We know that discovery is an extremely important part of trial preparation, and that is why our highest goal is to stay ahead of your deposition planning so it can be more convenient and efficient for you.
Our feature article this month is an interesting piece on why delegating e-discovery duties to your client might be counterproductive. We hope that you find this article, along with the tips and tools in this issue, helpful and informative.
We continue to consistently provide first-class reporters and customer service to you all over the U.S. And because we want to improve in any way we can, we encourage you to send us feedback about how we can better serve you in existing and new ways.
What Can Happen When Lawyers Delegate Their e-Discovery Duties to a Client
By Ralph Losey
A new opinion by the Chief Bankruptcy Judge in Manhattan, Arthur J. Gonzalez, illustrates what can happen when lawyers over-delegate to their client the lawyers’ duty to find and collect digital evidence. In re A & M Florida Properties II,LLC, 2010 WL 1418861 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010). This case, and countless others just like it, remind me of the old phrase, let George do it. No, this has nothing to do with George Socha. I’m referring to a popular expression in the 1950s and 60s, one that I heard a lot in my family, where every other male was named George. Let George Do It was a popular radio show in the forties and fifties. It was about a detective named George Valentine where all of his clients came from reading a newspaper ad saying:
Personal notice: Danger’s my stock in trade. If the job’s too tough for you to handle, you’ve got a job for me. George Valentine.
This popular show led to the catch phrase, let George do it, meaning to let another person perform an odious task for you; kind of a slacker’s credo. That’s what appears to have happened in In re A & M Florida Properties II, LLC.
The first delegator here was a lawyer in a major national law firm based in Florida. Now I happen to know that this firm, like most large firms, has an e-discovery department with a few knowledgeable e-discovery lawyers. But it is obvious that they were not consulted here. The smaller New York City firm who took over the case after it was removed from Florida state court to bankruptcy court was no better.
Thinking Outside the Box: Litigation Management Program Initiatives Can Substantially Lower Costs
By Marc Lanzkowsky, Lanzko Consulting, Inc.
There is money to be saved by managing the litigation puzzle.
Managing litigation is an easy way to save extra expense costs on claims files. A strong litigation management program designed to help foster improved communication and streamline defense of insureds benefits all parties involved. As I wrote about the cost savings benefits of out-of-the-box claims handling, using new and forward thinking strategies for litigation management is an excellent way to save money as well. This is even more important in complex litigation found in the areas of product liability, class actions, and D&O claims, where defense budgets can often trump the loss side of the claim.
A different perspective on how you can manage the larger litigation process
I was recently reading about cost reduction in the Sophisticated Litigation Support blog by Kevin Brooks, Managing Partner of Teris, a litigation support company. These types of companies provide eDiscovery and document management services that can significantly reduce expenses in litigation. Managing eDiscovery and other large document productions is a critical step to control defense budgets.