Tom O’Connor Joins Avansic

TULSA – January 19, 2012 - Avansic E-Discovery & Digital Forensics, a Tulsa-based high tech company, has recently hired lawyer and eDiscovery expert Tom O’Connorto join its expert e-discovery team as Director of Professional Services. He will be the primary consultant for complex cases, providing professional services supporting data identification & preservation with an emphasis on litigation hold obligations and preparation for FRCP Rule 26(f) meet and confer sessions.  Tom will also be instrumental in developing strategies for corporate clients in all markets to help them be more proactive in controlling their e-discovery costs.

Based in New Orleans, Tom is a nationally recognized consultant, speaker, and writer in the area of computerized litigation support systems. He is best known for his work in e-discovery, which includes assisting firms and corporate counsel in matters of retention policies, litigation holds, and document exchange protocols. He has worked on a number of high-profile cases including asbestos litigation, the Keating case, California class actions against crematoriums, tobacco litigation on behalf of the Attorney General of Texas, and various phases of the Enron and BP oil spill litigations.   A non-practicing attorney, Tom will continue to be based in New Orleans and will support Avansic’s sales and marketing efforts nationwide.

 

According to Avansic’s President and CEO, Dr. Gavin W. Manes, “We are very pleased to welcome Tom O’Connor’s expertise to Avansic. It is very important to our customers to have the best people working on their e-discovery projects.  Having Tom here allows us to offer even better service. His in-depth knowledge and legal background will be invaluable to Avansic’s customers.”

 

About Avansic
Avansic is one of the country’s leading e-discovery and digital forensics providers, servicing the legal and business communities through investigations, electronic discovery, data preservation, expert witness testimony and litigation support. The company was founded in 2004 by computer science professor Dr. Gavin W. Manes to meet the growing need for expertise in the e-discovery and digital forensics fields.  Avansic has created a reputation as a trustworthy, reliable and ethical specialist for e-discovery and forensics services for attorneys and corporations nationwide.

 

For more information, please visit www.avansic.com or contactbeth.downing@avansic.com.

 

###

 

 

Christy Burke

President

Burke & Company LLC

60 West 22^nd Street, 3^rd floor

New York, NY  10010

Office: 917-261-2845 x12

Cell: 917-623-5096

Fax: 646-619-4318

E-mail: cburke@burke-company.com

Web: www.burke-company.com

E-Discovery 101 on TechnoLawyer Litigation World

Just started a new column for Litigation World from TechnoLawyer called E-Discovery 101. The introduction from Neil Squillante descibes it as follows:

When an ediscovery article references a Talking Heads song, you know you’re in for a treat. In this issue of LitigationWorld, ediscovery consultant Tom O’Connor begins a series of ediscovery 101 columns designed to teach you what you don’t realize you don’t know about ediscovery. There’s no final exam, but you will be tested on these concepts with increasing frequency in your cases. In today’s “class,” Professor Tom discusses a seminal event that exposed the ediscovery knowledge gap among lawyers, and provides a syllabus of sorts with some excellent reference material.

To sign up for Litigation World go to http://www.technolawyer.com/.  It’s free so to paraphrase the late great Ron McKernan, “it won’t ruin ya.”

Hey What About My Predictions for 2012?

OK, so I was asked what my e-discovery predictions were by several different columns and they didn’t use my responses. So either they think I’m full of it (not impossible: I have several ex-wives who would second THAT emotion) or they didn’t think my topics sounded snazzy enough to sell more subscriptions. I’m betting on numero two only because one writer asked not what my predictions were but what the big buzzwords would be for 2012.

OK, so buzzwords sell software and copy but IMHO they do a disservice to our profession. What we do is important folks. We’re not selling Budweiser at the Super Bowl here. The public expects the court system to get things right, not be cute or funny or be able to slap nice sounding sound bites on difficult subjects.  You want to do that, run for Congress.

