Category Archives: Technology

Obama’s CrackBerry Addiction: e-Discovery Intervention?

To My Readers:  No matter what your political leanings may be, today is an example of what’s great about the United States; the peaceful, seamless transfer of power.  So, in honor of the inauguration, I felt it appropriate to jot down some observances I’ve made lately regarding the Presidency, e-evidence, privilege…and why I think they’ve got it all wrong…

Businessman Using a Palm Pilot

e-Discovery Insights:  Keep this on the down-low.  I have it on good authority that Barack Obama’s going to be in the nation’s capitol on Tuesday.  Let’s all plan to get him in a room and confront him on this whole ‘BlackBerry‘ problem.

Readers:  What’s the big deal?  He’s a thoughtful guy.  He’s responsible.  He can control himself.  Why are all of these lawyers making such a big deal out of this?

e-Discovery Insights:  Because PDAs are subject to subpoena, that’s why.

What’s the difference between your PDA and Obama’s BlackBerry?  Absolutely nothing.  You have the same exposure he does!  At least he might be able to invoke Executive Privilege in certain circumstances; meanwhile, you’ll be hoping for ‘run-of-the-mill’ privilege.

Now comes word the White House staff has been told they may not use instant messaging (IM).  Check out this quote – contained in the above link – from Reginald Brown, a former associate White House counsel for President Bush:

“These lawyers — [incoming White House Counsel] Greg Craig in
particular — come out of a law firm environment and knows how onerous
e-discovery has been for clients
,” (italics/bold added).

I’m feeling sooooooooo cool with my career choices right now…

j0438808Seriously though, I’m actually disappointed.  In my opinion, this is exactly the opposite of the approach I would like to see them take.  Why?

Because technology is HERE, it’s not going away, and it’s time we started accepting that fact and adapting to it rather than restricting it.  This administration may prevent their aides from using IM, but someday, it’s going to be used.  Wouldn’t the better way be to educate the staff, put some trust in them, implement policy and let them use the tools that exist solely to make communication easier?

Preposterous?  Inconceivable?  Impossible?  Unattainable?

I’ll ponder that while I watch the swearing-in of the first African-American President of the United States of America.

e-Discovery Resolutions: Technology

Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2009!

j0438855I took a few days off, but found myself pondering what a list of New Year’s resolutions for e-discovery professionals might look like.  I tried to make a single list, but as I compiled it I realized that bifurcating it and creating two separate posts – one for law, one for technology – would work better.  How did I decide who went first?  Well, I carefully reviewed the data, factored in the importance of each item, took into account the ego issues that would arise…

…I flipped a coin…Technology won…

1.    KNOW WHERE YOUR DATA IS

Yes, yes, I know; never end a sentence with a preposition.  In my defense, I don’t think that’s really a sentence.  If you insist, I’m just going to have to pull a “Winston Churchill” on you (See #1)…

Let’s face it, you’re running around with a ton of things to do, so nobody actually sits down and draws a map of the enterprise.  And if you’re one of the lucky ones who actually has a map, is anyone keeping it up to date?  (What do you mean I can’t start a sentence with and‘?  See #3)…  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been hired into an operation, asked for a data map and received one that’s two years old (Never use ‘I’ in business writing?  See #2).

2.    BROADEN YOUR THINKING

What encompasses ESI at your enterprise?  Where is it?  Do you have access to it?  What if it’s on someone’s personal equipment?  What if it’s on the ‘web’?  This is a good time to think about all of the places ESI may reside.  Remember, you’re not just answering subpoenas here, you’re also looking for exculpatory information.  The blade cuts both ways.

3.    FORMALIZE POLICY

This is no time to be fooling around.  You do not want to be caught without policies in place when litigation arises.  You won’t be able to put the genie back in the bottle, so get together and create sensible company policy, implement it and make sure everyone knows what their role is (don’t make me cite #1 again…).

4.    TAKE BOXING LESSONS

Regarding resolution #3…hey, I didn’t say it would be easy, did I?  Depending on the ‘buy-in’ at your firm, you may meet a lot of resistance.  People don’t like to change their habits.  This is why you have to create policies that make sense, sell them to management, then make sure management stands behind you.  Otherwise, this will fail.

5.    BE KIND TO THE LAWYERS

Everybody has a job to do.  Yes, unless the attorneys have some experience with technology, they may think everything can be produced “yesterday”.  They don’t know about your budget issues, your workload or the limitations of your existing technology.  Your job is to make them understand what you can – and can’t – do, and set reasonable deliverables.  Remember, their licenses are on the line.

What is Electronic Evidence? Answer: A lot more than you might Think!

Part I of a two-part series.  Part II will appear 12/04/08.

PART I – LOGICAL RELEVANCE

A cardinal rule, known to law students everywhere, was broken.  “When on a break from the bar exam, don’t discuss a specific part of it with anyone – and if you absolutely must, ask permission first!”  The reasoning behind this rule; to prevent students from freaking out because inevitably the other student will point out something they themselves missed, thus setting off a chain reaction of worry, panic and distraction.

There I was, on a break from the California Bar Exam, and another student really wanted to discuss the evidence question with me.  We had a pleasant conversation – as pleasant as it could be between two stressed-out bar candidates in the middle of a three-day exam.  We discussed the facts as they pertained to the question and the issue of whether each piece of evidence put before us was authentic.

