Select eDiscovery M&A Transactions

“M&A is Increasing in eDiscovery” 

Download a complementary copy of the TripleTree research report – which has an enlarged version of this “M&A is Increasing in eDiscovery” chart - here.

LegalTech West Day Two – A View From An iPhone

Brian Goldbere and Herb Roitblat – Search Technology Thought Leaders from OrcaTec, and Ronda Raymond – the VP of Operations and Electronic Discovery Services at Orange Legal Technologies – on Day Two of LegalTech West.

Tuesday’s Keynote Speaker Carole Basri (Corporate Lawyering Group and Adjunct Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School)with Henry Dicker of Incisive Media (both standing behind podium) preparing for Tuesday’s discussion on Ethics and E-Discovery with panelists Hon. Judge David Waxse, Hon. Judge Andrew Peck, and Industry Expert and Former GC Tom Allman (seated at table).

Ms. Mary Mack, Writer and Corporate Technology Counsel for Fios along with “The Bowtie Lawyer/Blogger” Josh Gilliland taking a break before the speaking and sessions on Thursday.

Social Media Expert/LexBlog CEO Kevin O’Keefe (Right) with an Unidentified Blogger “socializing in real time” during LegalTech West on Thursday.

A Quick Look At LegalTech West 2009

Electronic Discovery Experts Craig Ball, Josh Gilliland, and Ronda Raymond “Discussing Discovery” on Day One of LegalTech West.

Two Electronic Discovery Juggernauts - Brett Burney and Tom O’Connor – relaxing for a moment during LegalTech West.

Kristin Currey, Director of National Accounts of Orange Legal Technologies, and Carl Jacobsen, CTO for The Posse List, enjoy an adult beverage at the Orange Legal Technologies “eDrinks and eDiscussion” Event on Wednesday Night during LegalTech West.

Unidentified Blogger (Left) with MerlinOne Product Manager Jennifer McClain on the show floor at LegalTech West.

Pig in a Poke, Lottery Methodologies, and Evaluating Electronic Discovery Vendors

Have you ever purchased a Pig-in-a-poke only to be surprised when, on further inspection, you did not quite get what you bargained for?

Pig-in-a-poke is an idiom that refers to a confidence trick originating in the Late Middle Ages, when meat was scarce but apparently rats and cats were not.

The scheme entailed the sale of a "suckling pig" in a "poke" (bag). The wriggling bag would actually contain a cat — not particularly prized as a source of meat — that was sold to the victim in an unopened bag. The French term acheter (un) chat en poche (to buy a cat in a bag) refers to an actual sale of this nature, as do many European equivalents, while the English expression refers to the appearance of the trick.

A common colloquial expression in the English language, to "buy a pig in a poke," is to make a risky purchase without inspecting the item beforehand. The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis.

From Wikipedia

 

Or have you ever had a someone provide you with what seemed the right answer and, on further investigation you determined that while the answer might have been correct in a specific case, the methodology was extremely flawed?

A few years ago a man won the Spanish national lottery with a ticket that ended in the number 48.   Proud of his “accomplishment” he revealed the theory that brought him the riches.   “I dreamed on of the number 7 for seven straight nights,” he said, “and 7x7=48”.

From The Drunkard’s Walk – How Randomness Rules Our Life

 

Clear, well thought out and articulated questions – relatively speaking – may help electronic discovery consumers from experiencing "“pig and math” problems.  Some of these basic questions may include:

1)  Does your system recognize all available ESI? (Words?  Languages?)

2)  Does your system index all available ESI?

2)  How do you handle ESI that is not indexed?

If you do not ask these insightful questions, you may very well end up with a pig-in-a-poke.  And even if you have already ended up with a pig-in-a-poke, don’t be lulled into feeling unjustifiably comfortable – as sometimes even the wrong approach might lead to right answer.

Think this really happens?  I think you would be incredibly surprised.  If you don’t believe me – just ask you current vendor these important questions – and see for yourself if there is a pig-in-the-poke or if 7x7=48.

Toto, Dorothy, and LegalTech West?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click here to let someone know you will be at LegalTech West.

Ockam’s Razor, Electronic Discovery Data Transfer Standards and RFC2822

With the many discussions concerning the need for a widely accepted, widely utilized data transfer format between electronic discovery applications/services, why do “industry experts” not just adopt RFC2822 Internet Message Format - as the “standard” for data transfer between disparate electronic discovery applications?

It seems reasonable to consider this approach as it would (and does) allow for use of a format that is both internationally accepted by the technology community and universally utilized by email systems. Email systems – even with their proprietary implementations – have proven to be able to effectively communicate with others systems effectively using this known and accepted format.