OK, now that I have that off my chest here is my response to the buzzword question:

I think these are the big three topics for 2012:

1.  Predictive coding will morph into TAR (technology assisted review)
2. Social media
3. Predicted pricing (decline of per GB model)
4. Firms outsourcing lit support (due to pressure from biz clients about their pricing of same and inability to do it efficiently)

Not sure what buzz word will crop up for 2 and 3 but I’m sure some marketing guru will develop one. As far as importance I think 1 and 3 are most important because of cost concerns, nobody is talking about 3 and everybody is talking about 2 since it is “sexy” and easy to discuss

OK  so first I know that’s four  and he asked for three but math was never my strong suit, nor was coloring inside the box, if I may mix a metaphor …and since I’m writing this, I may.

Second …well second the answers speak for themselves.  ‘Nuff said.

 

The Definitive Interview About Predictive Coding On The E-Discovery Zone

Listen to the fascinating interview Browning Marean and I had on July 6th with Special Guests  Warwick Sharp of Equivio and Herb Roitblat of OrcaTec. We discuss the current trademark controversy  but go much further with an in-depth discussion of exactly what we mean when we say Predictive Coding.

Hear two of the most knowledgeable experts in the field discuss what PC is , where it is going and most importantly why attorneys need to understand and use it.

All on the E-Discovery Zone, graciously hosted by TechLaw Solutions.

Georgetown E-Discovery Training Academy Recap

The Georgetown ED Training Academy (or EDTA as it came to be called) wrapped up last Friday with a final exam and closing remarks  from Judges Facciola and Grimm.

There were two striking differences between this course and other CLE presentations I have both presented and attended.  The first was the mix of technical and legal material. The second was testing: Michael Arkfeld and I both took the “pre-test” given by Craig Ball on Monday morning and even we struggled with the answers. Craig then spent the first two days covering forensic acquisition and review of documents at a technical level that was difficult for even accomplished e-discovery veterans to follow but was highly successful in conveying the necessary level of information.

That was followed by two days of lectures from Michael using his outstanding material in his Electronic Evidence and Discovery treatise, which comes with his renowned e-discovery checklists, a set of documents I find invaluable in my consulting practice. And throughout those four days we had additional presentations by Judge Facciola, Judge Grimm, Jason Baron and Maura Grossman.

    The final day was taken up with an exit exam and mock Meet and Confer exercises by all the students, who had been broken up into teams based on their scores on the pre-test. This exercise was a 30 minute meeting, observed by one of the two judges and finishing with a critique of their performance by the judge.

 

And finally on the last day, we treated to a mock expert witness examination by the judges, who both demonstrated their ample skills as trial attorneys. Judge Facciola in particular displayed a withering cross-examination style that often left the witness at a total loss to explain himself. 

    

The results were striking as Craig Ball reported to all the faculty:  “Almost half the class doubled their scores from the pre-test to the final, including the lowest scoring student, whose score increased from an abysmal 15 on the pretest to a very respectable 82 on the final. As gratifying, students who arrived possessing considerable knowledge of the discipline saw marked improvement, too. Of the 12 who scored highest on the pre-test, 11 added at least 20 points to their final scores.”

 Initial feedback from the students were very positive, with comments such as ” … the 2011 Georgetown Law E-Discovery Training Academy was the very best ediscovery program I have ever attended” and “thanks again for helping to make this conference such a meaningful experience for so many of us.” Even Reid Trautz, incoming Chair of the ABA TechShow, stopped by one day to observe and remarked on my LinkedIn page that it was  “.. a unique educational experience taught by the best and the brightest minds in e-discovery.”

But perhaps the most telling remark came at the end of a Meet & Confer exercise when Judge Facciola asked one of the attorneys if he could have made these same arguments two weeks before attending the EDTA. The immediate response was “no”.

Years ago while I was a student at Johns Hopkins I was also a substitute teacher in the Baltimore Public School system ( Most of my family is in the education field and I almost followed that same career path) and the Hopkins professor who ran the program to get us out there teaching said to us  “anybody can teach you guys, you’re the best and the brightest. The real challenge is teaching the people who are lost.”  

The EDTA pre-test scores showed we had a fairly high number of students who were lost and by the end of the week they were found thanks to this course.  That, to me, is our greatest achievement.  As Craig Ball put it, ”We brought the tide, and all boats rose. “ 

The View From the Bench At LegalTech West

Here’s a great article from Law Technology News on the judicial perspective on e-discovery as related at a LegalTech West plenary session. The speakers were two judges and their theme?  Lawyers don’t know enough about technology. 

From the Bench: New Views of E-Discovery at LegalTech

Michael Roach

Law Technology News

May 19, 2011

 

Image: Jim Arbogast / Digital Vision

What do judges see during electronic discovery when they see a motion to compel responded to by a paralegal for the organization — or a vendor? The answer is a far from flattering portrait — not of paralegals or of vendors — but of the legal team and the case they’re bringing before the court.

That question represented the first glimpse of “The View From the Bench — Why the Legal Industry Needs to Change and Embrace Technology,” the second plenary session at LegalTech West Coast 2011, presided over by U.S Magistrate Judges Suzanne H. Segal and Jay C. Gandhi, both of the Central District of California.

It would seem obvious that such a declaration should be written by a lawyer or an expert consultant. But the judges presented this document as the kind of unnecessary error they see far too often during the discovery process.

As Segal admitted: “Like all judges, we know very little about technology.” The onus of technological expertise is on the shoulders of those on the other side of the bench: when it comes to preservation and production, you’d better make it clear how you’ve met your e-discovery obligations and you’d better make it concise or face the consequences. Gandhi iterated, “I come from the world of private practice, so I firmly believe in sanctions.”

Segal recommended that rather than fall prey to preservation not acting fast enough and not acting broad enough, err on the side of caution if you want to impress the court. Craft a litigation hold in memo format — two pages that talk about the litigation and identify the appropriate people. And have a follow-up plan about what to do with the existing information.

The message that was hammered home again and again was get in there early. Gandhi asked any e-discovery consulants in the audience, “How many feel you were brought in too late?” A few hands went up. “You should have been brought in right at the start, as soon as the complaint gets filed.” It matters to the court, when looking at discovery, at what point in the process the consultants were brought in.

Moving back to the paralegal’s declaration, Gandhi pointed out the following statement, “We are currently preparing a privilege log regarding the withheld documents.” Segal said in her experience as a judge a motion to compel a privilege log or a more complete privilege log as something she’s seen again and again. Assign privilege as early as possible and detail does matter. Gandhi emphasized, “It doesn’t look good to judges if they look at a log and there’s barely any data there.”

On the subject of showing the court a careful keyword search was conducted, Segal offered as a negative example a motion over keyword search in which the moving party provided a hundred keywords, the responding party had five. Gandhi asked whether anyone was negotiating keyword agreements, in which both the plaintiffs and defendants cooperate. Rather than sacrificing your legal strategy, Gandhi assured the defendant or producing party, “If you reach an agreement — then the plaintiffs ask for more — judges are loath to overturn it.”

While demonstrating specific knowledge pleases the court, Gandhi warned, “Don’t harass each other with technology.” He offered an example from his days in private practice, when he received an eight-page description of electronically stored information, with prodding questions about the specific software the producing party would be using. Bullying doesn’t impress judges.

Segal had an interesting observation on clawback agreements: She had never had a motion over a clawback. Not, she believes, because lawyers are not abusing them, they’re not using them: “Lawyers are too nervous to turn over documents without doing a privilege review” — it might frighten their client.

Has technology radically changed discovery? Both Segal and Gandhi concur that the principles of discovery remain the same. The primary difference, in their view, with EDD, is that the volume and the cost has grown exponentially.

As a remedy to the one-sided nature of much of the presentation, as the session ended, both judges invited vendors, lawyers, and IT to approach the panel and tell them what they’re doing wrong. As Gandhi put it, “Feel free to come attack us.”

Georgetown’s eDiscovery Training Academy: June 05 – 10, 2011

 So what training conference has sold 25 of the 50 slots before it was formally announced?   This one!

 Georgetown Law’s new eDiscovery Training Academy will be a unique learning experience. The Academy’s full-week curriculum will give you a total immersion in the subject of eDiscovery and information technology, featuring a highly personalized and interactive instructional approach designed to foster an intense connection between all students and a renowned faculty.

 The faculty includes, two well-known ediscovery federal magistrate judges, Paul Grimm and John M. Facciola, who will be available throughout the week to provide guidance from a judicial and pragmatic point of view.

