Last week, the Wortzman Nickle home team travelled to Collingwood for the firm’s retreat.
This annual event gave us the opportunity to re-group, review processes and files, and team-build. Guided by a comprehensive agenda and inspired by the beautiful surroundings, our team has emerged stronger and more efficient than ever.
Key topics of interest? Efficient collection and data processing, lawyer review processes and platforms, plus project management best practices ruled the day. We know that being efficient with processes and reporting keeps files on track, on budget, and clients happy.
In the name of team-building, we took on a “strenuous/advanced” mountain hike in the rain, as well as two yoga classes. There’s nothing like sore muscles, exhaustion, and a few headstands to bring a legal team together.
Things to watch for? Wortzman Nickle’s edgy, innovative, advertising campaign, introduced this Spring and to be continued in the Fall. Some other surprises are in store for our firm…stay tuned.
New e-discovery products are coming to market on almost a weekly basis. They serve different functions and fit into different parts of the EDRM model (notionally being: preservation, identification, collection, processing/culling, review, and production). In researching these options, we are learning that the terminology used by forensic companies is often as diverse as the products they are selling.
In particular, the term “review” is causing some confusion. In the legal context, “review” means the fifth stage in the EDRM model referencing the “lawyer review”. This is the phase after collection and processing/culling when lawyers review and code the records for relevance, privilege and to issues codes. At the review phase, we look for a robust review platform that allows customized coding fields and the integration of near de-duplication and/or concept clustering software. These features save our clients significant time and money as they avoid a linear review.
However, in the forensic context, “review” often means the ability to view records (images or in native format) during the early case assessment or processing/culling phases.
Does this potential conflict in e-terminology matter? Yes. Suddenly, a solution billed as “end to end” is actually an early case assessment or processing tool – one which will require an export of data to an appropriate (but different) review platform down the road. This can mean an increase in time and cost for the litigant company – the one that believed it had purchased a single “end to end” e-discovery solution.
The lesson learned is this – ask lots of questions and clarify the terminology at every stage. Alternatively, call Wortzman Nickle and we’ll help you with the e-translation.
Blog | admin June 16, 2010 | 
Comments (0) 
