VISITOR (not logged in)
Sign In or
eDJ Contributor: Mikki Tomlinson
Date Post Title Post Summary
2016-01-04 Looking Forward to LegalTech New York 2016 After a 2-year hiatus I am excited to return to LTNY this year. Over the course of 2015 we had several clients with a new or renewed interest in matter management and legal support operations process improvement. As a result, I will be continuing my focus on matter management vendors at the show this year.
2014-08-06 Mergers, Acquisitions & eDiscovery When it comes to M&A activity, the legal departments are typically last on the list of departments scheduled for merger planning. This is not unreasonable. “Business first” makes sense. It does, however, call for some stress and concern of potentially increased risk in the general counsel’s office(s). From the eDiscovery perspective, several questions arise as soon as a merger or acquisition is announced. Does the other organization have legal hold and discovery response procedures? What are their preservation practices? What eDiscovery technologies and relationships do they have? How different are their practices and technologies from ours? Are the legal departments going to merge or continue to run independently?
2014-07-25 eDJ 2014 Legal Hold Notification Survey Case law related to failure to issue proper legal holds has not slowed over the last year. With that, and the uptick in legal hold notification products on the market over the last two years, we are seeing a rise in corporate attention to better managing legal hold notification. To test this postulation, we have issued our annual Legal Hold Notification Survey. In 2013 eDJ launched our first annual Legal Hold Notification Survey to understand corporate and government entity attitudes towards and plans for legal hold notification as part of their eDiscovery efforts. With the results of this year’s survey, we will study changes in trends over the last year.
2014-05-27 Back in the eDiscovery Saddle! After a long journey over the last six months, I am now ready to get back in the eDiscovery saddle. Just after Thanksgiving 2013 I went on family medical leave. Coincidentally, eDJ Group also went through a lot of changes during that time. In this blog I will address both.
2013-06-27 eDJ Market Analysis on Legal Hold Notification As announced in Barry Murphy’s March 2013 post, Legal Hold Notification (LHN) is on our analysts' radar and research agenda. LHN, although not a “new” eDiscovery topic, continues to be a current conversation and hover at the top of the priority list for corporate legal departments. The first report in the series, Bring Legal Holds to Life, was published in April and lays out the framework for developing an effective legal hold program. The next step is to frame out our analysis of the technologies on the market.
2013-06-18 You Want me to Hold What?!
2013-06-03 Will Your Legal Hold Hold Up To a Challenge?
2013-04-11 eDiscovery Education a Hot Topic at Today’s General Counsel Institute Event
2013-04-02 New eDJ Research Report on Bringing Legal Holds to Life As Barry Murphy announced in The eDiscoveryJournal 2013 Research Agenda blog published last month, Legal Hold is one of my research focuses this year. It has been a decade since the landmark Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg decisions around legal hold, and 7 years since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in relation to eDiscovery, yet, legal hold still remains a mystery to many. Caselaw resulting from ineffective or complete failure to issue legal holds continues to be regular news in litigation circles.
2013-03-13 Where are the eDiscovery Workflow Support Tools?
2013-02-21 Legal Hold FAQ's - Part III
2013-02-12 An Educational Conversation with Judge Peck
2013-01-07 Legal Hold FAQ's - Part II
2012-12-17 Legal Hold FAQ's - Part I
2012-12-13 Executive Counsel Institute Wraps Up 2012 Corporate Exchange Events in Los Angeles
2012-11-29 Attacking eDiscovery Ignorance in 2013
2012-11-08 Why is Legal Hold Still a Mystery?
2012-10-26 2012 Conference on Preservation Excellence Wrap-up
2012-10-08 Insights from the Executive Counsel Institue Houston – Theoretical Discussions to Take-away Practice Points
2012-09-18 More Discussion on Managed Services at The Cowen Group Leadership Breakfast in Atlanta
2012-09-06 A Review of "Zubulake's e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice"
2012-08-09 Insights from Executive Counsel Institute New York
2012-07-27 Once Again, Tech Giant Samsung Handed Sanctions for Failure to Preserve
2012-07-10 What’s Trending in Legal Hold Management?
2012-06-15 Let's Talk Form of Production
2012-05-23 More on Separating the Wheat from the eDiscovery Software Chaff
2012-04-30 A Review of the iCONECT Global Summit 2012 – Day One
2012-04-24 Are we Pricing Ourselves Out of Business?
2012-03-21 Technology-Assisted Review: The Need for Market Definition and Where We Stand Today
2012-02-24 The Great Cooperation Debate
2012-02-15 The Honorable Andrew J. Peck on the Record with Predictive Coding: Early Headlines Get it Wrong!
2012-02-10 An Interview with The Honorable Andrew J. Peck – Part Two It has been stated over and over in discussions around PC-TAR, that it is imperative to have a well-defined workflow that includes solid processes for purposes of defensibility (e.g., sampling, documentation). In Part One I pointed out that we had these same conversations around acceptable, defensible practices when using key terms and all human review. Yet, there are still a number of practitioners that are not making use of solid, defensible practices. For example, I continue to see attorneys blindly selecting key terms and proceed directly to process, review, and production with no sampling and minimal documentation along the way. My question, then, remains whether the discussions surrounding PC-TAR will prompt practitioners to employ better practices no matter what method of collection/search/review is. Or, will we maintain the status quo: those that understand the need for and importance of solid processes and project management, and those that don’t?
