Litigation Support Jobs are HOT HOT HOT!

Litigation Support Careers says there’s plenty of jobs out there right now.  Here are a few of the hot ones:

ED Project Manager – Austin

Senior E-Discovery Project Manager –
Seattle

Associate E-Discovery Project Manager –  Seattle

Project Manager – San Francisco

e-Discovery Course Instructors – U.S., E.U., Asia

 

Lit Support Manager – New York

Check out more at Litigation Support Careers.

The Cowen Group Predicts 215 New eDiscovery Jobs

60 Percent of Legal Industry Expects to Hire eDiscovery Staff in Next Six Months

NEW YORK April 15, 2010 — Proper handling of electronic information during litigation remains a critical challenge for law firms and corporations. The Cowen Group, a leading provider of staffing services and information for the legal technology sector, completed its Q1 Critical Trends Survey on Tuesday, collecting responses from managers of 78 AmLaw Litigation Support Departments, 47 Corporate eDiscovery Departments, and 37 vendor service providers. The Cowen Group’s survey revealed four key trends: Staff Hours have increased since Q4 2009 at 61% of law firms, 51% of vendors, and 35% of corporations. Workloads from new cases have increased since Q4 2009 at 65% of law firms, 46% of vendors, and 22% of corporations. Workloads from existing cases have increased since Q4 2009 at 47% of law firms, 38% of vendors, and 17% of corporations. Plans to add to staff in the next three months have increased at 65% of vendors, 60% of law firms, and 35% of corporations. This survey reinforces the growing demand for Project Managers, Regional Managers and eDiscovery Attorneys, which are critical to the continued evolution of the industry. Project Managers are gaining greater prominence in the industry due to the increasing size of datasets and heightened concern around controlling costs, limiting risks, and guaranteeing outcomes. Regional Managers are also increasingly important as departments become more mature. Another important role is the eDiscovery Attorney which is emerging as a leader in many eDiscovery departments. This role requires a sound understanding of the law and legal writing skills, hands on experience with eDiscovery and business savvy. Other key results of the survey include: 39% of corporations would consider outsourcing new eDiscovery work, as would 31% of law firms. 31% of law firms have plans to insource eDiscovery work in the next 3 months, as do 22% of corporations. The Cowen Group’s Quarterly Trends Survey is used by large law firms and corporate legal departments alike for strategic planning to help their long-term technical and human needs. The survey has gained a reputation within the industry for its accuracy due to the high participation rate it receives. The Q1 Critical Trends Results can be accessed here.

For More Information Contact: Bill Potter Director of Market Research william@cowengroup.com

Controlling Legal Costs – Service Providers Defensible Predictive Coding Will Change The Economics Of eDiscovery In 2010

The Editor interviews Jason Robman, Assistant General Counsel, Recommind.

Editor: Al Driver (Metro Corporate Counsel)

“Editor: Mr. Robman, would you tell our readers some background on yourself and Recommind?

Robman: First, thank you having me. I am Assistant General Counsel at Recommind and oversee the company’s daily legal operations. I have been actively involved with eDiscovery for over 10 years now in various capacities. My first taste of discovery was as a young associate, back when we conducted document review and coding with a clipboard and dust mask, when most of the records were paper and stored in large warehouses. I then moved in-house at Bank of America, where…” (To continue reading)

GlaxoSmithKline Gets Stifled by Privilege Claim

Although over a week old, a federal judge ruled against GSK’s interpretation of the privilege rules.  At question were emails sent to both attorneys and non-attorneys.  GSK claimed the emails should be construed as directed towards the attorney, not to the group as a whole.  Federal Judge Cynthia M. Rufe disagreed, stating that this argument is “inconsistent with the requirement that privileges must be narrowly construed.”

This has a huge affect on the privilege process.  As document review is becoming more and more specialized, firms are not going to get away with marking documents privileged merely because they were sent to a lawyer, or it has a stamp that says “Attorney-Client Privilege” on it.  Privilege reviews will become more and more specialized, something I don’t believe software will be able to compensate for.  You will need a lot of attorneys who can differentiate between privileged and non-privileged material. 

The bulk of document review is looking for key words and not necessarily reading every document word for word.  Privilege will require more substantive reading and more of a specialized knowledge of what makes something privileged.  As I noted before, privilege review will not be so quick to move offshore.  Look for the courts to become stringent on what they will allow defendants to withhold as privileged material.

Boosting Your Knowledge Base

How does one separate herself from the pack?  This is the question we should all be asking ourselves.  This is particularly important in the document review industry.  As a contract attorney, project manager or account executive, you are among a field of many, making it hard to differentiate yourself from the masses.  You have document review experience just like everybody else out there looking for a job. 

Do yourself a favor.  Expand your knowledge base.  Continuously add more tools to your belt.  Document review and managing document review can be trying, and even demoralizing.  Don’t let this discourage you.  Also, do not get complacent when it seems like times are good.  The few fortunate people to be working on a long-term project should be aware of how many people they will be competing against when the project ends.

The great thing is it’s not that hard to gain that extra boost.  If you’re reading this, you’re already taking the first step.  Read blogs.  Blogs are everything for accessible knowledge.  Find sites you like and search blog rolls for more suggestions.  I recommend The Posse List to get started and then search from there.  As you compile a network of sites you like, you will already be learning more about the eDiscovery and LPO world.

Blogs are great, but sometimes only take you so far.  But they can take you right where you want to go.  One place that could be is extra training in different software.  Software companies are starting to give free trainings on their software.  Watch for this trend to continue mightily.  I earlier wrote about my experience going to a free certification class as a reviewer on Catalyst CR.  All I had to do was show up for 3 hours and I got a certicate that I can now list on my resume.  I found this just by reading The Posse List and seeing the breaking news.  I then took the iniative.  Now I did have to travel, which not everybody can do.  So look for webinars for different softwares you find.  TPL listed this a few months ago for the review software Relativity.  Summation also provides online webinars that can further your knowledge base.

And what does this necessarily do?  For me, it’s not only what you’re adding to your toolbox, but the fact that you are adding to your toolbox.  When I look at resumes I want somebody who has an understanding of a wide variety of software systems.  It’s not because I expect this person to go right onto the review without a refresher course or further training.  But I can be sure this person is motivated and has the aptitude to catch-on quickly. 

In sales, this is also a great asset to have.  When talking to potential clients you can honestly say you’ve had experience working on a certain platform.  Make sure you take notes and even read reviews about competing software.  Remember, it’s not how much you know about your own product, but how much you know about your competition that makes you a prepared salesman.  Even go as far to make calls to competitors’ customer service departments to see what they do well, and not so well.

In an industry that is starting to tighten-up, you need to keep yourself marketable.  Always expand your portfolio, and tailor it in the direction in which you would like to go.  Understand how the industry you work in works, and learn the language of that industry.  Nothing will set you apart more than expanding your technical vocabulary.  You’ll be surprised, but the more you sound like you know what you’re talking about, the more you will actually know what you’re talking about.

So don’t waste your internet time surfing obscure stories  (Although this is pretty strange).  But keep refining your portfolio.  You’ve already taken the first step.  Now take another.

EDD Manager: Just Produce It!

When defending a client we all know that, as lawyers, we must act in the best interest of the client.  Of course, in e-discovery, a lot of the times I see things that don’t necessarily benefit the client.  One huge issue I have, as you know if you’ve read this blog before, is the over reviewing of documents.  This is usually due to poor management strategies, with an inability to see the future and how these documents will come back for re-review at some point. 

To continue with poor management strategies, as a manager of an e-discovery project the best thing to do is to be up front with your coders.  Most contract attorneys are not impartial to the litigation at hand – unless they are made to feel that way.  I see a lot of times when a project has started, management does not convey enough about what the actual issues are in the case.  A lot of times a review is tailored so that coders are viewed as automatons to tag documents according to a set protocol – almost as an extension of the computer and software in front of them.  This is not the way to get the most out of your team and is more unproductive than a lot of firms and vendors can imagine.  Here are some helpful hints, that are easy to do, that steer a review into a productive and happy environment instead of into a tense and dreery experience.

1) Give a detailed briefing of the case.  Don’t jump into the coding rules after explaining the litigation for 5 minutes.  Give these attorneys some credit; because that’s what they are – licensed attorneys. 

2) Provide copies of the discovery request.  This should be a no-brainer, but I am shocked how many times I have seen or heard of a bypass of this crucial information.  Let the attorneys read exactly what the other side is looking for.  A lot of times this can shed light on the vagueness of the coding rules.  You’ll find a lot of coders will be able to avoid the “stupid questions”, as well as bring to light the important questions early on in the review.