I understand that I may be missing some intricacy in this consideration – but after discussing this topic ad nauseam in both the public (blogosphere) and private (industry associations, leaders, experts) arena – it seems that it might make sense to revisit Ockam’s Razor when considering the development and drive for electronic discovery standards.

Ockam’s Razor: Essentially the principle of parsimony which states that if one is provided with a variety of explanations (e.g. a variety of statistical models) one should prefer the simplest. William of Ockham (c. 1285–1349) was an English philosopher who held that a complicated explanation should not be accepted without good reason, and wrote 'Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora'. ('It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.')

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Electronic Discovery Risk? Beyond Safety In Pricing

A New Cold War? The Arms Race Of Pricing

A recent post from E-Discovery 2.0 provides the following statement for reader consideration:

Given rampant commoditization there’s an arms race underway among certain service providers where they’re now changing the above model to give away initial processing as a loss leader – pricing only on the data that comes out the end of the processing/search step. In this approach the above workflow would largely stay the same, but the vendor would charge a higher rate for what ultimately is hosted on the back-end. If this back-end fee was $2,000 per resulting gigabyte and the same 30 gigabytes was seen out the back end, then the customer would pay $60,000 for the project. But, if the deduplication, searching, culling, etc. was more effective (at say 80%) then the resulting 20 gigabytes would only cost $40,000.

The question then, as Clint Eastwood would put it, is: “Do you feel lucky?” This pricing model forces attorneys and litigation support managers to guesstimate what culling, search, and de-duplication rates they’ll likely get on the data corpus. Guess right and they save the end client money, guess wrong and they’re way over budget.

On the top level there certainly appears to be some quantifiable truth to the comment of the “arms race” mentioned above – but maybe the deeper truth is also that certain business models and technology implementations allow for more economical pricing – pricing which does include lower rates than many vendors are able to offer on the “front end” of the electronic discovery process because of implementation efficiencies. The post from E-Discovery 2.0 goes on to say:

Thoughts run to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to determine which pricing model is ultimately more compelling: (a) price certainty/adherence to budget, or (b) cost variability and the opportunity to save money. While it’s never good to understate the upside of saving money (Esteem), I think ultimately there’s a more fundamental need (Safety) to stay within budget and avoid the painful (sometimes client imperiling) call to discuss how a given e-discovery project has gone way over budget.

Safety – Two Points Both In Football and Electronic Discovery

I have to agree that price is important and that safety is fundamental need. However addressing “pricing” safety is only part of the story (a part that many vendors are addressing in a manner that makes them more attractive than some vendors). The other part of the story is “risk” safety. If a vendor does not have a fully integrated (at the application level) electronic discovery offering for analytics, processing, and review, there is risk in the transfer of data between those eDiscovery tasks. Additionally, if a vendor is unable to accomplish those tasks without having to rely on additional vendors to augment the total electronic discovery effort – then there is another level of risk that comes from the injection of another step to an already delicate process. Also, from a technical perspective, if a vendor cannot import or export data between tasks and/or vendors with well formed output – then there may be an even deeper level of risk involved. Yes, it is important to address pricing risk as one considers electronic discovery vendors – but don’t let risk assessment end on the point of predictable pricing.

Loss Leaders Or Just Leaders?

Having apparent loss leaders in competitive environments is certainly nothing new – just check out milk or chicken prices at your local grocery store to get a glimpse of how prevalent that approach is and most probably will continue to be in competitive markets. But also understand that just because pricing is less does not necessarily mean there is a “catch” somewhere down the line. Maybe today’s fully integrated, Software-as-a-Service offerings do allow for more efficient – and predictable/safe - pricing across the entire spectrum of electronic discovery services. And don’t forget – while safety in predictable pricing is incredibly important especially in today’s economically challenging business environments (and should be able to be provided by vendors with efficient, proven, and repeatable processes), there is more to addressing risk than just predictable pricing – there is the risk of actually knowing that a vendor has not mitigated data transfer risks as much as possible through complete services, true adherence to data transfer “standards”, and minimization of manual interventions in the overall discovery process.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Risk?

Risk management – as it relates to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – certainly calls out the need to manage deficiency and growth needs – but those needs are not always equally important. Taking a “Maslow-type” view of risk management a step further, pricing risk, while important, is certainly not as important as data transfer risk. So consumers of electronic discovery services would do well to evaluate risk of data transfer before being singularly swayed by the easier to get excited about risk of pricing predictability. And if diligent enough in evaluation of electronic discovery solutions – consumers can find services that mitigate risk in both of these key areas.