2012-02-02 An Interview with The Honorable Andrew J. Peck – Part One
2012-01-18 The Delicate Balance Between E-Discovery And Business Requirements One of the greatest challenges of implementing and maintaining legal hold and discovery response processes in a corporate environment is balancing those requirements with the needs and goals of the IT department. While we typically see the dichotomy between Legal and IT, there are other key stakeholders that cannot be left out of the mix: Compliance, Records Management and, of course, the Business Client. In order to strike the balance (or at least start moving in that direction) between competing interests, each of these stakeholders must be able to understand the goals, mission, requirements, and needs of the others. To point out the obvious – this requires communication. The problem here is that Legal, Records, Compliance, and IT do not speak the same language. Because every organization is unique, culture is another critical component that cannot be ignored. While the cultural considerations and communication difficulties between the stakeholders may not necessarily be contentious, they can be frustrating and challenging. Luckily, there are ways to work through the cultural and language barriers, such as using drawings/visuals, explaining things in simple terms, and the use of translators.
2012-01-09 In Search of the Industry Standard Have you ever received a detailed project estimate from a service provider and wondered how they came up with it? I have. Unless you provided them your client specific data assumptions, they likely used “industry standards” to fill in the blanks. Hmmm. Where did these industry standards come from and how accurate are they?
2012-01-03 Developing an In-House eDiscovery Process: Getting Started The impact of discovery in this era of electronic information explosion has greatly affected corporations that are full-time litigants. These effects go all the way to the core of their businesses in terms of cost, risk, and management of information. The resulting position for organizations has become reactive, and discovery costs have spiraled out of control. Over the last several years there has been a good deal of discussion on the value of bringing eDiscovery processes in-house – often referred to as “litigation readiness.” The goal of developing an in-house eDiscovery program is to manage it as a business process, thus gaining efficiency and cost control.
2011-12-20 More on the Preservation Discussion: It Still Comes Down to Cooperation There has been a significant amount of discussion, both formal and informal, surrounding whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be amended as to preservation and sanctions. Some believe that the time is not yet ripe, while others have presented arguments to the contrary. There is, however, one common theme in the debates, blogs, papers and meetings: cooperation.
2011-12-13 Is Preservation “In Place” Technology the Panacea to the Preservation Headache?
2011-12-07 Review of Executive Counsel Institute's "The Exchange" Event in Los Angeles
2011-11-29 Response to "Has eDiscovery Disenfranchised Our Paralegals?"
2011-11-22 Announcing the eDJ Peer Group This is my first entry as a contributor to the eDiscoveryJournal so I wanted to make it special with an announcement about a new initiative I’m leading with the eDJ Group. While you and I may not have met yet and we may not have met the other professionals that are reading this blog at the very same time, we are all bonded by this special community of eDiscovery and information governance professionals. Wouldn’t you agree that we could all grow from each other’s knowledge? Of course we could! The ability to share knowledge, pain points, successes and challenges, and state of the market with peers is invaluable. The challenges, however, include: opportunity, confidentiality, competition and facilitation. In recognizing both the need for knowledge sharing in our industry and the challenges associated therewith, eDiscovery Journal and eDJ Group have created the “eDJ Peer Group” and I am proud to lead its launch.
2013-10-31 The Delicate Balance Between E-Discovery And Business Requirements: Perspective Update Nearly two years ago I wrote a blog on managing the balancing act between eDiscovery and business requirements. The blog identified the differing perspectives of key stakeholders in supporting corporate business goals while maintaining compliance with legal hold and discovery response activities, records and information management compliance, and IT goals and objectives. It also examined three relevant topic areas for corporations where differing perspectives were ripe for analysis. Interestingly, the challenges haven’t changed. Nor have the relevant topics used for example. However, advances in technology have altered the landscape.
Latest Reports

2015 PC-TAR Adoption Survey

Seven question focus survey on the adoption and usage of analytics and PC-TAR. Raw survey results with 41 validated… [read more]

eDJ Group 2017 Survey on Impact of Provider M&A Consolidation

Short survey on consumer impact of consolidation of technology and service providers. n=21 [read more]

eDJ-ILTA Webinar Presentation - Managing Providers in a Shrinking eDiscovery Market

The pace of eDiscovery M&A has accelerated dramatically over the last 5 years. With eDiscovery matters lasting… [read more]

see all eDJ Research Reports
EDJ Reviewed

Catalyst Insight

Catalyst provides secure document repositories to help search, analyze and review large volumes of discovery… [read more]

Discovery Attender

Discovery Attender is an e-discovery tool designed to automate investigative tasks in PST files, Exchange… [read more]