Webinars from ZyLAB and LDM Global

December 15, 2010

I do not catch the news of all the webinars which take place about e-discovery / e-disclosure. Their announcements fly by on Twitter or elsewhere and are gone before I can pick them up. Two of them came by today, and I thought I could do a quick note about them in less time than it would take to add them to my ToDo list – they both happen on Thursday, so if I don’t do it now they will have happened.

One is from ZyLAB and is called The lessons learned from e- discovery sanctions in 2010. It takes place on Thursday 16th December at 1:00 pm EST and features Seth D Rothman, Partner, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Johannes Scholtes, Chief Strategy Officer, ZyLAB. Registration

The other is UK-based and is presented by LDM Global. It is called Quantifying the Cost of eDislosure and features LDM Global’s in-house counsel Don MacFarlane. It will cover the subjects which you read about here – the new Practice Direction, the Jackson review, e-Disclosure cost drivers and estimating and managing costs. It will take place on the same day, 16th December, at 4:00 pm GMT. Registration

Home


Far and wide eDiscovery at the Chilli IQ conference in Sydney

June 13, 2010

Sometimes an unconscious theme develops during conferences. Appropriately, perhaps, given the “IQ” element in the organiser’s name, the point which recurred in Sydney was the use of human intelligence in parallel with the processing power and clever technology to get as early as possible to the things which matter. That phrase “as early as possible” came up a lot, not least because (as I noted when I commented on it – see Terms of Reference for Australian Discovery review),  the Australian Attorney General’s Terms of Reference for the pending Discovery Review uses those words three times in their few lines.

Beth Patterson of Allens Arthur Robinson observed, for example, that one might be able to count whole directories in or out by having someone with the appropriate skills and a bit of brain just look in them; if they are patently irrelevant, why include them in the future stages? Michelle Mahoney of Mallesons said that dependence on raw processing power alone meant taking the thinking out of discovery; computers are very good at many things, but they cannot think. Eddie Sheehy of Nuix, unsurprisingly as strong an advocate of intelligent computing power as you will find, recommended giving a couple of the team’s best brains a day or two towards the end of the exercise to try and pick holes in the result by going in any direction they thought fit, trying to find documents or categories which had been wrongly included or excluded. For the third conference running, Equivio (who were not involved at any of them) was praised for the way its products used the best of technology and intelligent human input.  And I used my stock phrase “the best technology lies between your ears”.

Chris Dale and Master WihitakerI quite like opening the batting at these conferences. The audience is awake, no-one can have stolen your thunder by covering your chosen ground, and a keynote speaker has licence to roam more widely than one with a defined topic.  I merged my session with that of Senior Master Whitaker – I gave a short introductory speech, and used the rest of the double session for an interview-style  discussion with Steven Whitaker about UK developments.  My topics in opening included the international community of interest in ediscovery; the relative importance of rules and processes on the one hand, and discretion, proportionality and the clients’ actual objectives on the other; and the changing relationship between clients, their lawyers and the technology suppliers, with the possibility that the lawyers will get marginalised in that relationship.  Steven Whitaker took us through the key points of the Jackson Report, the range of disclosure options in the draft Rule 31.5A, and the proposed Practice Direction and Questionnaire. We took the cases between us, Steven Whitaker covering the ones which turned on the law, and I taking those in which stupidity, ignorance and incompetence were the main factors (there is something about being in Australia which encourages plain speaking). Read the rest of this entry »


Learning in good company at IQPC e-Disclosure Conference in Brussels

October 4, 2009

I got back late on Thursday from IQPC’s Information Retention and E-Disclosure Management Europe conference in Brussels. I was on three panels on the first day, attended several others, met or re-met countless people, and yet seemed in retrospect to have spent most of the time eating and drinking. You will forgive me if this post deals with impressions rather than detail.

It is hard to convey how enjoyable these conferences can be. The concentration of raw information and informed comment into two days is not incompatible with having a good time. No one goes just for the pleasurable side, but you do not need to be an information management junkie to enjoy it, whether in the session rooms, in the networking breaks between formal sessions, and in the restaurants and bars afterwards.

Chris Dale at IQPC Brussels

Chris Dale at IQPC Brussels

I will write about some of the sessions separately, and this post is just an overview to give a broad impression for those who have not yet attended one of these conferences. IQPC do them better than most, and months of serious planning goes into them. Of course, if your company has no electronic documents or if your litigation department clients foresee no need to sue, and no risk of being sued or being visited by a regulator, then an e-disclosure conference is not for you. For anyone else, it is a cost-effective way of catching up with what is going on, in pleasant surroundings and congenial company. If part of the appeal is hearing from those who do know about the subject – the legal, practical and technological aspects – another, and under-rated, aspect is the opportunity to mix with those whose knowledge, or lack of it, is no higher than your own. Read the rest of this entry »


LexisNexis and LDM joint venture

November 17, 2008

LexisNexis and LDM Global were hosts at a party on 6 November at the Andaz Hotel at Liverpool Street. The occasion was a link-up between them which brings together LDM’s role as a provider of a wide range of legal technology services and LexisNexis’ Hosted FYI.

The Andaz Hotel proved to be the former Great Eastern Hotel, which I remembered as a place of decaying plasterwork and dark corridors, selling curled sandwiches from under plastic domes or board-like plaice and soggy chips. It is now a cool destination, with dark walls hung with eye-catching pictures, glass tables and some extremely decent food and drink. My recollection of it, I realised, dates back to 1962, so a few changes might have been expected.

There are no marks for originality when describing a supplier’s products, and unless their own descriptions are top-heavy with hyperbole (in which case I remove it) it is easiest simply to pass on what they say about themselves. LexisNexis’ own description of Hosted FYI is as straight up-and-down as you can want – it delivers comprehensive data management know-how, online review and disaster recovery for law firms, corporations and government agencies. Hosted FYI is a secure, centralised, multi-user web review solution for processing, storing, retrieving, analysing, reviewing, redacting and sharing disclosure documents and Concordance databases quickly and easily. Read the rest of this entry »


Practical Guidelines for e-Disclosure Management

September 16, 2008

Litigation solicitors in private practice and in-house lawyers would have done well to be at the Ark Group conference last week. Run over two days within spitting distance of the Tower, it had the title Adopting Practical Guidelines to e-Disclosure Management for the Legal Profession. Practical it was, as well as conveniently located.

Its supplier sponsors included FoxData, Autonomy, CaseLogistix by Anacomp, Guidance Software and LexisNexis, all of whom are also sponsors of the e-Disclosure Information Project which I run. Part of the Project’s aim is to make connections between suppliers whose service or software offerings are in different parts of the wood – between them, these suppliers and their applications collect data, process it, host it for review, help with analysis and make it available for exchange with others. There is overlap and competition between them, but also a common interest in helping practitioners – and judges – understand what is available to tackle the problems of e-disclosure. Part of my role is to help the would-be buyers see both the wood and the trees. Read the rest of this entry »


Attracting readers for electronic disclosure

April 9, 2008

I do not have any sophisticated means of tracking the visitors to this blog, but WordPress shows me which pages have been read how many times and allows me to distinguish between real views and those made by crawlers and the like. The tracker which gives it its statistics is Google Analytics which is known to err (and sometimes seriously so) on the side of understating visitors. I am not here so much interested in absolute numbers as in relative ones – what posts encourage people in?

According to the under-counting Google Analytics, visitors have been running at an average of about 1350 per month or 45 per day. This is no doubt trivial compared with the Orange Rag, but Charles Christian writes on a wide range of subjects whereas I cover a very narrow niche (I also have a web site whose numbers I am not including here). I can assume that everyone who comes here intends to come here – you don’t wander into a site about e-Disclosure by accident. I can also assume that no-one reads the same article twice, and I can see that a reasonable number of hits derive from searches rather than from repeat visits by regular visitors. Read the rest of this entry »


LDM shows CaseMap integration

April 7, 2008

Regular readers will know that I am an enthusiast for CaseMap as a low-cost tool both for its primary purpose – the linking of litigation facts to issues – and as a simple way to handle disclosure. If today’s postings seem CaseMap heavy, that is because there were two CaseMap events last week.

The first was a visit to show it to HHJ Simon Brown QC at the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre, which I describe in a separate post (Judge how CaseMap gets to the issues). The second was a meeting of the CaseMap user group in London on Friday. The speakers were Bob Wiss, co-founder of CaseSoft, Christine Tomas of LDM and Dr Tony Cox, who gives expert evidence on health and safety matters, mainly to do with mechanical engineering. Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers