FCC provides “bulk upload” option for adding even more comments to the million-plus already on file – now who’s going to read them all?
When last we took a sounding of the rising floodwaters of net neutrality comments, they were 1.1 million deep and more were pouring in. That was a month ago and, we’re pleased to report, the levees have apparently held. At least we assume that to be the case because the FCC has just announced, in effect, that it’s opening the dam upstream in an apparent effort to increase the flow of incoming comments.
In an increasingly competitive global economy, companies continue invest heavily in data analytics as a tool to win business. Whether the interest is to learn more about customers, or how to improve operational performance, data lines the the heart of solving the problem. While other corporate departments dominate the use of data analytical resources, in-house legal departments often go left behind.
At the core of many discovery requests are: (1) email, in a structured data environment; and (2) electronic documents, typically in an unstructured environment. Simply put, structured data requires know-how on how the software manages the data within it, and unstructured data is comprised of loose documents stored nearly anywhere that data can be saved.
Unfortunately, legal departments are often considered to be a cost center within a business and are left battling for budget. Some businesses have had the opportunity to acquire electronically stored information (ESI) tools to use in their discovery of mailboxes, documents and to help preserve data. Using review tools like these in order to maintain market position have added analytic engines (predictive coding) to their platform software while others may even offer to process data for free within the software. To date, however, no tools are readily available on the market solve the root complexity of data discovery, which is information governance with an emphasis on ESI discovery. Despite corporations’ continued efforts to converge upon the outside counsel base, pricing models for ESI services encourage misaligned interests.
Ah, the easy life. For some people it is the windmill they keep tilting at, trying to find the exact right amount of effort that things work out for them, but not so much that they have to worry or stress out — about anything really, but certainly about a job. My father was like that. An unapologetic union man for over 30 years, he resisted promotions to management convinced that without union-won guaranteed yearly raises, the small bump in salary attached to the promotion would be moot in a few years and certainly not worth the extra hours and stress.
I can certainly respect that way of life (it did in fact pay for my childhood), but I never ascribed it to myself. After all, I was going to law school. I would be a professional, different and apart from unions or a real struggle for salary.
But now the struggle is real, and all I want is to not get hassled through my day.
Look, e-discovery is not going away. Doc review (at least English language doc review) will never be high paying or sexy. But, as e-discovery becomes more and more prevalent, it will continue to become a larger part of the legal job market. So, how do you get out of the rut of sitting in a windowless room, making $10 an hour (or less), typing the date of each e-mail you read into the date field of your coding software? How about taking your knowledge of the front line ESI issues (document coding) and learn a little bit about managing ESI projects, starting with how to draft discovery? As we learned yesterday, ESI discovery can be tricky and employers mostly know that, so understanding the concepts behind it can help you move through your career.
Since Bryan Garner was just in my town last weekend, and I’ve been spending a lot of time drafting ESI discovery requests and dealing with opposing counsel’s requests, I have been thinking a lot about drafting proper ESI discovery requests, including proper wording…
The recent case of Brown v. Tellermate Holdings Ltd. is noteworthy for its imposition of near-terminal evidentiary sanctions, and order directing counsel and defendant to jointly pay plaintiffs’ cost of bringing motions to compel. But its important lesson is that counsel must stay abreast of continuing changes in information technologies, and critically assess client information about electronically stored information if they are to meet their duties to courts and clients.
Bert and Ernie. Peanut butter and jelly. Salt and pepper. Some things just go together; these natural partnerships add up to more than the sum of their parts. So when I came across a press release announcing a partnership between an ediscovery vendor and a law school, it made perfect…
There is going to be a doc review shop at a law school. And apparently the law school is okay with that, even excited.
Stop it South Carolina. Okay, not like everyone in South Carolina, but based on the tips we keep on getting it appears to be one of the worst markets for contract attorneys. This is not the first time the Palmetto State has been featured as one of the worst jobs, and I fear it won’t be the last. Once there are a few bad jobs (particularly as “bad” relates to wages) in a regional market it can trigger an avalanche effect and even staffing agencies and vendors that used to consistently offer projects above the market rate start to heed the downward market pressure.
Ed note: Stat of the Week is a new feature that pulls custom data points from ATL Research as well as noteworthy sources across the web.
Last month at the Gaylord Opryland in Nashville, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) held its annual conference. As would be expected, the event generated a tremendous volume of Twitter chatter, much of it focused on statistics. The LexisNexis Business of Law blog has compiled a collection of the most compelling, quirky, or frankly speculative #ILTA14 numbers (e.g., “Prediction: 10 years 40% of the Fortune 500 won’t exist.” – Shirley Crow). Read on for more highlights.
A recent survey about BYOD (“Bring Your Own Device”) resulted in the finding that “78% of employees use their own mobile devices for work” and “the use of personal technology to access corporate data can be solved by better communication between both parties regarding security, data and privacy concerns.” On July 10, 2014 Webroot issued its BYOD Security Report entitled “Fixing the Disconnect Between Employer and Employee for BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)” which included these key findings: