E-Discovery Training Lagging in Most Legal Departments
Even large organizations in highly regulated and litigation-heavy industries say they didn't have formal e-discovery training, according to a survey by Exterro and Duke Law's EDRM.
March 21, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Unsurprisingly, large enterprises in highly regulated and litigation-heavy industries reported the highest e-discovery operations maturity, according to a newly released survey. However, many of these companies have also reported low instances of e-discovery training.
The survey of 218 organizations of various sizes and industries was conducted by e-discovery and information governance company Exterro Inc. and Duke Law's EDRM, and based on a quiz tied to EDRM's E-Discovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test.
While organizations in the pharmaceutical and finance industry reported the greatest e-discovery process maturity, they failed like their fellow respondents to report significant e-discovery training. According to the survey, those in the pharmaceutical industry rated their training 1.5 out of 5 and those in finance 2.6 out of 5. By contrast, organizations in the chemical and transportation industry gave the highest e-discovery training, 3.22 and 3.38 out of five, respectively.
Exterro chief marketing officer Bill Piwonka said the lack of e-discovery training in even highly regulated legal departments could stem from in-house departments not focusing on granular processes.
“The people who have been doing e-discovery have just done their own self-training,” Piwonka suggested. He added, “Because legal hasn't really run itself like other departments, with this process focus, they probably don't have all the pieces in place like a formal training.”
Surveyed companies also didn't rate their organization's security maintenance and data integrity highly, with an overall rating of 2.94 out of 5.
Of data security and integrity controls, slightly over half of all organizations had an auditing process in place (53 percent), as well as dedicated personnel to manage data security and integrity (58 percent). Most respondents said they had strong technology/automation controls ready (63 percent), followed by 61 percent that had defined processes set for data security and integrity.
The survey also asked respondents if they have a procedure to collect employees' social media data and notably, midsize companies lagged behind smaller enterprises. Only 39 percent of businesses with 1,001 to 10,000 employees had a procedure in place to collect employees' social media data, compared to 44 percent of smaller companies. Meanwhile, 51 percent of companies with 10,000-plus employees had a data collection process for workers' social media.
Procedures for collecting employees' data from their personal devices were more prevalent. Nearly half of small enterprises, 53 percent of midsize companies and almost 70 percent of large enterprises reported they had a data collection plan for employee devices.
Overall, 91 percent of those surveyed said they had the ability to identify, preserve and collect data from employees. Indeed, all large companies said they could preserve and collect employee data, but that number noticeably slipped when asked about preserving third-party data. Only 68 percent of large companies said they could identify, preserve and collect data from vendors while 78 percent of large companies said they could do the same with contractors.
Piwonka said that overall, the survey underscored how legal departments were continuing to change their approach to e-discovery process.
“Every department in an enterprise has had the notion of cost optimization,” Piwonka said. “I think largely for a long time legal departments were kept out of it.”
Those days, he said, are over. “I absolutely believe this trend of having a more processed approach to legal will continue. The trend of having formal legal operations and the scrutiny from the C-suite over expenses won't lessen.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Delaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute readThe Week in Data Dec. 19: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
Davis Polk Moves to New, Expanded Redwood City Office
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 2Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 3Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 4Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 5Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250