Sometimes risk management as related to eDiscovery takes on new levels of quality control. As I read a recent Metropolitan Corporate Counsel article, “Risk Management and Quality Control of E-Discovery Vendors” the complexity of eDiscovery was driven home.
Understanding the capabilities, quality and costs related to using eDiscovery vendors is an important responsibility. The reason being, the attorney has ultimate responsibility.
This article offers some very good reminders about what should be asked, inspected and known about your vendors. It is more than a processing capability. Is the data truly secure? Is your vendor using other providers?
As the article points out:
The consequences are steep for failing to be fully engaged with e-discovery vendors. In J-M Mfg. Co., Inc. v. McDermott Will & Emery, No. BC 462 832 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. L.A. Cnty. filed June 2, 2011), the defendant faced a legal malpractice suit when it allegedly did not carefully review the work of contract attorneys at an e-discovery vendor, resulting in the production of almost 4,000 privileged documents to the federal government in a whistleblower suit.
The need to be involved and to understand the capabilities of your vendors is important. Understanding in-house processes is just as important. The dimensions of where information is stored, how it is accessed and the management involved are critical components of knowing what, when, how and who related to eDiscovery processes.
Constance Ard, December 7, 2012