If you send an e-mail to three people, your system keeps one copy, with all three people listed in the "To" field. If you need to see all your e-mails to just one of those people, you search for that name. It's still just one copy. Indeed, it would be silly to have multiple copies. The same holds true for document discovery repositories, yet a recent survey suggests that lawyers still don't "get it," and often insist on keeping multiple, unnecessary copies.
Lawyers who fail to check for duplicates across multiple custodians, instead removing only duplicates from within the records of individual custodians, end up reviewing at least 20% more records on average. Whether or not their document review bills are ever audited, these lawyers are not meeting their ethical obligations to both clients and the justice system.
In May, we surveyed electronic data discovery providers to learn what their clients requested with respect to management of duplicate records. Full results are available on the eDiscovery Institute website (www.ediscoveryinstitute.org). We received responses from ACT Litigation Services; Business Intelligence Associates; CaseCentral; Clearwell Systems; Daticon EED; Encore Discovery Solutions; Fios; FTI Consulting; Gallivan, Gallivan & O'Melia; Iris Data Services; Kroll Ontrack; Legal Document Management (LDM Global); Legal Document Services International; Rational Retention; Recommind; StoredIQ; Trilantic; and Valora Technologies. *A full report on the survey is available online at ediscoveryinstitute.org.
While many techniques (e-mail threading, concept clustering, analytics) can improve review efficiencies, we focused on deduping across custodians, because it is readily available and can be implemented in most review programs. It is the low-hanging fruit of litigation cost control.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------------
Source: lawtechnews.com
By: Anne Kershaw & Joseph Howie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment