch with Paul Taylor and Barry Wong of Consilio, as good a way as any of keeping up with what is going on in Hong Kong.

I came back in haste (well, 26 hours from door to door), mainly so as not to miss too much of the family holiday in Cornwall. I write this from a kitchen on a windswept headland from which sea and sky merge in varying shades of grey washed down by copious amounts of rain.

Towards Polzeath

It is good to be back here. Most of our holidays recently have been planned around a foreign conference and, whilst we have seen some wonderful (and generally sunny) places as a result, I have missed the Cornish mist. We are here partly because this is where we have always come (in my wife’s case since the 1950s) and partly because her niece is getting married at St Enodoc, an ancient church recovered from the sand in the mid-19C where John Betjeman is buried.

St Enodoc

I wrote with enthusiasm recently about a series of webinars being given by iCONECT whose first one is called Social Communication: Is There Anything Worth Requesting?   Its theme is the prevalence of new data types created by new kinds of device by new applications and which accumulates around us without really thinking about it. The ease with which we can work from anywhere (a Cornish clifftop, for example) brings enormous benefits, but it brings also the risk that we create data that we do not even know we have got in places unknown to us. That raises all sorts of issues, amongst them the eDiscovery implications.

It was, perhaps, a mistake to write so enthusiastically about this webinar, because the immediate reaction was an email from Ian Campbell at iCONECT inviting me to take part in it. The upshot is that I am speaking in iCONECT’s Webinar at 1.00pm EDT on Wednesday 18 September (that is TODAY) in the company of Ian Campbell and Thomas Barnett of Saito Sorenson LLP. More information, with links to the registration page is here.

I think that I have cracked the comms challenges of operating from here. The next hurdle is to keep the holiday house quiet for the hour’s broadcast – I can hardly turn everyone out into the rain.

Two other unexpected invitations came my way just before I left. One is to take part in a predictive coding panel at kCura’s Relativity Fest in Chicago on 8 October. Having committed to travelling that far, it made sense to volunteer also to look into Cicayda’s interesting RELEvent – the un-conference which takes place in Nashville at the same time. Cicayda’s Roe Frazer promptly put me on a panel for Monday 7 October – about what and with whom I know not, but it sounds fun anyway.


Information Governance: the way the wind is blowing

August 18, 2013

eDiscovery for litigation is important, but is only a part of the value which lawyers and eDiscovery providers can bring to corporate clients. The skills and technology developed to meet eDiscovery challenges can be applied to wider issues, some of which directly affect the cost and risk of eDiscovery as well as having value in their own right.

I have published 8,000 words this week, spread across 18 articles. Between them they cover a wide range of topics, countries and companies relating to the electronic discovery / disclosure of electronic documents: rules, technology and privacy have all turned up;  the UK, the US, and Hong Kong all featured, and you were spared a couple of articles about France which have not (yet) made it beyond draft stage. Coming too late for me to cover was an apparent attempt by US Judge Scheindlin to keep alive the fear of sanctions on which so many millions of dollars have been spent since her Zubulake Opinions. Is she a stern upholder of necessary standards or an outdated barrier to sensible and proportionate discovery? I will read the Opinion first, but the headlines by those who have read it suggest a certain lack of sympathy for this judicial rearguard action.

This volume of articles (sorry about that) is partly deck-clearing on my part, making way for what comes out of ILTA in Las Vegas in the coming week. It is partly a reflection of the breadth of interesting topics which connect to eDiscovery. It is partly a consequence of the busy-ness of the industry, when every day brings new developments, new products and new views which are worth passing on.

I have, however, barely mentioned one topic whose importance overrides all the others for the companies whose electronic data we are concerned with. Almost all the things which are seen as problems in litigation or in a regulatory or an investigations context spring from the volume of information which companies keep and for which many of them have no plans. It costs them a fortune, in storage, security and management, in eDiscovery obligations which strike them from time to time and because of the lost value which is tied up in information which no one can ever find. Read the rest of this entry »

Proactive use of technology-assisted review beyond litigation

August 16, 2013

Although the use of predictive coding / technology assisted review seems new to litigation lawyers, the concept behind it has been used for years and in a wide range of business applications. Reduced to its essentials, predictive coding takes a subset of source material and, through a mixture of human and technology input, identifies wider document sets by reference to the characteristics of the training set.

The application of this to litigation eDiscovery, to regulatory and internal investigation is obvious (or it jolly well should be), but the principles apply equally in other business circumstances where it is necessary for a company or its lawyers to identify things which may have impact later.

I use that neutral word “things” deliberately, because finding documents or other electronic sources is just the beginning of the enquiries which must be made – the technology is not an end in itself, nor is it enough merely to identify the right sources: what a company needs to know is what it should be anticipating so that contingency plans can be made to deal with it. That has application in, for example, company acquisitions where one company may need to assess both the value and the risk lying in email and other documents of another, or on a product launch, particularly in a high-risk area such as finance, healthcare and pharmaceuticals.

It is the latter area which is focused on by Laura Kibbe, Managing Director, Expert and Professional Services at Epiq Systems. Laura was Senior Corporate Counsel and Managing Director of the eDiscovery Response Team at Pfizer Inc before joining Epiq and has unrivalled experience of the pharmaceuticals industry both as client and as service provider. She is also one of the most eloquent advocates of the proportionate use of technology to business problems, as I said in my recent article about Hong Kong where we did presentations together.

Her article on Law Technology News, headed There’s More to TAR Than Litigation, has the subheading Proactive use of technology-assisted review could help Pharma and other industries manage risk.

Laura walks us through the steps which might be taken in undertaking a pre-launch risk assessment for a new product and for helping to identify potentially non-compliant behaviour once the launch is accomplished. Her focus is on the avoidance of compliance risk, on protecting privilege as the exercise proceeds, and on the combination of informed legal thoughtfulness and technology to achieve these exercises proportionately. It is as good an explanation as you will find of the wider application of this breed of technology and (crucially) of the human input and thoughtfulness which must accompany it.


Talking and listening in Hong Kong with Epiq and Consilio

August 13, 2013

I was back in Hong Kong recently, my third trip there in recent months. The primary purpose of this visit was to deliver a talk to the Hong Kong Academy of Law in the company of Epiq Systems. I went to some law firms with Epiq and visited a couple of companies in the company of Consilio, who also arranged  a first-rate dinner. The result of a short visit is necessarily a snapshot, but that was my third such snapshot in a few months and they accumulate in value. It is a place which bears multiple visits.

The title of the talk at the Hong Kong Academy of Law was The Intersection of Law and Technology in eDiscovery. I shared the stage with Laura Kibbe, Managing Director of Expert and Professional Services at Epiq Systems – a treat for me, this, since Laura is one of the clearest exponents of the use of technology in discovery. We were introduced by Nick Chan, a partner at Squires Sanders in Hong Kong, who had arranged the invitation.


My role was to talk about the development of rules and practice in a range of jurisdictions which require civil discovery and (as the title of our talk implies) to show how technology developments and practical compliance with the rules intersect with and complement each other. By “complement”, I really mean that proportionate and defensible discovery cannot properly be given in compliance with the rules of any jurisdiction without at least some understanding of the available technology. The fact that the rules may not specifically require this (as is the case in Hong Kong) is really neither here nor there – there is a set of obligations to fulfil in relation to documents, and if nearly all those documents are electronic, then electronic means must be used to find and classify them if the costs of discovery are not to become completely disproportionate to the objective. Read the rest of this entry »

Supplement in The Times encourages legal efficiency

June 24, 2013

The recent Raconteur supplement to the Times  was called Legal Efficiency 2013, and I was asked to contribute an article about the Jackson reforms. It was given the title Efficiency reform of legal process, reflecting my message that there is a coincidence (or, more properly perhaps, an unsurprising conjunction) between:

  • the requirement in civil proceedings to discuss sources of electronic information, the tools and techniques to be used and the likely costs of giving disclosure
  • what the clients expect in relation to any other project – there is nothing else in which they engage without first assessing cost and risk, as well as the potential benefit
  • the suggestion by Professor Richard Susskind that lawyers must ask themselves what elements of their current workload could be undertaken more quickly, more cheaply, more efficiently, or to a higher quality, using different and new methods of working.


The “tools and techniques” point (the words are used together in Practice Direction 31B) embraces both software solutions and the manner of managing of the project. Whatever else you accept or reject from Richard Susskind’s propositions, it is hard to argue with the idea that the demands of efficiency, never mind the demands of clients or court, lie in working out what is the lowest-cost way of achieving a task consistent with an appropriate level of quality. In many cases, that will involve tools like predictive coding and the use of outsourced managed review. This is not to say that these will be right for every case, but their use must be considered. Read the rest of this entry »

Cost budget revisions unlikely

May 1, 2013

I have already referred  (in my article on Epiq’s costs seminar) to Murray & Anor v Neil Dowlman Architecture. There is a good commentary on that on Outlaw.com called Cost budget revisions to fix mistakes unlikely to be allowed, says judge which you may find helpful.