Signature:2a0f6d0366f291694bd9cc422bff24b12e1d3afd88bc0ed09c9a8814df3c0837

All was going well until I pointed out the ones that were legit, but weren’t admissible in court.  The pallor of my counterpart changed noticeably.  That’s when he realized that he’d done a great job analyzing whether each piece of evidence was authentic, but forgot the next step – determining whether each was admissible.

Finding evidence is just the beginning.  If all of your dominoes don’t line up properly, it will never be admitted.  The technology gurus have a huge role to play and may not even be aware of it.

A few years ago, if you explained to the average person what electronic evidence – or e-evidence was, then asked them to give you an example, 99% of them would have given you the same answer – e-mail.  We’ve all read news stories about this individual or that one who was caught red-handed through his or her e-mail messages.

Later, another example started showing up more often – text messages.  Just ask the former Mayor of Detroit how that turned out for him…

ESTATUAS DE JARDIM

In law school and on the bar exam, the testers took pride in finding ways to slip a piece of written evidence right by a student by putting it into a form that he or she wouldn’t normally think of as “written”; engraving on a tombstone, label on a medicine bottle, a license plate.  We’re conditioned to think of written evidence as something more mainstream, like a letter, a book or a bill of receipt.

A lot of e-evidence is still written – but now it’s written to computer hard drives, DVDs and cellular phones.  Just like law school students, we have to broaden our thinking and remember that virtually any device that can save, store – or even process electronic information (e.g. RAM in printers/fax machines) may qualify. Then, we have to remember the really tough part – many of these devices are mobile.  They could be virtually anywhere in the world.

Let’s take a hypothetical look at Jane Doe.  She works for a multi-national corporation, “Multi-Corp”.  She has an office in Los Angeles and one in Tokyo, and an apartment in each city as well.  She has a desktop computer in each office, plus a laptop to use when she’s out in the field, at home or traveling.  She stores some of her work on the company file servers.  She’s taken to transferring work from her laptop to her home computers in both Tokyo and L.A. – because she likes them better (the boss doesn’t know).  It’s annoying for her to connect the machines directly, so she either hooks up wirelessly through her router or uses her thumb drive.  She has two cellular phones (one is personal) and a PDA.

Multi-Corp is sued by Uni-Corp, and the Plaintiffs subpoena Jane’s correspondences.  Am I the only one with a headache?  Probably not.

If I’m in the IT department at Multi-Corp, I have to think of every possible device – and the location of each – where relevant data may be stored (let’s hope Jane remembers to tell me about the thumb drive).  Then, once I do, I have to locate the data on the device itself.  What if I need to retrieve it from back-up media?  What happens if a device – and the data it contains – is owned/managed/outsourced to a third party (e.g. the file servers or the cellular phones)?  How do I get them to grant me access when they don’t want to be dragged into a lawsuit?  Do they have to do so?  I might have to ask the legal department.

If I’m in the Legal department at Multi-Corp – or in their outside counsel’s office – I’m depending on the expertise of my IT resources, but I’m also worried about issues that IT doesn’t normally think about; chain-of-custody being a prime example.  I’m looking for data that will exonerate the defendant and relevance is only one issue.  I’m also responsible for making sure it’s admissible and I don’t want it thrown out on a technicality.  How can I impress this and other concepts upon people who don’t work directly for me?

Meanwhile, both departments – and management – are thinking about the costs and whether the Plaintiff’s subpoena is too broad in its scope.

A lot of questions.  A lot of concerns.  I will endeavor to address all of them in tomorrow’s post.

Attorneys – Get with the ‘Program’

An interesting survey appeared in the September 2008 issue of the American Bar Association Journal.  The subheading states, “Lawyers Slow to Adopt Cutting-Edge Technology“.

I took solace in the statistic that only 2% of lawyers maintain a law blog (assuming readers consider this a blawg then I’m certainly ahead of the pack) and only 8% of law firms follow suit, but as a general trend, the data is somewhat troubling.  It’s a symptom of a larger illness.

The number-one complaint against attorneys is lack of communication.  I’m not just speaking in terms of what their employees or clients say – it’s also the number-one complaint lodged against them with bar associations.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

It’s bad enough when the subject is one in which an attorney feels comfortable discussing.  But add complex technology to the mix and that’s a recipe for disaster.  In the “wild west” days of e-discovery – before it even had a name – one could get away with mistakes.  Now that the rules have been formalized, the path is littered with attorneys – and their clients – who have suffered greatly for their mistakes.

There’s an old saying, attributed to Confucius, which states; “He who does not know, and does not know that he does not know, is a fool”.  In the e-discovery world, the new saying is, “He who does not know, and does not know that he does not know, will be sanctioned”.

 

Core competency in this area is no longer hoped for; it is expected j0439531and presumed, both by clients and the courts.  It’s not enough for attorneys to rely on IT personnel; they must also be able to understand what their IT professionals are telling them so they can communicate this information effectively to their clients, the courts and even their adversaries. Otherwise, it’s the attorneys and their clients who will bear the consequences of mistakes.

Further hampering this process is the fact that very few IT personnel speak “English”.  Many a layman has become glassy-eyed while listening to a “techie” explain a process in “techno-speak” while not understanding a word of what was said.

Like it or not, the onus is on the legal professional to be competent and understand this process.  If something goes wrong, blaming the incident on a lack of technical knowledge and expertise is not going to fly.