| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
RethinkingtheFutureOfLaw? |
| | -- By AlejandroMercado - 14 Oct 2011
I. TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt? |
|
>
> |  |
| |
The profession of law is being utterly changed by recent concerns regarding the identification, preservation and collection of electronically stored information within the context of litigation. This reality is supported by the fact that, ever since the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the number of court issued decisions regarding E-discovery disputes has been steadily on the rise. |
|
<
< | Whether a fad or a permanent reality, these concerns are being fuelled in great part by lawyers’ incompetence when it comes to computers and their lack of cooperation in the discovery process. By addressing these two elements we might help to address this area of law in a simpler context. |
>
> | Whether a fad or a permanent reality, these concerns are being fueled in great part by lawyers’ incompetence when it comes to computers and their lack of cooperation in the discovery process. By addressing these two elements we might help to address this area of law in a simpler context. |
| |
A. "WeirdScience" |
|
>
> |  |
| | |
|
<
< | Everywhere we read, the immense amount of literature surrounding this area portrays a legal world swamped in exponentially increasing/unmanageable volumes of electronic data. Discovery disputes are addressing controversies as variable as “when does the duty to preserve electronic data arise”, “the scope and format of production”, and “when does spoliation take place”. And court opinions both in federal and state court are being frequently issued, to the point that by last year every federal circuit had issued an opinion on E-discovery. |
>
> | Everywhere we read, the immense amount of literature surrounding this area portrays a legal world swamped in exponentially increasing/unmanageable volumes of electronic data. Discovery disputes are addressing controversies as variable as “when does the duty to preserve electronic data arise”, “the scope and format of production”, and “when does spoliation take place”. And court opinions both in federal and state court are being frequently issued, to the point that by last year every federal circuit had issued an opinion on E-discovery. |
| | |
|
<
< | States are also adopting their own rules on the subject and court systems, like New York, held efforts to assess the impact that E-discovery has had on the legal practice with the intent to improve the quality of said discovery practices within the state. The federal system has also designed a guide to assists judges in managing E-discovery issues. Even the Seventh Circuit is working on a project dubbed the “Electronic Discovery Pilot Program” with the purpose of improving fairness in the litigation procedure by reducing the costs of dealing with E-discovery. |
>
> | States are also adopting their own rules on the subject and court systems, like New York, held efforts to assess the impact that E-discovery has had on the legal practice with the intent to improve the quality of said discovery practices within the state. The federal system has also designed a guide to assists judges in managing E-discovery issues. Even the Seventh Circuit is working on a project dubbed the “Electronic Discovery Pilot Program” with the purpose of improving fairness in the litigation procedure by reducing the costs of dealing with E-discovery. |
| | |
|
<
< | Moreover, according to a survey published by the DukeLawJournal? , sanctions and awards for spoliation of electronic data have been increasing, especially in recent years. Of particular interest is the fact that, in 2009 alone, more sanctions were awarded than in the period between 1980-2010; the monetary awards ranging from hundreds to millions of dollars. |
>
> | Moreover, according to a survey published by the DukeLawJournal, sanctions and awards for spoliation of electronic data have been increasing, especially in recent years. Of particular interest is the fact that, in 2009 alone, more sanctions were awarded than in the period between 1980-2010; the monetary awards ranging from hundreds to millions of dollars. |
| | At the same time, lawyers are being bombarded with advertising of proprietary software from E-discovery vendors purporting to have the holy grail of discovery; the only solution for finding the “smoking gun” of their claims. And all of these vendors promise that their technologies and services will provide the best results for collecting and processing electronic data in exchange for reasonable and justified fees.
It is always possible that this is all nonsense and that the concerns are misleading; that there are inexpensive solutions out there for lawyers to deal with electronic data in discovery. It might even be that this is all part of a well-concocted commercial scheme or simply a lot of background noise that has come about as a result of the leading voices in the subject matter not really knowing or understanding what they are talking about. The truth is that lawyers’ recent interest in requesting the production of electronic data vis-à-vis the technological incompetence that permeates all of society is playing a mayor role in bringing about these results. Lawyers’ traditional adversarial approach to an overly broad and liberal discovery process is also playing an important part. And unless we tackle these aspects, the discovery process in the litigation context will become unmanageable.
|
|
<
< | B. BackToSchool? ? |
>
> | B. BackToSchool?
 |
| |
Both lawyers and judges are usually not computer engineers, nor tend to have knowledge on computer forensics, the storage/traffic of data or other technology related matters. Therefore, they lack the know-how, let alone the experience, to properly handle the issues regarding the discovery, review and production of electronic data. In addition, corporate parties – which hold/handle larger volumes of electronic data – are generally not exempted from this knowledge gap given that their IT staff does not get involved in their litigation disputes, but rather works to ensure the proper functioning of their technology infrastructure. |
|
<
< | Accordingly, none of the above-related effects should come as a surprise to us. Ignorance in the subject helps drive the aforementioned disputes, the debates of information inflation, and the need for rules and court intervention. They are a direct result of our computer illiteracy. And if some players with the required knowledge to handle these matters use it to their advantage to fill their pockets, it goes unnoticed. In the end, their services are perceived as a response to a market need. |
>
> | Accordingly, none of the above-related effects should come as a surprise to us. Ignorance in the subject helps drive the aforementioned disputes, the debates of InformationInflation, and the need for rules and court intervention. They are a direct result of our computer illiteracy. And if some players with the required knowledge to handle these matters use it to their advantage to fill their pockets, it goes unnoticed. In the end, their services are perceived as a response to a market need. |
| | Moreover said ignorance, in conjunction with lawyers’ traditional lack of disposition to cooperate throughout the discovery process, fosters disagreements and motion practice, and further delays the prompt resolution of a claim. It is only logical that if the legal representatives do not understand the technical aspects required to handle electronic data, desperate efforts will be held in trying to resolve a widely perceived, but misunderstood problem. |
|
>
> | |
| | Most obviously, enrolling back in school is not a widely available option. But if we truly want to contain the existing problems involving E-discovery, the approach should be to encourage the education and training of the technical aspects of electronic data and the use of efficient/inexpensive technologies. |
|
>
> | |
| | This technical education should be balanced with an effort to push lawyers to cooperate further through dialogue and transparency. The fact that opposing parties cooperate with each other throughout the discovery process does not necessarily entail going against their clients’ interests. Thus, by fostering cooperation, lawyers can safeguard their clients from existing E-discovery disputes while still serving the interests of justice.
|
| |
II. Conclusion |
|
<
< |  |
| |
|
|
<
< | The desire to discover electronic data is a current reality in our legal system. But, many of the effects resulting from E-discovery have been fuelled by our computer illiteracy. If any of the issues involved are to be resolved, technological education is an indispensible element. This should be done along efforts to force lawyers towards further cooperation. Although it might be wishful thinking, fortunately this is being helped by clients’ adverse reactions to excessive fees and recent demands for alternative fee arrangements. I can’t foresee a faster way to address this area in a simpler context. |
>
> | The desire to discover electronic data is a current reality in our legal system. But, many of the effects resulting from E-discovery have been fueled by our technological incompetence. If any of the issues involved are to be resolved, technological education is an indispensible element. This should be done along efforts to force lawyers towards further cooperation. Although it might be wishful thinking, fortunately this is being helped by clients’ adverse reactions to excessive fees and recent demands for AlternativeFeeArrangements. I can’t foresee a faster way to address this area in a simpler context. |
| | |