I have mentioned also Dominic Regan’s article The end of late chopping and changing on the same subject.

Distinguish between amending a budget because the facts have changed and getting the budget wrong in the first place.


Epiq Systems seminar focuses on the new Costs Management rules

April 26, 2013

Epiq Systems held an extremely informative seminar on the new costs regime earlier this week. You will find at the end of this post a link to the video made on the day with the strong recommendation that you watch it.

“The thing about Dominic Regan”, somebody once said to me, “is that nearly everything comes down to costs to him”. It was meant as a compliment, and reflected the fact that much of the Civil Procedure Rules, of the case law which exists around it, and of the strategy of litigation, runs sooner or later into questions of costs. There are, of course, litigants for whom expense is no issue, cases which must be fought at any price, and large sections of the rules which regulate aspects of procedure to which costs have no direct relevance. The justice which is set squarely in the opening section of the overriding objective, however, is no justice at all if parties cannot afford it;  Lord Justice Jackson’s remit, however widely drawn, was driven by the need to control costs, and the rule changes which are named after him largely reflect that.


Professor Dominic Regan was one of four expert panellists at a seminar organised by technology provider Epiq Systems in London this week. The others were Master Colin Campbell of the Senior Courts Costs Office, costs expert Michael Bacon and Allen & Overy litigation support manager Vince Neicho.  The room was packed, and if much of the focus was on eDisclosure, the panel ranged across the wider implications of the new costs regime. The session was led by Epiq’s Saida Joseph. Read the rest of this entry »

Jackson events next week with Epiq and Consilio and guides from Judge Brown, Dominic Regan and Kerry Underwood

April 19, 2013

A tweet last week compared the first few days of the new case and costs management regime with 1939 – the reference was not intended to evoke anything belligerent but that period of uneasy calm known as the Phoney War which followed the formal declarations. We all know that something momentous is happening to those involved in civil proceedings, but until we start getting reports of case management conferences and feedback from the front line (to continue the war analogy) we cannot really tell how it will all play out at a practical level.

For the most part, I have stuck to straightforward recitals of what the rules say, reckoning that the MoJ’s botched launch of the amendments has so obscured the position that people are grateful simply to be pointed to the key provisions – as another tweet said, the MoJ was going to celebrate with a party at a brewery, but could not find anyone to organise it. At a conference this week, I offered delegates the choice between a summary of what the rules say and an analysis of their implications; they went for the summary, leaving it to Senior Master Whitaker to delve more deeply into what the changes mean for practitioners and clients at a later session.

It is worth pointing you to some of the events and articles which get more deeply into the implications.

Events from Epiq Systems and Consilio

epiq_110I have already written about a seminar which Epiq Systems is running on Tuesday 23 April at 8:30am at 60 Cannon Street. Its title is Costs changes to the Civil Procedure Rules: join the debate, and the speakers are Master Colin Campbell, Senior Costs Judge, Michael Bacon, costs lawyer, Vince Neicho, Litigation Support Manager, Allen & Overy and Professor Dominic Regan, adviser to Lord Justice Jackson on costs budgeting. The focus is on the pre-estimates of eDisclosure costs which are required whether or not costs management has been ordered (an important point this, for those confused by the cost management exemptions), on keeping costs down by the use of technology and outsourced review, and on the crossover between the new costs regime and clients’ demands for more imaginative costs structures – the predictability and transparency required by the courts is, of course, much the same as  a client wants from its lawyers anyway. Registration for this event is here.

Consilio A First Advantage CompanyOn Wednesday 24 April  Consilio is producing a webinar called The eDisclosure Shakeup: CPR 31.5 with Marla Bergman of Goldman Sachs, Garry Bernstein of Consilio and me. As I have written here, the focus is on the value of metrics in approaching costs estimates – if you  keep information about past cases (or work with someone who does) then the apparently daunting task of estimating costs so early in the proceedings becomes more feasible. No one (not me, anyway) is saying that it is easy, and many cases will buck all known trends; nevertheless, there is commonality in the components of cases which, if captured, can the used to inform future decisions. Registration for this event is here. Read the rest of this entry »

Blog posts on eDiscovery | eDisclosure in January 2013

February 11, 2013

Here is a list of the 58 blog posts published in January 2013 on my Commentary Blog and Updates Blog. They got 9,464 page views between them.

As mentioned in a recent post, the web site has been smartened up a little as part of a general review. Some old material has gone and there will be new sections, not least about the Jackson Reforms, shortly (seeing the final form of the rules would be a a good start).

A spate of post-LegalTech posts is on its way, spread across the next few days. Read the rest of this entry »

Epiq Systems survey points to a rise in UK and European eDisclosure

February 7, 2013

A new survey by Epiq Systems throws light on the recurring (and generally unanswerable) question as to the amount of eDiscovery work in the UK and Europe. One cannot assess the actual volumes, but it is helpful to know what large corporations and their lawyers are anticipating.

I get calls occasionally from (mainly US) providers of eDiscovery / eDisclosure software and services who want to know how big the European eDiscovery market is.  My usual answer (after making sure that the caller appreciates that the UK and mainland Europe have entirely different systems of law) is that anyone who purports to answer this question is kidding themselves.

Whilst it is possible to identify UK civil litigation trends from figures published annually by the Ministry of Justice, this tells us nothing about the scale of the eDisclosure required – we do not know how many cases reached the formal disclosure stage, how much disclosure was undertaken independently of court timelines, or how big the exercises were. There are no statistics for investigations, whether internal or for regulatory purposes, nor for arbitrations and other forms of dispute resolution. What do we mean by “the European eDiscovery market” anyway, when much of the work is US-led, performed in Europe in order to comply with EU data protection and privacy requirements?

It is helpful, therefore, that Epiq Systems has commissioned a survey of law firms and larger corporates to find out what they are experiencing and (even more usefully) what they anticipate in the foreseeable future.The survey, which you can find here and which is summarised in this press release, points to a significant increase in all the components which comprise an eDisclosure problem – increases in data volumes, more major litigation and regulatory activity and increased difficulties in finding the required data, not least because of the ever-wider range of devices and repositories in which it sits. Read the rest of this entry »

Some predictive coding resources useful for UK lawyers

January 17, 2013

I am increasingly being asked to talk about predictive coding in the UK, and the subject warrants an article of its own. I will come to that shortly, but meanwhile point you to two articles published in the last few days which, although American in origin, serve as an introduction to those new to the subject.

One is an article in KM World called What is Predictive Coding?: Including eDiscovery Applications. That opens with a useful quotation from Warwick Sharp of predictive coding provider Equivio which reads as follows:

Predictive coding is essentially a learning technology. What predictive coding is able to do is get input from a human being, who reviews samples of documents and marks them as relevant or not, and then those decisions are input into the predictive coding engine, which is able to generalize those decisions across the entire collection.

In other words, a relatively small amount of input at the beginning of the process is used to form provisional judgments about the rest, with obvious potential for saving time and money. The “learning” is continuous, in that the system refines its conclusions as the results are validated – and it is vital to appreciate that validation is a key component of predictive coding technology.

The article goes on to summarise the US case Global Aerospace, Inc., et al. v. Landow Aviation whose messages about the early reduction of volumes, and thence time and cost, are timely ones as the UK faces a new regime of court-led control and budgets. One of the points arising from the article is the absence of judicial guidance which, unsurprisingly, is the question I am asked most often when the subject comes up in the UK. Read the rest of this entry »

Short eDiscovery Updates to end November 2012

December 6, 2012

This post summarises the posts on my Google Plus page during November 2012. I gave up on Google Plus after that for reasons given in my post here, and set up a new updates blog. A different form of index will be provided in due course for posts from 1 December. Read the rest of this entry »

A Hong Kong eDiscovery snapshot in the company of Epiq Systems

November 27, 2012

On the surface, my area of professional interest looks pretty narrow. When I launched the eDisclosure Information Project, its proposed scope was implied by the word “eDisclosure” – only the civil jurisdiction of England and Wales uses the term “disclosure”, and I set myself the task of carrying information between courts, lawyers, clients and providers in that narrow context. That proved limiting very quickly: civil litigation is only one of the reasons why parties need to identify, analyse and review electronic information, and England and Wales is only one of several jurisdictions which impose such requirements. The US, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland have relevant obligations in civil litigation and they – the US in particular – export those obligations by expecting foreign parties to comply with their domestic rules when they litigate in US courts or fall within the powers of a regulator or state enforcement body.

That brings in countries with no discovery tradition, including EU countries and those of the Asia-Pacific region, such as China, who have increasing amounts of trade with the US but whose data protection and privacy laws, as well as culture, are inimical to common law discovery demands.