 In addition, Craig Ball and Michael Arkfeld will be two of the primary instructors for this course. For further information click here  – but don’t wait, there are only a few slots still available.

The Ernie Challenge

Proportionality is a major issue in e-discovery cases these days.  A recent article by David J. Lender, Partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and the Hon. Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York , says it best:

” … in order to make litigation more affordable and focused the entire paradigm of discovery needs to change. Litigants and courts should approach discovery differently depending on what is at stake in the case, and how complex the issues are expected to be. There simply is no reason in most cases to produce thousands upon thousands of documents from dozens of custodians, simply because they have touched an issue, when the dispute really centers around a handful of key players who will have most (albeit not all) of the documents that are potentially relevant to the case.”

But do we have the tools to make proportionality a reality?  Last year Craig Ball explored what tools can be used for e-discovery in a small case with his well received Edna Challenge. But what about cases that fall between the Edna budget limit of $1000.00 and Pension COmmittee, a $550 million case arising out of the liquidation of hedge funds?  Are their affordable options to handle e-discovery in the lower end of that spectrum?

Well to answer that question I drew up the Ernie Challenge, with advise and editing from Craig Ball and Browning Marean.  It’s available on its own blog at www.theerniechallenge.wordpress.com and we’re inviting everyone to weigh in.

 The results will be combined and put into an article that I’ll also post. I look forward to all your comments.

Has E-Discovery Killed Transcript Management?

I’m honored once again this year to be speaking at the ABA TechShow and one of my sessions is called Technology for Transcript Management with co-speaker Todd Corham, the CIO at Sedgwick LLP in San Francisco. Now in preparing for this session, Todd and I came  across something interesting. It’s called e-discovery and it’s all about the documents.

Once upon a time, attorneys prepared feverishly for depositions, rummaging through boxes of documents trying to get one or two which they put in front of a deponent,  hoping to get some enlightenment on specific issues and learn where more relevant documents might exist.  Managing that process led two attorneys to get a computer geek they knew (no offense Jim) help them create the little program known as Summation, which was renowned as the first app to integrate transcript and document management.

Now we use software to rummage through folders of electronic documents (well some of us do but that’s a subject for a different session) and deposition transcripts seem to have become the forgotten stepchild of litigation support.

I asked several colleagues about this and received the following observations:

     1. There are less depositions now because more cases than ever settle

     2. Depos are now pushed back to later in the case due to e-discovery and thus become less critical

     3. More depos now focus on experts and/or 30(b) (6) custodians

     4. Transcript management has become more standardized in the internal workflow process of law firms

     5. We have more focused searches now and less need for the old practice of depo summaries

     6.  The practice of transcript management has become dominated by two main tools: LiveNote  and TextMap

I’d love to see if these comments ring true with anyone else out there.  Let me know your experiences with transcript management and if you’re at the ABA TechShow on April 11th, come by and listen to Todd and I discuss this interesting turn of events.

E-Discovery Zone: Interviews from LegalTech & ITunes Update

The EDiscovery Zone website now has the video recordings of the interviews Browning Marean and I conducted at LegalTech New York several weeks ago.  Check out our great discussions with:  

• Ralph Losey, Attorney and Writer – on the e-Discovery Team training program
• Craig Ball, e-Discovery Consultant and Technologist – on e-Discovery review and predictions
• Andy Adkins, Consultant and President of The LTI – on Law Schools and technology education, front end data management
• Mel Goldenberg, President of TechLaw Solutions – on evolution of e-Discovery, SaaS, and validating technology
• Lynn Mestel, President of Hire Counsel – on contract attorney review
• Jonathan Mass, Consultant – on eDisclosure in the UK and The List Group

And the good folks at TechLaw Solutions have put several of the 2010 E-Discovery Zone recording on ITunes as podcasts available at no cost.  However, only the video taped interview with Duane Lites recorded at ILTA 2010 in Las Vegas is listed by name.. I’ve put the names of the people we interviewed for the other dates below. Just search “EDiscovery Zone” under podcasts in the ITunes store.

3/31/10:  Judge Andrew Peck

5/4/10: George Socha

8/24/10: David Kessler (Co-Head of E-Discovery & Information Management Practice at Fulbright & Jaworski)

11/4/10: Brett Burney