Good morning and Happy Monday. Hope your weekends went well. We had approximately 14 inches of snow here in Minneapolis-St. Paul so my weekend was divided between shoveling and sledding. After taking a quick look at some recent cases, an odd trend came to light this morning. From February 1st until today, there have been five cases released focusing on Electronic Discovery. Two of those cases featured law firms as either requesting party or responding party. In Stanziale v. Pepper Hamilton LLP, 2007 WL 473703 (S.D.N.Y), Pepper Hamilton was the requesting party in the midst of a cost shifting argument. In Peskoff v. Faber, 2007 WL 530096 (D.D.C. 2007), Mintz Levin was involved as a third party as the responding party’s documents were housed on its servers. With the growth of electronic discovery, the amount of law firms working in the area as a revenue source has grown considerably. Outside companies, including law firms, are growing ever closer and more integrated with their clients’ business and technological resources. These cases highlight how integrated and knowledgeable law firms are becoming in the electronic discovery process. In a recent survey of large corporations, more GCs placed focus on technological capacity and understanding than any other factor when evaluating their law firm partners. The aforementioned cases, with a law firm as a third party and a law firm as a requesting party, only highlight the increased attention paid to law firms themselves in ED law. When selecting law firms as outside partners, it is vital to assess their capabilities both in traditional document review but also as a technological resource.
Dennis Kennedy discusses this very issue on his February 21st entry on his blog at http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/. Thanks and have a good day.
Filed under Technology Counsel.