I could purport to cover all this by sitting at home in Oxford distilling what I find on the Internet, and communicating with people around the world by email and video-conferencing calls. That would certainly be easier than what I actually do, which is to get on a plane to go and see things for myself. I don’t kid myself that I become expert in a jurisdiction by dropping in from time to time, but the “carrying messages” part of my role is better fulfilled if I go occasionally to talk with (not just talk to – the listening matters more) people who practice in other places. That took me to Hong Kong for a quick visit to Epiq Systems there earlier this month.

Epiq Systems

Epiq Systems has three business activities, of which the eDiscovery solutions component (the others are bankruptcy solutions and class-action solutions) plays an ever-bigger part in each succeeding year’s accounts. It has grown from being a software-led company (with its processing tool eDataMatrix and review tool DocuMatrix), to being a broadly-based eDiscovery consulting company offering forensics and collections, processing, document prioritisation and document review services. Its first non-US office was in London, which is where I came across it, and it subsequently opened an office in Hong Kong. Epiq uses Equivio’s Relevance product (now part of Equivio Zoom) for predictive coding and document prioritization, and recent acquisitions bring it a wide range of review tools, including kCura’s Relativity, iCONECT and Concordance FYI together with expansion of its managed review services. Epiq’s most recent development has been the opening of a document review service in Hong Kong, allowing it to offer a full range of consultative, technology and review services in the Asia-Pacific region. Read the rest of this entry »

Short eDiscovery updates to 27 October 2012

November 3, 2012

This is a summary of the posts about eDiscovery / eDisclosure on my Google Plus page between 21 and 28 October 2012. Those which relate to webinars etc which have now passed may lead to blind links. Where I know of a new address for a downloadable version I have given it.

______________________________ Read the rest of this entry »

Short eDiscovery updates to 13 October

October 13, 2012

Most of these updates on my Google Plus site are from the week ending 6 October. After that, I was at the Masters Conference in Washington and at an event given by Symantec-Clearwell at Tower Bridge, with no time to write. I am content, in fact, to come late to my summary of these short posts – it gives s second life to subjects which would otherwise sink in the Twitter-stream.

I keep a large stock of things to write about thanks to my favourite software product, Evernote – I dip into it whenever there is a spare moment and pull out something to link to. That is fairly easy; the subsequent linking – via LinkedIn and Twitter at the time of publishing, in these updates, and (in due course) in the master list of articles on my web site, is extremely time-consuming and a major addition to my work-load. The payback comes in the form of SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) both of my own articles and of those to which I link.

______________________________ Read the rest of this entry »

Short eDiscovery updates to 29 September

October 1, 2012

I was at a Washington conference for much of the week ending 22 September and the updates for that week are correspondingly reduced in number. This selection covers two weeks’ of my Google+ updates. Some of them relate to webinars etc which were pending at the time of the G+ notice but whose date has passed by the time the summary is published. In many cases, the link will take you to a recording.

Some of these updates relate to future conferences. There is a list of these on my web site. Read the rest of this entry »

Short eDiscovery updates to 15 September 2012

September 24, 2012

This continues my new practice of summarising posts, mainly about eDiscovery, which have appeared on my Google Plus page recently. There are 26 of them in this summary, which points to a busy week (now two weeks ago) of announcements and stories. Google still can’t be bothered to show the full heading of these pages, or lack the competence to do so. They index well, however.

I omitted last time to break the summary after its introduction, and pushed off to the US leaving a long list at the top of the blog. My apologies to those who came in search of the next article of substance. That follows shortly. Read the rest of this entry »

My Google Plus eDiscovery posts to 14 August

August 19, 2012

A longer list than usual, partly because many interesting things came along and partly because I was called away for over a week before I had the chance to list them.

Law Society Gazette – No replacement yet for £10m High Court IT failure

APT Search white paper on recruitment and eDiscovery

Dangleboris – how to get the world to do your PR for you

Clarification of the DPP’s role in the Twitter Joke Trial

Nuix: Taming information with eDiscovery

Rob Robinson: eDiscovery vendors on Twitter

eDJ Group snaps up Marilyn Gladden for eDiscovery channel media services

Commonwealth Legal becomes a Relativity Consulting Partner

Greg Buckles of eDJ on CVEDR – Monkeys and Magistrates in Monterey

ESIBytes Recording – Carmel Valley E-Discovery Judicial Panel on Predictive Coding

The Irish Times – Internet is debasing our public discourse

The Lawyer: Scotland to compete with Northern Ireland as low-cost law centre

Kevin Nichols on eDJ: The CVeDR – A Different Type of eDiscovery Conference

First Advantage Litigation Consulting integrates audio discovery and conceptual search, and enhances analytics in Global RPM 5.0

Epiq Systems panel debate: judicial attitudes to technology assisted review

Nuix webinar: Deep dive into intelligent investigation with Nuix 4

You may like this Olympic parody…

Thomson Reuters on FTI survey: lawyers see benefits of computer coding, with caveats

kCura at No 15 out of 100 in Forbes’ list of Chicago’s top 100 digital companies

The relationship between keyword search and technology assisted review – Sheila Mackay of Xerox

Video – Proactive Information Governance with Nuix

Blog post re-run: Conor Crowley’s guidance on the Duty of Competence in e-Discovery applies beyond the US

While other politicians struggle to speak comprehensible English, Boris recites an Olympic ode in Latin

Guy Burgess on the NZ Law and technology blog: When will New Zealand get e-filing?

Simon Price of Recommind – Concept over keywords – why search still matters for law firms

Barry Murphy of eDJ in discussion with Mary Ann Benson of Epiq Systems: Tangible Examples of TAR

Epiq Systems Opens Hong Kong Document Review Centre

The Lawyer: First LIBOR action is in the Birmingham Mercantile Court

Howard Sklar of Recommind: Are Seed Sets the New Keyword?

Craig Ball: Train, Don’t Cull, Using keywords

Craig Ball (again), this time on the safe-keeping and recovery of irreplaceable data

Millnet’s Charles Holloway on a devilish problem

Guidance Software E-Discovery Resource Center


Epiq Systems: document review in Hong Kong, Zoom from Equivio and covered in eDJ

August 14, 2012

eDiscovery provider Epiq Systems seems to be popping up all over the place at the moment. Grouping the various sources together has the benefit, for me as well as for them, that those new to this subject can see how many eDiscovery corners are touched by a major player in the eDiscovery / eDisclosure market. This is not just a technology matter – services, processes and thought-leadership all contribute to tackling a business problem which is not going away.

I have already written about Epiq’s Q2 results which showed Epiq’s eDiscovery segment contributing $42.7 million to its record operating revenue for the quarter. My post reported Epiq’s expectation of “continued double-digit operating revenue growth for eDiscovery in the second half of the year”. The subsequent announcements covered here go some way towards justifying that optimism. I reported each of them briefly as they came along on Google+, but they are worth expansion.

Epiq opens Hong Kong Document Review Centre

Epiq has followed its recently-opened new document review facility in Washington (see Huron and Epiq expand managed review and legal staffing in Washington) with the creation of a similar review centre in Hong Kong.

The press release is here. It quotes Laura Kibbe, Epiq Systems’ Managing Director of Document Review and Expert Services as referring to the provision of “secure, scalable, cost effective review and staffing services wherever they are needed,” and to Epiq’s enanced ability to manage review teams in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.

Why should companies need such a service? Why, perhaps more pertinently, is it of interest to lawyers who have historically made money from document review? Read the rest of this entry »

Knowledge workers and project managers in eDiscovery

August 3, 2012

Mark Yacano and Cat Casey of Hudson Legal have published the third and final of their InsideCounsel series on the role of knowledge workers and project managers in eDiscovery.

Their theme is the changing role of those who both undertake and manage eDiscovery projects, emphasising that technology brings a demand for new and specialist skills which can be acquired either by growing them in-house or by engaging the services of companies whose specialist area this is.

I have made the point, in recent articles about the document review services of Epiq Systems and Huron Legal, that you get more than just outsourced labour from such providers. Because this is what they do, all day every day, they have the experience and the metrics to be able to predict costs and time scales. Few law firms can match their costs; almost none can provide the statistical information which allows lawyers to make predictions of the kind which are increasingly required both by clients and, when cost budgeting comes into the UK rules in April 2013, by the courts.

The articles are a good introduction to the range of functions which are available from such providers, and the skills and training which are brought to them. Any lawyer offering review services as part of their practice ought to be in a position to compare the benefits of external providers as a comparison with their own best offerings in this regard.

By way of reminder, UK Practice Direction 31B does not merely require the use of technology – it does require technology to be considered and used where appropriate, but it refers also to the “techniques” which the lawyers must discuss. The use of outsourced document review is amongst the “techniques” which ought to be considered.


Recent posts on Google+ on eDiscovery and other legal subjects

August 2, 2012

Being away, and with only random access to the Internet, focuses one’s mind on the most efficient way of capturing interesting articles as Twitter (my main source) dishes them up. Whatever its other virtues, Twitter is no good as an archive, since tweets disappear from sight very quickly. I usually bung them into Evernote (an easy, two-click process) but have recently started putting more of them into Google Plus (which I am finding increasingly useful), with or without much in the way of commentary, and so sharing them instead of merely adding to my own information stock.

There were many articles of interest whilst I was away. Many had nothing to do with eDiscovery but relate either to the US coverage of the Olympics or to the peculiar range of English legal curiosities which came up whilst I was away – I have written about these in my article Manslaughter (not), brand protection, Twitter censorship and crass Olympic coverage.

The Google Plus links work best, in indexing terms, if I cross-link to them from elsewhere. I do this in batches from Twitter with every few Google Plus posts and, as regular readers know, also list them here and on my website to make a running archive of them for future searchers to find. Although this involves a two-hop process for users (to my post and thence to its subject) the alternative, in many cases, is that the source article will simply disappear from view.

I have started trying to capture the dates of webinars and other events organised by those who sponsor the eDisclosure Information Project as well as articles. If I miss an event, it is either because I did not find out about it until too late or because I was away.

Recent posts include those listed below. There are others in the pile, but it is not necessarily helpful to list too many at once, so I will stop here for now.


Symantec Twitter Chat: How to Speak Legalese | 2 August at 10.00am PT

FTI and eDiscovery Journal – The Last Mile: Using Analytics for Trial and Depositions – Webinar on 7 August

Symantec Webinar: The Nexus Between Proactive Information Governance and Reactive eDiscovery | 7 August at 10.00am PDT

Recommind webinar – Cost Reduction Strategies Legal Departments Consider: Addressing the Real Problem | 12 September at 2pm ET

CY4OR Presentation – The Importance of Electronic Evidence – Manchester – 29 September

eDiscovery / eDisclosure

Devin Krugly of AccessData – some Olympic Twitter risks and some ideas for minimising them

Singapore International Conference on Electronic Litigation

Take it e-sy: e-Disclosure interviews in the UK Lawyer Magazine

Charles Skamser’s account of the 2012 Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat

Can the SFO survive the Tchenguiz warrant humiliation?

Are Seed Sets the New Keyword Part II You Can Have My Seed Set by Howard Sklar of Recommind

Company Results

Epiq Systems Q2 2012 Results with Record Operating Revenue of $89.8M

Guidance Software Q2 2012 – Record Non-GAAP Revenue $31.5 million, up $7.6 million, or 32 percent year-over-year


Harwood Acquittal

David Allen Green in the New Statesman on the acquittal of PC Harwood

Crimsolicitor brings a different view to the PC Harwood acquittal

Metropolitan Police tried to hide Harwood’s disciplinary record

LOCOG Olympic Brand Enforcement

Take THAT, LOCOG – Anya Palmer has collected together some of the madder LOCOG stories

Unauthorised bunting in the corporate area

Lodnon 2102 Olmplycs

Twitter joke Trial

Carl Gardner: Why did the CPS and the DPP begin and pursue the Twitter Joke Trial?

Louise Mensch MP in the Guardian: The Twitter joke trial and the twits who pursued Paul Chambers

CharonQC Podcast with John Cooper QC on the acquittal of Paul Chambers

What? The CPS were willing to call it a day on Twitter Joke Trial but the DPP insisted on going ahead

Olympic Opening Ceremony

Forbes critique of NBC coverage of the Olympics Opening Ceremony

The New Yorker – Danny Boyle Wins the Gold

Our Island Story – perhaps the best account of the Olympic Opening Ceremony

LA Times article on Olympics opening ceremony – London puts on a smashing show

Twitter suspension of journalist’s account

Twitter suspends the account of Guy Adams, a journalist critical of NBC’s Olympic coverage

Twitter explains its approach to private information following reinstatement of journalist’s account

A motive for Twitter’s non-apology for suspending Independent journalist’s account


More plausible than you might think – The Telegraph on Boris’s threat to Cameron


Random photographs from a drive from Las Vegas to Carmel


Epiq Systems London judicial panel points to future of technology-assisted review

July 4, 2012

The original invitation to Epiq Systems’ panel debate on judicial attitudes to technology assisted review said that the speakers would be Senior Master Whitaker and US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck.  That was enough to have me book my place, but Epiq subsequently rounded out the panel with the addition of Bob Lewis from Barclays Bank and barrister Shantanu Majumdar which made it even more interesting. Others obviously thought so too, because the room was packed despite (or perhaps because of) an 8:15 start. Epiq’s Laura Kibbe moderated with her usual style.

I will stick in this article to the term predictive coding, if you don’t mind, despite our host’s preference for one of the many other terms which describe broadly the same thing; I quite like my articles to be found in Google, and “predictive coding” is the term which people search for.

Bob Lewis leads Barclays’ initiative to bring much of the eDisclosure process in-house, acquiring software, building teams and developing processes to make the task as efficient and cost-effective as possible.  I know Shantanu Majumdar because I have taken part in video seminars with him. What do you get if you add together the best in modern technology, a largely self-sufficient client, a barrister who understands eDisclosure and two of the most eloquent judicial advocates of technology as an aid to proportionate disclosure?  Well, at the immediate level you get a well-informed  panel; in the distance,  a solicitor would see a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand which will one day, and not too far off, pose a significant threat to his business or, at least, to those members of the profession who cannot see which way the wind is blowing.

The technology reduces the need for manpower, and if you need bodies, then Epiq is amongst those who offer managed document review services. Sure, you will need a lawyer to give input on the law, the issues, the tactics and strategy. But does that have to be a firm of solicitors with all the lumbering apparatus which seems to come with the breed? Why not just find a switched-on barrister who will give input when you need it? If as a client you employ someone like Bob Lewis and his team, the attachment to solicitors to manage your eDisclosure begins to seem a luxury, a handling charge paid to people who are not adding much value. All you need then is a judge who understands a little – not a lot – about electronic disclosure.

All this, you understand, is my own musing derived from seeing this assembly of people on Epiq’s panel. It did not form part of the discussion, which was far more about the present and the immediate future. The best panels, however, make you lift your eyes beyond the next step and encourage you to look round the corners ahead. This one certainly did that.

The session was recorded on video which is available here. That makes it unnecessary for me to summarise the whole event. Instead, I will pick a handful of key points, particularly those which support the idea that the present reluctance to make use of the power of predictive coding is to ignore the best hope there is of making litigation affordable.

Epiq - Laura KibbeLaura Kibbe (pictured right) opened with the unarguable proposition that volumes are going up at a great rate – “the neck of the funnel keeps getting bigger” she said, and we need a more drastic reduction in the funnel. Why, she wondered, are lawyers reluctant to consider the use of technology assisted review – and she and the panel accepted that there is some reluctance. One of the challenges, she said, was to explain what was happening in terms which were easily understood Read the rest of this entry »

Seeing rather too much of London this week

June 29, 2012

Fate is usually kind enough to give me spaces between the big events and time enough to write them up before the next one. Fate has not been so kind this week: with two major events yet unreported (Hong Kong and the Nuix Information Governance Forum in Palm Beach), I have had to spend more time in London in a week than I usually do in a month. A single meeting involves a at least five or six hour round-trip, and having to go up most days leaves little time for writing.

All good stuff though, and I would not miss any of it. On Wednesday, Epiq Systems hosted a panel discussion on judicial attitudes to technology-assisted review. The panel comprised (from left in the picture below) Senior Master Whitaker, Bob Lewis from Barclays Bank, US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, and barrister Shantanu Majumdar. Much was said which is worth recording here, as you would expect from a panel of this calibre, and I will come back to it shortly.

I had to scuttle back from that to record a webinar with Andrew Sieja and Nick Robertson of kCura, again on computer-assisted review. Between us all we will get across the idea that predictive coding is not the “black box” of popular escapist fiction (“escapist” implying the lawyers’ curious wish to find any excuse to duck the realities of document review costs).

Today, amongst other things, I have been to Recommind’s splendid party at TOTG – Top of the Gherkin, the London equivalent of Recommind’s  Top of the Rock parties which have become a fixture at LegalTech. Read the rest of this entry »

Huron and Epiq expand managed review and legal staffing in Washington

June 26, 2012

Just as I pressed the Publish button on my article of last night (Discussing UK eDisclosure developments with Judge Brown and Huron Legal), which referred to Huron’s acquisition of Ascertus, a Huron press release came in about its next acquisition, of AdamsGrayson.

This merits a mention here partly because of its scale – AdamsGrayson has a review facility in the Washington DC metropolitan area with more than 200 seats – and partly because of the reference in the press release to AdamsGrayson’s specialisation in strategic consulting on information risk management, litigation readiness, and eDiscovery management.

Those of you who read my posts in the order in which I publish them will see the connection here with my article of this morning called Far from the Black Box: explaining Equivio Relevance to lawyers. That included the following suggestions to law firms:

….automated technology … is going to become the norm, side-by-side with outsourced providers of document review (and no one is yet saying that document review is dead, however sophisticated the technology) who can do the job more efficiently, more predictably and, frankly, better, than most law firms can.


If you doubt any of this, do three things – read Richard Susskind’s The End of Lawyers?, go and visit a provider of outsourced document review services and compare their offering to yours (or to that of your lawyers if you are a client), and arrange a demonstration of a range of modern technology solutions. Read the rest of this entry »

Epiq Systems to host UK–US judicial discussion in London on technology-assisted review

June 12, 2012

Epiq Systems have invited Senior Master Steven Whitaker and US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck to take part in a panel discussion about the use of technology-assisted review in litigation. The panel, to be moderated by Epiq’s Laura Kibbe, will take place from 8:15am to 10.00am on Wednesday 27 June at 60 Cannon Street, London, EC4N 6NP.  Breakfast and refreshments will be provided.

There is no charge for attending this interesting-looking event but it is necessary to register. You can do that by clicking here or by sending an e-mail to epiqteam@epiqsystems.co.uk

Master Whitaker and Judge Peck have long been eloquent and thoughtful advocates of the proper use of technology to reduce the time and expense of litigation. In addition to their assiduous and much-welcomed presence on the technology panels, and through their articles, both have delivered decisions which emphasise the importance of reducing the volumes of document for review, Master Whitaker in Goodale v the Ministry of Justice and Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore v Publicis Groupe and MSL Group.

What has a US judge to say which is of value to a London audience? The days are long gone when American judges would come and lecture us about preservation duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Peck, amongst others, has strong messages about proportionality and cooperation which are the more forceful for coming from a jurisdiction in which neither of these qualities  have been much in evidence hitherto. Judge Peck’s Opinion in Da Silva Moore caught the headlines because of its approval of predictive coding; that, however, was servant to the fundamental principles of FRCP Rule 1 – “the just, speedy and inexpensive” conduct of cases. That equates to our overriding objective.

Master Whitaker takes the same line – his Goodale judgment is primarily about managing the case to reduce unnecessary cost, and  technology came into it as an obvious way to achieve this objective.

We are lucky to have these two judges brought to our doorstep. Register now to get a place.


Conference topics indicate the important eDiscovery and eDisclosure themes

May 11, 2012

That part of my life which involves speaking has four elements – preparation, travel, delivery and reporting. The month of May always has a full diary of events, and this year has more than usual. Of the four elements, the only one which is optional is the reporting, and it is that which I must abbreviate here. I can make a virtue out of that by summarising the themes which run through my current batch of events, reckoning that the subjects which recur at events are those which are seen as important.

I am writing this from the top floor of the Wynne / Encore hotel in Las Vegas where I have been speaking at AccessData’s User Conference. Below me lies the vast complex of casinos, conference rooms, shops, swimming pools and catering facilities which are the standard mix in this city.  To my left, and  temptingly close, lies McCarran airport with toy aeroplanes taking off and landing. But for the iniquitous cost of today’s flights, I would be there now, getting ready to go home less than 24 hours after arriving here (I could not come earlier because of ILTA Insight in London). As it is, I am stuck here until tomorrow – though as offices go, this one is hard to beat. Away to my right lies the Red Rock Hotel; I will be there in a few days time for Guidance Software’s CEIC. It would be a great deal cheaper, and much more productive in writing terms, to stay here for the intervening few days, but IQPC’s big Information Governance and eDisclosure Summit takes place in London next week and I must be back for that. When CEIC is over, I must get back for a CPD  talk which I am giving in London.

What themes recur through these events? Read the rest of this entry »

Greg Wildisen of Epiq Systems on Predictive Coding in UK eDisclosure

April 18, 2012

The Society for Computers and Law has published on its website an article by Greg Wildisen, International Managing Director at Epiq Systems with the title E-disclosure: Training Technology.

Epiq offers predictive coding through the integration of Equivio’s Relevance product into Epiq’s IQ Review, a mixture of technology and consultancy services. Greg Wildisen summarises briefly the story behind Judge Peck’s Opinion in Da Silva Moore v Publicis Groupe which approved the use of predictive coding technology in a case in which parties had agreed to use the technology, and considers the likely reaction when this type of technology is used in UK proceedings.

He focuses on the significance of analysing non-relevant as well as relevant documents and, potentially, of doing so cooperatively with opponents in order to win agreement about the validity of the process. He thinks it possible that lawyers may object to the disclosure (in the broadest sense of that term) of documents which are not strictly required in the present litigation, not least because of implications for future cases.

I am reasonably optimistic about this, partly because (as Greg Wildisen makes clear) judges have discretion to make whatever orders they think appropriate for the better conduct of the case before them, and partly because clients’ objections are likely to whither in the face of the enormous potential for cost savings – they will be willing to give a little to gain a lot or, at least, to make a proper assessment of the risks against the advantages

We shall see. Meanwhile, Greg Wildisen’s article is a good short summary of implications which UK lawyers and their clients should be thinking about.


Epiq Insights – an eDisclosure newsletter from Epiq Systems in the UK

March 13, 2012

Relatively few of the eDisclosure / eDiscovery newsletters focus on the UK, so it is good to welcome Epiq Insights from Epiq Systems which is now available as a web page as well as by subscribing to an e-mail. The current edition is here.

It includes links to articles which are either about the UK or which, whilst having a US origin, are relevant to those responsible for the management of UK eDisclosure exercises.

Some of them are things I have already written about –  November’s Metropolitan Corporate Counsel article on predictive coding, for example, and reports of the Epiq Showcase and of the panel on the Challenges of Cross-Border Regulatory Investigations. Others are new to me and it is helpful to be able to pass them on in one go by pointing you to the newsletter.

Of the ones I have not seen before, I refer you in particular to the New Law Journal article on right-sizing the outsourcing of document review written jointly by Epiq’s Saida Joseph and Mark Surguy of Eversheds. Its conclusion is that the on-shore / off-site model for document review is the one which strikes the best balance between cost and risk.

This is a relatively new model for the UK market and one which has attracted a lot of attention very quickly. I gave a video interview yesterday for the College of Law. Quite often when I do these things, I am invited to say what I want to talk about. The College of Law works the other way round – they detect the trends which interest their audience and send me the questions. One of this year’s questions, appearing for the first time, was about managed review Read the rest of this entry »

Judge Peck’s Predictive Coding Opinion – reporting the reaction

March 7, 2012

It needed no great prescience to anticipate a flood of articles about US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck’s opinion in the Da Silva Moore predictive coding case (Monique Da Silva Moore, et al., v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, Civ. No. 11-1279 (ALC)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y. February 24, 2012). I made an early election to stand back before writing about it, reckoning that I do you better service by pointing to the best of the early reactions and then taking a broader approach myself, not least in jurisdictional terms.  I may challenge from time to time the idea that the US is in any sense “ahead” of the rest of us in terms of rules and processes, but there is no challenge to the suggestion that new technology gets its most exacting trials in the fire of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and other jurisdictions can observe and learn.

In what is, I think, the only UK article thus far apart from mine, Charles Holloway of Millnet reckons, in an article headed In the jaws of ediscovery, that an English judge would take the same view as a US judge in similar circumstances. There are judges and judges of course, on both sides of the Atlantic, but I think Charles is right. Millnet know whereof they speak in this regard, having been involved in the only UK predictive coding case whose outcome has been written up publicly – see my article Two predictive coding case studies emphasise time and cost savings, which involves a US case involving Epiq Systems well as Millnet’s UK one.

The present article points to some (by no means all) of the commentary which has appeared already, allowing me to go on to take a slightly different approach in my separate article.

The best plots are those which can be summarised in a few words. “Father murdered, uncle bad, Ophelia hot, Hamlet mad, all dead” tells you all you need to know about Shakespeare’s most famous play.  The equivalent in respect of Judge Peck’s opinion came from Warwick Sharp of Equivio who quickly boiled the whole thing down to this: Read the rest of this entry »

An acquisition and an appointment point to Epiq consolidation and service delivery

February 29, 2012

Stories happen when they happen, and the copy / paste news sites and story aggregation people do a good job at rushing the contents of the latest press release to your virtual door. G K Chesterton’s Father Brown famously talked of hiding a leaf in a forest or a pebble on the beach and, whilst I must not rely exclusively on 19th and early 20th century fictional detectives for my parallels (it was Sherlock Holmes earlier this week), I am not much interested in the Gadarene rush to regurgitate press releases at the same time as everyone else, based on the same (and generally sam-ey) texts. I’d rather not just be another leaf in the forest.

