Following the IQPC conference in Toronto in late June, Susan Nickle was interviewed by Julius Melnitzer for an article published in the Legal Post section of the National Post on July 7, 2010.
Titled “Records Management Key to Navigating Lawsuits”, the article explores the corporate risks of not having a well-managed records management program. This is consistent with Wortzman Nickle’s position that an enforced, defensible records retention policy is the foundation for a streamlined, cost effective, and efficient e-discovery process.
However, it is not just litigation risks that are mitigated by such policies. Corporations who face competition complaints, regulatory investigations or audits also benefit enormously from good records management. Further, there are numerous and compelling business efficacy reasons to implement good policies, including significant increases in employee productivity and reductions in data storage costs.
In 2010, Wortzman Nickle has seen a significant increase in corporate interest regarding the drafting and implementation of records management policies and protocols. A successful records management regime requires a healthy marriage between legal and IT. We speak the languages of both domains. Please contact our firm for details regarding the essential aspects of good records management.
On Tuesday night, Wortzman Nickle gathered its Review Team at Campbell House in downtown Toronto. The meeting’s agenda included both educational and social components, as well as a surprise special guest speaker. The ironic combination of e-discovery and technology in an historical, almost pioneer setting was not lost on anyone!
The educational component included Wortzman and Nickle’s “E-Discovery A to Z” presentation, with able assistance from Caskey. While our Review Team generally focuses on the review aspect of the e-discovery process, they are also involved on different matters with the preservation, identification and collection stages. Others also assist us with Records Management Policies. This was an opportunity to ensure that the entire Team was up to speed on the e-discovery stages and cutting edge technology.
The educational component was a two-way street, and it included Wortzman and Nickle obtaining information from our team. Well-versed in and experienced with numerous review platforms and e-discovery software, we solicited and received our review lawyers’ candid opinions about what technology is the best of the best.
Our special guest, Jonathan Redgrave, is a well-known e-discovery guru from the Washington D.C. area and a good friend to our firm. Presently practicing with Nixon Peabody, he has previously appeared in our blog as a guest contributor. Jonathan joined us on Tuesday night to provide our team with the emerging e-discovery trends from south of the border. He is an engaging speaker and as usual, charmed the crowd.
The social aspect of the evening afforded an opportunity for our various review lawyers to get to know each other, and the Wortzman Nickle lawyers, legal analysts and staff better, outside the context of document review projects. We have a very interesting and accomplished group of lawyers who work with our firm. They include a published writer, a film-maker and a former Olympian (a silver medallist no less!) to name a few. Many of our Review Team lawyers have been with us since we opened our firm in October 2007 – a few others worked with Susan Wortzman for years prior to that. With their sound legal and technical judgment, dedication to individual files, and e-discovery experience, our team really is the Dream Team for e-discovery.
Interesting. I just attended a workshop titled “Litigation Readiness: The Impact of the Records Management Program”. According to the panel, following a market research survey, 80% of companies surveyed reported having a records management policy. I found this statistic extremely high and query whether these reported policies are updated, followed and audited regularly. I have my doubts about that.
However, only 60% of those policies contained a litigation readiness component, and only 20% of those utilized litigation readiness software. Further only 38% of those companies had a litigation response team in place to handle all of the e-discovery phases.
Also interesting – in the panel’s view (and these were employees of a service provider) the effectiveness of a litigation readiness program is based 90% on the policies and the team put in place, and only 10% on the software. In their words, technology is merely an “enabler” in the quest for defensible litigation readiness.
More later.
Wortzman Nickle is pleased to announce Rachael Chadwick is joining us as a Senior E-Discovery Analyst and Project Manager. Rachael comes to us after years of experience as a Law Clerk whose practice focused on e-discovery.
Rachael arrived just in time. January 2010 has started off with a bang! 2010 is the year for lawyers, in-house counsel and organizations to embrace e-discovery. Undoubtedly the new Rules of Civil Procedure that came into force in Ontario effective January 01, 2010 have had some impact on this. We have been busy attending Meet and Confer sessions, meeting with organizations that are anxious to have Records Management Policies in place in the calendar year and meeting with other organizations who want to ensure that they have litigation readiness plans in place. Top that off with several on going e-discovery review projects and we are off to an exciting start this year. The addition of Rachael to our team adds to our office strength and the breadth of our e-discovery experience.
Wortzman Nickle are off to LegalTech this week..stay tuned for updates!
Wortzman Nickle has been actively working on records management policies and litigation readiness protocols. In our experience, privacy issues and the treatment of personal information are frequently raised as concerns. There are many reasons for a company to appropriately collect and retain an individual’s personal information. However, once the information is collected, certain obligations arise under applicable privacy legislation.
The recent economic recession has resulted in a rise in privacy complaints, largely because companies are more frequently collecting personal information and they are struggling with the manner in which they handle it.
Several provinces are reporting a significant increase in employment related privacy complaints. In particular, it appears that employers are asking for personal information such as SIN numbers and other information to enable them to perform credit checks on prospective employees even prior to an offer of employment is made. In some cases, the employer is not even advising the employee that a credit check will be completed. This collection results in a number of problems: a lack of consent for the collection of the personal information, a failure to advise that a credit check will be performed, the inability of the company to justify why a credit check was required at that stage, and potential problems relating to the retention and disposal of the personal information.
The best way to deal with these issues is with defensible policies and protocols.
Is your business governed by PIPEDA? Is your policy falling short?
The Personal Information Protection Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) provides that companies must obtain appropriate consents; collect only what personal information they require for their business purposes; safeguard the information appropriately; and, dispose of the information as soon as the purpose for which it was collected is fulfilled.
To ensure your records management program is consistent and doesn’t run afoul of privacy laws, review your program as a whole. Ensure that your retention policy integrates well with your privacy policies and all other litigation readiness protocols. If your policies do not work well together, it’s time for a rewrite.
Tags: e-discovery Canada, litigation readiness, personal information, PIPEDA, privacy law, privacy policy, Records Management
Records Management, litigation readiness, policies, privacy law | admin October 29, 2009 | 
Comments (0)