3) Creat a forum to update the status of review.  Some things are just unknown and we have to accept that.  But there is no reason changes to the review protocol cannot be communicated to the reviewers.  Make sure nothing is merely orally communicated.  When you have meetings, have someone record the minutes and make them available via email or intranet.  Establish an internal network where coders can reference the updated rules and direction of the case.

4) Approach the review with the intent to produce.  This may be the most important caveat here.  A lot of times when policies are reviewed and meetings are held, the focus is on what is to be withheld.  Possibly unbeknownst to the PM, this conveys a concept that withholding documents is of upmost importance.  This couldn’t be further from the truth.  Withholding the correct documents is the most important thing.  Producing everything else is the next most important thing.  In representing your clients you owe them to flood the plaintiff with as many documents as possible.  They requested it, they should get it.  Don’t do their job for them.  A lot of times coders will error on the side of withholding a document because they are unsure of the rules, afraid to produce what seems to be a perfectly harmless document, or just don’t care anymore because they feel isolated from the entire process. 

To recap, inform your employees.  Make them feel a part of the process and not merely as an instrument who can’t think for itself.  Create a forum for them to educate each other, as well as management, and reference the newest information available.  And most of all, convey an ideology of production.  This will cut-down on lit negotiations that can be very tedious, as well as, re-reviews – which can all lead to tension and misery in the workplace.  Next thing you know, you’ve secluded those who can help you the most and possibly divided the office.

A good rule of thumb is a good mind will always trump the newest technology.  A good manager already knows this.

New Non-Profit to Give EDD Certifications

With new certifications available in eDiscovery softwares such as Catalyst CR and EnCase, the legal electronic data discovery industry is acknowledging the need to establish credentials.  Firms and corporations are understanding the need for people to be trained, and the assurance that hires will be competent for the job they’re being paid for.  This is what happens when an industry approaches legitimacy.

The Organization of Legal Professionals is a new non-profit association that understands how legitimate this industry actually is.  Comprised of respected lawyers, consultants, academics and judges, the OLP’s first mission is to “provide the legal community with a means of assuring clients that its e-discovery professionals possess the requisite level of competence and understanding of e-discovery principles”, according to Jeff Fowler of O’Melveny & Myers and member of the Board of Governors.

According to its website:

the OLP is the only organization whose members represent all sectors of the e-discovery profession:  attorneys, paralegals, technical support staff, litigation support professionals, consultants, vendors, software developers and judiciary.

The first certifications offered are for electronic data discovery managers:

• PEDD (Professional in EDD)
• SPEDD (Senior Professional in EDD)
• GEDD (Global Professional in EDD)
• PEDD-CA and SPEDD-CA (PEDD and SPEDD with state certification in California.)

For a complete list of the Board of Governors go here.

Right now there is a lack of qualified eDiscovery staff attorneys, paralegals and IT support.  If this doesn’t confirm that the need for these type of employees is growing, then I don’t know what does.  The integration of legal and technological comprehension is a growing necessity in the legal industry.  And just because you have the understanding of mass litigation and eDiscovery software doesn’t mean you’re going to be an effective project manager.  There are skills involved that require one to be an effective manager of people.  With many lawyers not being great managers and IT support not having an in-depth understanding of the litigation process, the industry is currently void of the requisite number of qualified EDD managers.  There’s also no education track for such a position.  The OLP seems to be taking the first step. 

My prediction, in 2011 we will see joint JD/IT degrees in law schools.

eDiscovery News for October 5th 2009

Another Monday:

• Christopher Spizzirri at Delaware eDiscovery talks about all the hype legal project management is getting.  The emphasis is that a culture needs to be created, not simply an implementation of software. 
• Megha Pande, at Legally Yours, summarizes a comparative analysis of the Indian and Chinese legal outsourcing markets.  The analysis was done by Jalal Alamgir and Matthews Sullivan, who see stronger benefits in India.
• Megha also breaks down James Dunning’s prediction on the future of legal outsourcing.
• The Posse List has recently followed the IQPC Conference in Belgium and highlights Chris Dale, founder of the E-Disclosure Information Project.

eDiscovery News for October 2nd 2009

Thank somebody it’s Friday:

• Where Is Your Data? reports an interesting case about Donald Blaney, who is a minor blogger, served a court order on an unknown person for “mildly offensive” use of his Twitter account.  The funny thing, is this seems to be more of a PR stunt than an efficient method for ridding the problem. 
• Altep, Inc., a Texas-based company, has acquired Integrated Solutions out of Chicago, as reported by Brad Jenkins.
• The Posse List has an update on the IQPC Conference happening in Brussels.  The conference is directed at information retention and e-disclosure management in Europe.
• The Supreme Court of Singapore has adopted a new direction and guidelines for data storage and electronic discovery.  Reported by Vivian Yeo at ZDnet Asia, this means companies subject to the jurisdiction must beef up their data storage investment.
• Brian Baxter, on AmLaw Daily, conducts an informative interview with a project manager for Clutch Group.  It goes through his leaving his job in NYC and venturing to Bangalore for something more challenging.