What makes an industry story interesting is its place in a context or a trend – how it moves things along or provides factual evidence of an otherwise anecdotally-based assertion. Two recent announcements by Epiq Systems warrant more than merely passing on the press releases. One is Epiq’s acquisition of De Novo Legal which took place between Christmas and New Year, a time when, as you would expect, my page views graph shows a dip to less than half of its normal level; accordingly, I just passed on the PR, saying that I would come back to the story in due course. The appointment of David Fryer as Epiq’s General Manager of UK Operations was announced just before LegalTech, when industry minds were focused on product releases and all the usual pre-show hype. It warranted more than being just another leaf in that forest.

I spoke this week to David Fryer and to Greg Wildisen, Epiq’s International Managing Director, to find out more about David’s appointment and about De Novo. Read the rest of this entry »

Integration the target as Guidance Software buys CaseCentral

February 14, 2012

It was Twitter, of course, which first brought the news that Guidance Software had agreed to acquire CaseCentral.  The first tweet came so early that the Guidance web page announcing the deal was a blank placeholder; its page title confirmed that the story was true, but there was as yet no content. The tweets multiplied and the official Guidance Software announcement appeared shortly afterwards.

That announcement is here. The CaseCentral equivalent is here.

Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for eDiscovery Software, published in May 2011, opened with two “Strategic Planning Assumptions”:

By 2014, consolidation will have eliminated one in every four enterprise e-discovery vendors.
By 2013, software as a service (SaaS) and business process utilities will account for 75% of the revenue derived from processing, review, analysis and production of electronically stored information (ESI).

Although the report was, as its name suggests, concerned with eDiscovery software vendors, the consolidation prediction was made in respect of the wider eDiscovery vendor market, implying, correctly as it has turned out so far, that we would see aggregation of the various components of the externally-provided eDiscovery process.

The Magic Quadrant itself appeared opposite the Strategic Planning Assumptions, showing Guidance Software as a Leader and CaseCentral amongst the Visionaries. Of those whose names appeared there,  Autonomy had already acquired the digital assets of Iron Mountain by the time the Magic Quadrant appeared, and has itself since been acquired by HP (who was not itself qualified to appear in the Quadrant). Symantec has bought Clearwell. Epiq Systems had just increased its size and its range by the acquisition of Encore eDiscovery Solutions, extending both its software and its services portfolio, and has since added De Novo Legal which combines processing, hosting and review services. Read the rest of this entry »

Epiq Systems acquires De Novo Legal to expand its Managed Review Services

December 31, 2011

It is only eight months since Epiq Systems significantly increased its legal technology reach by the acquisition of Encore eDiscovery. It has ended the year by acquiring De Novo Legal LLC, whose particular strength is managed review services.

The acquisition significantly expands a review service which Epiq grew organically out of its software and services base in 2009. Like so many acquisitions, the commercial logic seems obvious once it has happened, with the two 2011 acquisitions significantly extending Epiq’s potential client base simultaneously with the ability to service it.

The press release is here. Despite its timing between Christmas and New Year, this transaction has attracted a lot of press attention – see, for example, the article headed EPIQ’s Acquisition Of De Novo Legal A Sign Of Things To Come by eDiscovery Journal’s Barry Murphy, which sees the acquisition as fulfilling eDiscovery Journal’s own predictions about market consolidation and about geographical, as well as functional, spread by fewer and stronger players.

I hope to find out more when the world starts moving again and will come back to this subject.


Two predictive coding case studies emphasise time and cost savings

December 16, 2011

I referred a while back to two case studies about the use of the technology known variously as “predictive coding”, “computer-assisted coding” or, more recently, “technology assisted review” or TAR. One of them involved Epiq Systems and the other Millnet. One was a US example involving Baker & McKenzie and the other one came from Eversheds in the UK. I group them together because all four of these names, of service providers and law firms, are familiar ones in the UK. Most of the (by now extensive) literature on the subject of predictive coding involves organisation names which allow non-US lawyers to dismiss the subject as being of no relevance to them. The familiarity of the players in these two case studies may help to dispel this notion, even if one of the cases involves US regulatory proceedings.

The Baker & McKenzie / Epiq IQ Review / Equivio example

I start with an interview in Metropolitan Corporate Counsel with David Laing, a partner in the Washington, DC office of Baker & McKenzie LLP and called Predictive Coding = Great eDiscovery Cost and Time Savings.  The application used was Epiq Systems’ IQ Review which is a combination of Equivio’s Relevance software and Epiq’s own applications, pulled together by Epic’s consultancy services.

David Laing first describes how this technology works. He says:

It uses a limited number of senior attorneys familiar with a matter to review a representative statistical sample of the documents. The predictive coding software then applies the results of that statistical sample to the entire database. Predictive coding provides a way to prioritize documents for review.

His context is very large cases involving both high volumes and tight deadlines as well as an opponent, the Department of Justice, with the motive, the power and the means to be extremely fussy about what they are sent. The DOJ was, Laing says, “completely satisfied with the response and raised no questions about it”. Read the rest of this entry »

Shortened version of Epiq white paper published by New Law Journal

December 14, 2011

A recent post of mine, called Epiq Systems White Paper: from start to finish – what actually happens to my clients data? referred to a white paper which I wrote with Deborah Blaxell of Epiq. The paper has now been published in a shortened form by the New Law Journal with the title Information Highway.

Its theme is one I have been promoting this year and will continue to promote next year – that the lawyers, whether in-house or external, who want or need to commission the services of a services provider, can have little understanding by default of what stages and processes, both human and technical, take place once instructions have been given. We need to make sure that we fill this gap if people are to be encouraged to take that first step.

The article was first published in the New Law Journal “Information Highway”, NLJ 9 December 2011, p 1703.


Dominic Regan on Jackson and costs at the Epiq Showcase

December 7, 2011

I wrote a post in anticipation of Epiq Systems London Showcase on 8 November, focusing mainly on the scope and depth of the consultancy services and software options which are available to lawyers and their clients from broadly-based providers like Epiq.

All that and more was on display at the well-attended evening in the Barbican, and anyone who wanted to find out more about Epiq’s own DocuMatrix, Clearwell, kCura and Nuix, to say nothing of Epiq’s document review services, had ample opportunity to do so.

The highlight of the evening, however, was a talk by Professor Dominic Regan who, as an adviser to Lord Justice Jackson and official observer of the Birmingham costs management pilot, is better placed than almost anyone to tell us what is happening in the wider UK litigation world and what we can expect.

Epiq’s International Managing Director Greg Wildisen opened the formal part of the evening with a brief survey of wider developments and the expanded software and service offerings which Epiq can give following its acquisition last April of Encore eDiscovery Solutions. That done, he turned the podium over to Dominic Regan.

Dominic began by expressing his conviction that most of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals will happen. At the time of writing (and this comes from me, not Dominic, and only emerged this week), it seems possible that they will be deferred, largely thanks to the inter-relationship between some of them and the proposed legal aid reforms which were themselves not part of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations (an important point this, since many people, including the Law Society, have conflated the two things, either through ignorance or because it suits their agenda). Dominic emphasised that Lord Justice Jackson was particularly and expressly against the removal of legal aid from healthcare litigation. The delay is not likely to be a long one and, as Dominic observed, the progress through Parliament is well advanced. Read the rest of this entry »

Epiq Systems White Paper: From Start to Finish – what actually happens to my clients’ data?

November 28, 2011

Anyone describing their services to a prospective client has a limited bandwidth (measured in time, concentration and the amount of detail which can be imparted and absorbed) available to them and, in focusing on the primary features and benefits, often skips the practical matters which will arise. The builder quoting for your attic room will concentrate on the design and the materials, and not describe the months of dirty boots going up and down your stairs; your property lawyer will not go into details of packing, removals and services disconnection when describing the conveyancing process; the surgeon will spare you the gory details of scalpels and clamps which will be used in your impending operation.

This is not necessarily a matter of concealment – to the expert doing this sort of thing all the time these minutiae are inevitable, and describing them seems to add little to the client’s expectations. Much the same can happen when an eDiscovery provider is describing its services and software: the focus is on the business case, the functionality and the output, with the front end of the process reduced to terms of art like “preservation”, “custodian” and “processing” which do not necessarily mean to the audience what they mean to the vendor.

I come across this when I speak to law firms. Those who invite me in to talk to them have very often already seen more than one demonstration, and have varying degrees of understanding and acceptance of both the need and the benefits of engaging one of those whom they have seen . A recurring question, however, is “What actually happens to my clients’ data when I instruct a software and services provider?”. They envisage, perhaps, the day when they will ring up a client and advise them that the disclosure in their case should be managed electronically. “All right”, says the client, perhaps, “What happens now?” Read the rest of this entry »

Legal Support Network UK e-Discovery Briefing Paper collects expert views

November 8, 2011

The UK-based Legal Support Network has just published an interesting briefing paper about eDisclosure / eDiscovery, opening with an observation on the difference, or absence of difference, between those two terms, kick-started by Jonathan Maas of Ernst & Young.

For practical purposes, there is no difference. The long-established process of “Discovery” was renamed “Disclosure” in 1999 for reasons which made no sense at the time beyond the optimistic notion, endemic at the time, that you could improve something by changing its name. The alleged benefit, the shift of focus to what you gave to the other side, was meaningless then and has become more so as the emphasis has moved, under pressure from the volumes, to the scope of search. The terminology change also failed to anticipate that this would become a subject which crossed borders both intellectually and practically, leaving England & Wales with a confusingly different term for the same process. There is quite enough to misunderstand without frigging around with the established terminology.

My own approach, for what it is worth, is that if one is referring to the Rules themselves then one should use the terminology of the Rules but that the term “Discovery” is the proper one for the process. In practice, I generally do what I have done in my opening paragraph and use them both.

The opening article is an interview with Jonathan Maas, rightly described as “a bit of a legend” in litigation support. Jonathan was already well-known in the nascent field when I began, and that is going back a bit. You do not need me to paraphrase the article for you, but the main point, to my eye, lies in the sentences “[Lawyers] don’t need to know how to do it, just that it needs to be done.” and “law firms need to know these things can be done, to know the benefits and to be able to stand tall with their decisions…”. You cannot “stand tall” if you do not understand what you are talking about. Read the rest of this entry »

Epiq Systems Solutions Showcase in London on 8 November

October 27, 2011

Epiq Systems is holding an E-Disclosure /  E-Discovery Solutions Showcase at the Barbican in London at 4.30pm on 8 November. Its title is The Power of Options, which seems appropriate for an event which includes several leading software solutions as well as the consultancy and document review services which Epiq offers in conjunction with the technology. There will also be a seminar led by costs expert Professor Dominic Regan, adding a timely and relevant educational element to the solutions on show.

Epiq was described as a “niche player” in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software of May 2011. The word “niche” somehow implies narrow specialisation; I am not sure that it was the right word to use of Epiq in May, but it certainly seems inappropriate now that the full effect of its April 2011 acquisition of Encore Discovery Solutions becomes clear. The London Showcase will demonstrate just how broad its range is. Read the rest of this entry »

More on Software-Assisted Review as Applied Discovery and KMPG add Equivio>Relevance

September 27, 2011

Electronic discovery company Applied Discovery and KPMG are amongst those who have recently partnered with Equivio to integrate Equivio>Relevance into their existing eDiscovery applications. These two recent announcements give me an opportunity to return to the subject of software-assisted document review using what is generally known (but see below) as predictive coding. Recent discussions with some lawyers have shown scope for fundamental misunderstandings about what this kind of software does, and a look at the explanations produced by Applied Discovery and KPMG, as well as those of some other players in this space, may help.

My primary objective is clarity for those who come across the names and the terminology but are not necessarily clear as to the functionality being offered or its purpose. There seem to be three aspects which some lawyers find difficult about this kind of software, each of which is worth challenging. These are the following:

  • They think it is being sold as a substitute for human review of the documents which are to be disclosed. That is not its purpose. It provides (amongst other benefits) a means of identifying irrelevant (or less relevant) documents or, to put it the other way round, a way of prioritising documents so that those identified provisionally by the software as the most relevant or most important are brought to the top. The important word here is “provisionally”, with its clear implication that the lawyers get every opportunity to double-check both what has been ranked as important and what has not.
  • It is the subject of debate about judicial acceptability which, again, follows from a misunderstanding both of what it does and of what the courts expect.  You may care to read an article called Judge Peck and Predictive Coding at the Carmel eDiscovery Retreat which reports on what I describe as “one of the clearest statements yet by a judge that the use of new technology like predictive coding is an acceptable way to conduct search”. Judge Peck’s immediate context may have been the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the principles which he covers apply anywhere, and the UK’s Senior Master Whitaker has said much the same both in conference speeches and in his judgment in Goodale v Ministry of Justice. Master Whitaker has also emphasised repeatedly the first point made above – that none of this software is intended as a substitute for human review of documents to be disclosed; he has heard this reaction as well.
  • There is a paradox inherent in the nature of lawyers. They crave certainty but prefer it expressed in words rather than in numbers (a point which comes up in my recent report about the risk management function of corporate counsel). The statistics-based evidence of an application’s accuracy may underpin a decision to use this type of software, but lawyers still prefer the evidence of their own eyes. In fact, the applications give every opportunity for output to be validated by humans, but (in a second paradox) this may be getting lost in the marketing literature’s emphasis on the science.

The second of these points, judicial acceptability, is adequately covered in my Judge Peck article. In this article, I will focus on the lawyers’ own confidence in these applications as an aid to lawyerly judgement, not a substitute for it. To do that, I will look at the descriptions of what these applications do rather than on the science behind them, supporting the relevant parts of the Applied Discovery and KPMG materials and by extracts from those of other products with similar functionality.

First, however, it is worth saying a few words about terminology, not so much to define the labels as to pick the generic purpose out from the proprietary or product-specific names given to this kind of functionality. They all work slightly differently, and I defeat my object of simplicity if I qualify my deliberately broad descriptions with any attempt to describe the distinguishing features of each of them. Read the rest of this entry »

Epiq Systems webinar: the Challenges of Cross-Border Regulatory Investigations on 21 September

September 20, 2011

One keeps hearing of “Bribery Act fatigue”, with the implication that companies and their lawyers either think that the subject was oversold or that the absence of a headline prosecution implies that we can all relax. The sense of urgency has perhaps been diminished also by the early focus on corporate entertainment, which gave rise to much exaggerated fear before apparently dropping off the agenda, and by the government’s public mishandling of the SFO’s future.

All this may have had the effect of diluting a proper sense of urgency amongst companies and their lawyers. The Bribery Act has been in effect only since 1 July and the noises coming from the SFO give warning that it is very much open for business on this subject.

One serious implication is the inter-relation between the UK Bribery Act and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Many companies will be subject to both jurisdictions and may face investigations which cross borders. This is the headline subject of a webinar tomorrow, Wednesday 21st September at 9:30am Pacific time / 5:30pm BST which is entitled The Challenges of Cross-Border Regulatory Investigations and which covers also the key differences between ESI management for litigation and an investigation, and how to prepare for and respond to an investigation.

The webinar is given by Deborah Blaxell, Legal Consultant, Epiq Systems, Emma O’Kane, Senior Associate, Eversheds LLP and Mark Surguy, Partner, Eversheds LLP and is co-hosted by the Masters Conference and EMC.  These are all topics on which both Epiq and Eversheds speak with the authority of experience, and a webinar is a convenient way of keeping up to date with developments. Registration is here.


Consider document review services as well as technology

August 8, 2011

The recent dominance of predictive coding and other forms of computer-assisted review in these pages and elsewhere reflects as well as reports on the growing interest in this kind of technology. It is also inevitable that the discussion has been led by US thinking on the subject because that is where most of the discussion happens.

I have tried in my own articles to walk a line between giving an uncluttered view of the predictive coding debates and emphasising that this is merely one of several options  which must be considered by those charged with the management of large volumes of electronic data. This type of technology is not for everyone nor for every case and, as Greg Wildisen of Epiq Systems said in my discussion with him (see Strong eDiscovery behind the Q2 numbers at Epiq Systems) there is often a balance to be struck between the time and cost considerations when considering human and technology input.

The UK does not have the vast armies of contract lawyers which are common in the US. Those who have a lot of documents for review, however, ought to be aware that there is a thriving and competitive market offering document review services in the UK to be considered alongside, or more usually in tandem with, a technology solution.

I have already mentioned Epiq Systems’ document review service in the article referred to above. I was in the London offices of Huron Legal recently. When I first went there, for the office opening, the review pods had just been set up. Now there were two teams of reviewers hard at work and I was told that this had been the case since the service was launched. Hobs Legal Docs, one of the few UK providers still with a strong paper-handling division, necessarily provides manual coding to go with it – unlike most electronic data, scanning paper requires manual work for mere identification quite apart from any decision-making implicit in the term “document review”. Read the rest of this entry »

Strong eDiscovery behind the Q2 numbers at Epiq Systems

August 8, 2011

I have made it clear in an earlier article that analysing the detail of company accounts is neither one of my strengths nor my interests. One has to pay some attention, however, to an announcement which reads Epiq Systems announces 2011 second-quarter results led by eDiscovery operating revenue growth of 96%.

Epiq Systems acquired Encore Discovery Solutions on 4 April 2011, so this quarter’s figures are complicated, on the one hand by acquisition costs and on the other hand by a new revenue stream. I will leave you to read the figures for yourself, but I draw attention to the emphasis given in the notes to “the strength of Epiq’s organic growth across the heritage eDiscovery business”. Epiq was doing well anyway, in other words, even without the Encore business. When the two strands are added together in a strengthening eDiscovery market, the results are impressive.

As always, I am more interested in what we can deduce about the market generally than in any one provider’s figures, and more interested in what the company’s senior people say in conversation than in the necessarily stripped-down accounts notes. I pick Epiq in part because it  provides a balance to the spate of articles from me and others whose focus has been the sophisticated technology of predictive coding. I have another long article coming up on that, but it is important to emphasise (as I have done in my articles) firstly that not every case needs a sophisticated technology solution and secondly that the key lies in understanding the range of options available. Epiq’s IQ Review process and its proprietary review tool DocuMatrix offer predictive coding by the incorporation of Equivio’s Relevance product. They also, however,  have a document review service and, with the acquisition of Encore, open the door to a wide range of applications – an antidote, therefore, to the idea that it is predictive coding or nothing. I will have more articles to similar effect shortly.

I spoke to Greg Wildisen, Epiq’s International Managing Director, and he went straight to this point. He did not give me the details, but a recent case handled by Epiq had required that a population which grew to 80,000 documents over the short life of the project had provided a good example where the balance of time and cost considerations had required a concomitant balance of human review and technology. Neither would necessarily have done the job on its own within the budget and timeframe, but a consultative approach and good project management had brought in the right resources at the right stages to get the job done. This is a point which goes wider than just Epiq – someone must have an overview. Read the rest of this entry »

Lawyer Invitational Golf Tournaments raise money for Children’s Hospital

July 6, 2011

My friend Robert Childress of Wave Software draws my attention to the Lawyer Invitational Golf Tournaments, the next of which takes place on 18 July at the Trump National Golf Club Westchester NYC. I see that the Westchester event kicks off with a “Shotgun Start” – everything is bigger in America, and I assume that they use a 12-bore where the rest of us would settle for a starting pistol.

I have to say that I do not really understand golf – it seems an awful lot of clutter to carry for a walk and, whilst I see the attractions of driving around in one of those little trucks, it must be slightly tiresome to have to stop and get off it every so often in pursuit of something which just sits there waiting for you to hit it and which you can’t eat when you catch it. Many people seem to enjoy golf, however, including many lawyers, and it is good to see so many of them doing something for a children’s charity.

That charity is the Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children, a not-for-profit hospital which provides treatment of children from around the world regardless of their ability to pay.

Robert Childress and Wave have been enthusiastic sponsors of the Lawyer Invitational since it began. Other National Charter Sponsors include LexisNexis, Kroll, Thomson Reuters, EMC2, eTera, Encore (now part of Epiq Systems) and Deloitte. The tournaments seem a good way to combine a social event with business networking opportunities as well as the opportunity to support a worthwhile charity.


Time to take the next steps: a Hong Kong eDiscovery conference

June 26, 2011

Leaving aside Australian conferences, this was my fourth AsiaPac event. Two years ago, I co-chaired a conference for LexisNexis in Singapore. Shortly after that, Jeffrey Teh and others from LexisNexis set up InnoXcell to bring business events to the region. I did conferences with them last year in both Hong Kong and Singapore and was pleased to be asked back to Hong Kong for this week’s conference.

Here is a Twitter exchange between me and whoever tweets on behalf of @Exterro and @eDiscoveryGroup after the first day of the conference:

Me: Day 1 of eDiscovery conference in HK ends – a good day. Two sessions down and one on costs to go tomorrow

Exterro: How has that conference being going? Any ground-breaking stuff happening?

Me: That is not what to expect here – slow attrition is the target rather than breaking new ground

Exterro: Well then how is the slow attrition going? [He doesn’t give up, this one]

Me: Steadily and in the right direction

eDiscoveryGroup: “Steadily and in the right direction?” What direction are they headed?

Me: If I’d known I would provoke an inquisition from all corners I’d have kept my trap shut. My report will follow.

So here is that report. “Steadily and in the right direction”, as used in my tweet, has its plain English meaning – nothing dramatic has happened in Hong Kong in e-Discovery terms since I was last here, but there is interest from a wider range of companies and lawyers provoked by much the same pressures as arise elsewhere. As with everywhere else, we need to move on from “What is native format?” to “How can I best reach my client’s objective?”. Read the rest of this entry »

Epiq Breakfast Seminar on Cross-Border Regulatory Investigations on 14 June

June 6, 2011

Epiq Systems is holding a breakfast seminar in London on 14 June called the Challenges of Cross Border Regulatory Investigations. The speakers are Professor Dominic Regan, David Cracknell of Slaughter and May, Vince Neicho of Allen & Overy, Mark Surguy of Eversheds and me. Greg Wildisen, International Managing Director, Epiq Systems, will act as moderator.

If this subject was not already on the agenda of companies and their lawyers, the Bribery Act 2010, now less than a month away, should be putting it there. The mixture of lawyers and edisclosure experts is chosen to bring a practical focus to the subject.

Further details and registration information can be found here.


East, West Home’s Best – to a Midlands Law Firm with Epiq Systems

June 6, 2011

A trip by train to talk to a regional law firm gives an excuse to recommend the iPad as a library of those documents you will never read at your desk, and to recommend two papers in particular which address technology-assisted review. The message for the lawyers is not just of risks but of opportunities; the point is not whether you do document-heavy litigation but whether you could win work you do not already do. What case does not involve some electronic documents?

All my trips to foreign places (Orlando, Frankfurt and Hong Kong in May and June, for example) and the frequent references to developments in other jurisdictions do not detract from the fact that the flag which I fly is the eDisclosure Information Project, with its roots firmly in England & Wales. That word “disclosure”, part of the late-1990’s fad for changing the names of things in the hope of making them better, does at least serve as a discriminating label for the purpose of Google searches by those wanting to know more about it, so people can easily find me. One of the pleasures which results from this is to be invited to go and talk to a law firm, particularly one which recognises the potential for new work as well as the potential for risk.

No eDisclosure talk is complete without references to risk – risk of losing costs, risk of damage to reputation, and risk of actually losing the case because of disclosure failures. Having dangled a few of those, like the corpses of malefactors on an 18th century gibbet, I like to move on to positive things – of opportunities to be grabbed, work to be won, and reputations and careers to be enhanced for individuals, as well as for the law firms. I will happily talk on my own for an hour – four hours, indeed, if anyone will listen – but the most interesting and useful sessions are those done in tandem with a provider of litigation services picked from the list of those who sponsor the eDisclosure Information Project. It is even better if somebody else does the picking, either where the provider takes me along on their appointment or, as last week, when the law firm asks me if I would be willing to turn up alongside their choice of provider. This trip was to the Midlands in the company of Ben Hammerton, Senior Business Development Manager for Epiq Systems. It was the second visit by both Epiq and by me and it is always good to be asked back somewhere – it says something positive about the first visit and it gives the opportunity to expand a little on areas already covered. Read the rest of this entry »

The Gartner Magic Quadrant for EDiscovery Software and other EDiscovery Market Matters

May 31, 2011

As I have often said, I am content to stick to my own part of the e-Disclosure / e-Discovery world and leave others to theirs. Deciphering market trends is the job of analysts; journalists can react quickly to news; the clammy dead hand of the industry press release, with its boilerplate verbiage and breathless hyperbole, can find its way round the world in minutes without any help from me; earnest lawyers can deal with properly foot-noted and referenced reports of cases. My role requires me to pull together such of the threads as will encourage lawyers to make the best use of the rules and of the technology to reconcile their clients’ objectives with the requirements of the courts, helping them to understand just enough of the technology to know what is available and broadly what it does.

May is always a busy time, thanks to IQPC’s information Retention and eDisclosure Management Summit in London and Guidance Software’s Computer Enterprise and Investigations Conference (CEIC) in the US, both of which always take place back to back on opposite sides of the world; one year found me rushing straight from Gatwick to IQPC, where I was caught sleeping through a session – fortunately, not one of my own.

This May has brought in addition the Gartner Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software, Autonomy’s acquisition of Iron Mountain’s digital assets and Symantec’s purchase of Clearwell, all on top of Epiq Systems’ acquisition of Encore Discovery Solutions in April. Tens of thousands of words have been written about these things, any one of which would be significant in any month, let alone all of them together. What do they mean for the lawyer, whether in-house or external, who has responsibility for managing electronic disclosure? Is there much to add to what has already been said?

Probably not, but it is worth gathering some of the threads together, using the Gartner Magic Quadrant as a background source. Gartner’s authority in this area needs no endorsement from me, and it is probably not necessary for me to say that I know both the authors, Debra Logan and John Bace. I am, of course connected with many of the names which appear in the Magic Quadrant as well as many who do not. Having pointed you to it, I do not feel the need to mention everyone who appears in it, sticking with those which illustrate some point beyond their bare appearance there. Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 164 other followers