LTN Law Technology News
  • Home
  • News
  • Reviews
  • Commentary
  • Surveys
  • Events
  • LegalTech® Directory
  • About LTN
  • Register
  • Topics:
  • E-Discovery & Compliance
  • Litigation Support
  • Practice Management
  • Office Tech
  • Mobile Lawyer
  • Research & Libraries
  • Tech Law

Home > We Are in It Together

Font Size: increase font decrease font

We Are in It Together

By Albert Barsocchini All Articles 

Law Technology News

March 13, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
Albert Barsocchini

Albert Barsocchini

As competition among service providers and law firms heats up, cooperation remains the key to a successful e-discovery engagement. That is why it is important to always be clear about roles and responsibilities between vendor and law firm in this challenging environment.

The first shot over the bow was the 2012 advisory opinion by the Washington, D.C., Bar Association and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that cautioned service providers against performing legal work and marketing practices, and lawyers delegating responsibilities to non-lawyers. The four major themes in this opinion were:

1. Service providers cannot make the final selection of contract attorneys to staff a project or provide legal supervision over the contract attorneys.

2. Staffing and supervision must be handled by a member of the D.C. Bar associated with the case.

3. A vendor's role should be limited to the administrative aspects of the review (i.e., finding and interviewing reviewers, handling payroll and taxes, making sure the reviewers show up to work, etc.).

4. Vendors cannot use broad-based statements in marketing materials (i.e., that the company is an "end-to-end" vendor or legal expertise) without including a UPL (unauthorized practice of law) disclaimer.

5. Attorneys who are members of the D.C. Bar should direct and supervise all review work by licensed outside attorneys.

This advisory opinion was an overreaction to a situation that has not yet occurred. Based on my 12 years providing e-discovery consulting and 15 as a first-chair trial attorney, I have never seen or heard of any instance where the vendor overstepped the boundary into the UPL.

The only act vendors are guilty of is providing good practical advice to lawyers as they navigate the e-discovery technology maze and make important strategic decisions in this high risk emerging area. Lawyers have always engaged experts when needed to help with the challenges they face and e-discovery is no exception.

Conversely, we are also seeing law firms expanding beyond their core competency of providing legal services to include technical services like collection, data processing, and hosting. There are ethical issues involved in a law firm providing e-discovery services — ABA Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 5.7 — "When a lawyer performs law-related services or controls an organization that does so, there exists the potential for ethical problems."

From my observation, most law firms have likewise done an excellent job providing e-discovery services traditionally provided by vendors. Many of the people hired to perform e-discovery services for a law firm came from experienced vendors.

That said, bringing up these thorny issues for discussion is a healthy exercise and a natural consequence of a rapidly expanding and maturing market. Bar associations play an important role here. Most of these concerns can be readily addressed with appropriate contract language, full disclosures and solid best practice guidelines. Service contracts should always define the roles and responsibilities for a project between vendor and law firm.

Admittedly, roles and responsibilities can sometimes get a little muddled as we work under strict time constraints on fast-track cases with complex legal and technical issues. The Sedona Conference's Cooperation Proclamation to change the culture of discovery from adversarial conduct to cooperation requires cooperation not only among the parties; but the vendors too. Vendor and law firm participation at the Sedona Conference is a classic example of this cooperation.

As the challenges of discovery increase, both vendors and law firms realize we are in it together. The costs associated with pre-trial discovery has become a serious burden to both the American judicial system and litigants as well.

Bar associations should be careful not to drive a wedge between law firms and e-discovery service providers and avoid the temptation to be alarmist in an area that has to this point seen nothing but exceptional professional cooperation — at least — between lawyers and vendors!

San Francisco-based attorney Albert Barsocchini is the discovery counsel and director of strategic consulting at NightOwl Discovery.



Subscribe to Law Technology News

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Aba
  • Bar Association
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Key categories

    
  • E-discovery
  • Law Firm Business

Most viewed stories

    
  1. iPad Competition Heats Up
    •      
  2. Gartner Announces E-Discovery Leaders in 'Magic Quadrant'
    •      
  3. How to Pick the Best Cloud
    •      
  4. 12-on-12 What to Read When the Heat Arrives
    •      
  5. YesLaw Integrates With LexisNexis CaseMap and TextMap
    •      
  6. Discovery on Discovery Demands Cost-Shifting
    •      
  7. 5 Data Breach Risks You Can Prevent
    •      
  8. 7 Cybersecurity, Forensics Tools to Watch
    •      
  9. Microsoft Office on iPhone, More Tech Briefs
    •      
  10. Jailbreak Your Smartphone but Not Your Tablet
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

SEC Issues Whistleblower Award; More on the Horizon

Fixing Outside Counsel Budget Forecasting With Data

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

iPad Competition Heats Up

Discovery on Discovery Demands Cost-Shifting

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Alcotest Should Be Discontinued Right Away, DWI Lawyers Say

Lawyer's Fudging of HUD Forms Draws Supreme Court Censure
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Socialite's Son Mounts Bid for Prison Sentence Reversal
  •      
    • Subscription Required

NYLJ 100

Pa. Justices Uphold Mandatory Judicial Retirement

Pa. Senate Mulling Bill Aimed at Redefining Child Abuse

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

Texas DA Faces Removal Suits Over DWI, Alleged Misconduct
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Upholds Disqualification of Bickel & Brewer
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fighting Over The Fifth
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Atlanta School Defendants Rely On New Jersey Officers' Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About LTN   |
  • Contact LTN   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media