Ethics of eDiscovery: The Contract Attorney, Part 2

In my last post it may have seemed a little harsh to generalize every contract attorney as being disgruntled or listless and I apologize for this.  There are CAs that are motivated, hard-working and happy.  With that said, these are not usually the people you worry about when doing doc review.  The fact is, your team is only as strong as your weakest link.  Your efficiency rating is dependent on every variable that goes into a project, and even if you get all the docs right, it doesn’t mean it was efficient.  Almost every project I have worked on could have been done better.  In fact, that’s the way you should approach each project.

Ok, so you can easily weed out the slow or poor quality reviewers from the efficient, hard-working ones and problem solved right?  Not necessarily. Running an eDiscovery project is as much about the technology, office space and skill, as it is about resources in staffing.  First, if you get an influx of work, you need to be able to call upon more CAs.  Second, that work request could be only for CAs with particular experience, which in turn the client is willing to pay for.

The problem is that there are hard-working CAs out there – a lot of them.  But they become disgruntled and listless due to one question: WHAT’S THE POINT?  What is the point?  Because of staffing needs and the difficulty in plucking adequate talent, there are a lot of differences between your best reviewer and your worst  – much more than the difference between your best junior associate and your worst.  The fact that a CA, applying for a project, has years of experience in electronic doc review, doesn’t really tell you much.  It’s not like if you have 3 years in Bankrupcy law or M&As, where the employer at least has an idea of minimum competency.

If Ray is a good reviewer, his reward will typically be more responsibility, not likely more money.  He will be expected to train and QC the new and incompetent ones.  This will not place Ray on any sort of career track, nor will it benefit him much when he moves to the next project – only to start all over.  Ray sees Allen who makes the same wage, but is a 1st level reviewer with no clear understanding or care about the documents in front of him.  Both make the same.  Both remain at the same place career-wise.

So why don’t the law firms or project managers weed out such reviewers?  That’s a great question.  One problem is a lot of eDiscovery projects don’t have real eDiscovery PMs who are trained in cost-effective measures, but instead those who are trained in how the firm does business = a) Bill the client; b) Justify it somehow.

But they at least use metrics to measure productivity?  This is true.  However, the threshhold for competency is so low on a lot of doc reviews, most reviewers will make the cut, with the client totally ignorant of where the competency line should be.

What this adds up to is the project hopefully reaching the quality goal without giving any consideration for cost-effectiveness.  So it works like this.  The incompetent CAs go through the documents.  All are re-reviewed with a lot of changes by the more competent CAs.  Usually a 1st level reviewer can reach his quota of docs, and as long as he sort of gets it, he stays on the team.  He’s not there to boost quality production, but to pile up hours.  And there’s the rub: 

1. Keep inefficient reviewers on a project that mandates an unacceptable threshhold of competency.
2. Allow the efficient reviewers to clean up the slack and turn the subpar work into quality work.
3. Essentially, an “ethical” form of double-billing is created due to project management guidelines based on quantity and quality, not quality and expediency.
4. The more quantity, the more the firm, and staffing agency, get paid. 

If a project had CAs, who were all competent, with incentives, working in a streamlined management system based on quality and efficiency, the work would be done better and faster.  Common sense tells us that, yet the wool has been pulled over the eyes of many corporations for years.  Those times are changing.  It’s time to understand the need for security in the workplace.  It’s time to reward those for work well-done. 

If you reward the intelligent, hard-working CAs, you will get a more competitive and specialized labor force.  Build wage increases into the project model.  If you can pay $35/hr. on a project, start them all out at $30.  Offer the opportunity to move to $40/hr.  Offer the opportunity to become a staff attorney.  Of course, we have to bring in the third party to help effectuate these changes.  Next up:  The Staffing Agency…