Protected: The JURISolutions Behaviors Program – 21 & 22

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Advertisements

Remote Document Review: Is It Right For Me?

As advances in technology and cyber security evolve, so do the opportunities to work remotely on document review projects.  While benefits such as a 15 second commute or never having to eat another fast food burger for lunch again may seem compelling, the truth is that telecommuting may not be the right fit for everyone. If you are being considered for a remote project, here are a few things to think about before you say, “yes.”

Procrastinators Need Not Apply

Everyone wants to hire “self-starters” who are willing to go the extra mile.  For the remote worker, it is sometimes hard to demonstrate your productivity with anything other than your numbers.  This means you can expect your supervisor to be continually monitoring your pace.  He will be looking to see how long it takes to review each document and if there are gaps in your productivity.  In order to avoid having your supervisor draw the wrong conclusion about your pace, make sure you log off and record your breaks.  Likewise, if you are having issues with a particular document, be sure to communicate with your supervisor and discuss the situation candidly.  This is much better than having blocks of time where the system records you as being idle.

 You Are Only as Good as Your Technology

In a world where we pay bills and shop for groceries on our phones, home computers are being used less and less for everyday tasks. Before signing on for a remote document review, it is important to confirm your home office technology is up to date and functioning properly. Many hours can be lost dealing with crashing computers, software upgrades, maintenance reboots and slow internet connections.  Since you cannot bill the client for hours spent dealing with such issues if they relate to your personal hardware, it is always wise to ask for the system requirements and capability specs well in advance of the project start date. If it looks like your system is not fully compatible, you should consider upgrading your technology or skipping the project altogether.  While no one ever wants to turn down an opportunity, a poor pace or productivity rating on a remote review may keep you from being asked to participate in future projects.

A Distraction Free Work Zone

While many employees who work remotely will argue there are fewer distractions at home than in a busy office environment, for some the opposite can be true. Whether it is the kids, the mailman, the dog barking at the mailman, the TV, music, laundry, or any one of a whole host of things that can cause you to lose focus, the net result is a negative impact on your productivity, pace and, in all likelihood, your accuracy.  If you know these things can derail you, work smart and do what you can to remove them from your environment.  For example, if you put in a movie to create background noise, it is a good idea to make sure it’s not your favorite film.  Likewise, Rover can stay if you are certain he does not care about the doorbell or he cannot hear it.

Private Work Space

Not only should your workspace be free of distractions, but it also needs to be private.  If you need to take a break and visit the local coffee shop, leave the laptop at home.  Public places such as Internet cafés and libraries are not an option for remote document reviews.  Confidential information needs to stay confidential.  You and only you should have access to the documents throughout the entire engagement.  If other family members share the computer, be sure to log off properly and record your breaks accordingly.

The Hours – Be Predictable

For a traditional office worker, showing up at the office 30 minutes early – even if it is just to socialize – may position the worker as a go-getter in the eyes of the boss. Unfortunately, for the remote worker, there is no ability to leverage face time. The remote worker needs to be available when their supervisor pings them with an email to avoid the perception of being unreliable. The best way for this to happen is work predictable and consistent hours. This does not mean you have to take your breaks at the same exact minute each day but it does mean you should try to be as consistent as possible.  You should also communicate your schedule to your supervisor and be sure to alert him to changes. If you have to alter your schedule for things like doctor’s appointments, school emergencies, etc., the key is to keep your supervisor informed and stick to your word.

Communication

When working remotely, consistent and effective communication with your supervisor is very important. Be sure to check emails regularly and to respond promptly when asked for input.  Even if you don’t have an immediate answer, it is important that you at least acknowledge receipt of the request and manage expectations by letting them know when they can expect an answer.

Conclusion

There can be a number of benefits to working on a review project from home.  However, being a successful remote reviewer requires preparation, great communication skills and a high level of discipline throughout the entire engagement.

Written by Leigh Novack, Executive Director of Legal Recruitment, JURISolutions Legal (JSL)

Text Messaging as Uncharted Territory in E-Discovery

Image

http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202622181932&Text_Messaging_as_Uncharted_Territory_in_EDiscovery

An article by Catherine A. Bernard appearing on Corporate Counsel on the law.com website.

To the extent that text messages are used by employees and retained in the ordinary course of business, they may, like email, constitute discoverable ESI.

The article states, “On the other hand, a party cannot be forced to produce ESI from sources that are “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” The courts have provided little guidance on how the interaction of these principles should cabin requests for text message data, which rarely is retained long-term and may not even be addressed by company retention policies. But in other ESI contexts, courts have been more than willing to craft novel approaches to balance discovery rights with burden and cost concerns rather than keep the information out of court.”

Read more: http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202622181932&Text_Messaging_as_Uncharted_Territory_in_EDiscovery#ixzz2hPsrjOsm

My Basic Plan for Document Reviews: The “Bottom Line Driven” Approach – Part Two

Image

An article by Ralph Losey, Esq. appearing on his blog e-Discovery Team ®.

The article is part 2 in a series that focuses on a model designed to make costs for document review more predictable.  The article states, “

The most difficult part is the legal analysis to determine a budget proportional to the real merits of the case. But that is nothing new. What is the golden mean in litigation expense? How to balance just, with speedy and inexpensive?[14] The ideal proportionality question of perfect balance has preoccupied lawyers for decades. It has also preoccupied scientists, mathematicians, and artists for centuries. Unlike lawyers, they claim to have found an answer, which they call the golden mean or golden ratio:

golden_mean_rectangleIn law this is the perennial Goldilocks question. How much is too much? Too little? Just right? How much is an appropriate spend for document production? The issue is old. I have personally been dealing with this problem for over thirty-three years. What is new is applying that legal analysis to a modern-day high-volume electronic document search and review plan. Unfortunately, unlike art and math, there is no accepted golden ratio in the law, so it has to be recalculated and reargued for each case.[15]

Estimation for bottom line driven review is essentially a method for marshaling evidence to support an undue burden argument under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)”  See the refernced endnotes in the article. 

The article further goes on to discuss specific types of review that might be used to fit the parameters of the matter at hand.  The article also provides an interesting pyramid diagram regarding the various components that might be part of the document review, which we have included below:

Image

http://e-discoveryteam.com/2013/10/09/my-basic-plan-for-document-reviews-the-bottom-line-driven-approach-part-two/

P.S.

JuriSolutions, as a provider of the types of services discussed in this article, strives to provide cost-predictability to our clients.  Ask us about our alternative pricing models, which includes options beyond hourly document review rates, such as per-doc and per-GB costs for document review services.  In addition, we work with our clients to guarantee them that we will honor the best pricing model from our offerings, at the close of the project, even if the client had chosen a different pricing option at the outset. Feel free to contact us to discuss our alternative pricing options.

Litigant Sanctioned for Severe Shortcomings in Discovery Response

Image

http://it-lex.org/litigant-sanctioned-for-severe-shortcoming-in-discovery-response/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=litigant-sanctioned-for-severe-shortcoming-in-discovery-response

An article appearing on the It-lex.org website.  The article discusses the case of, Clay v. Consol Pa. Coal Co, in which the plaintiff was granted sanctions against the defendant, including 6 additional depositions and costs.  The article quotes the opinion and states, “To put it lightly, there has been a severe shortcoming by Defendants in this action during the discovery process. Not only have Defendants’ resisted providing required information in initial disclosures and resisted previous discovery attempts by Plaintiff on an unfounded “we are not his employer” objection to discovery, but it has now come to light that Defendant did not even engage in a search for relevant electronically stored information (ESI) until April of this year—nearly ten months after this action was filed, and nearly two years after the EEOC investigation.”

Survey Shows Law Departments on More Stable Footing

corp counsel

 

An article by Rebekah Mintzer appearing on law.com on the Corporate Counsel webpage.

http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202621439235&kw=Survey%20Shows%20Law%20Departments%20on%20More%20Stable%20Footing&et=editorial&bu=Corporate%20Counsel&cn=20130930&src=EMC-Email&pt=Afternoon%20Update

The article discusses results of a recent survey that found that for the first time since the downturn in the U.S. economy, that there are signs showing health and stability within corporate law department environments.