Retention Robots: Automatic Legal Holds Becoming the Norm for Corporate Legal
A Zapproved survey found that in the face of sanctions and a growing volume of disparate corporate data, many companies are turning to technology to help…
August 18, 2017 at 08:09 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A Zapproved survey found that in the face of sanctions and a growing volume of disparate corporate data, many companies are turning to technology to help manage legal holds.
While they are a prime responsibility for attorneys facing litigation or regulatory investigations, legal holds are not always executed as effectively as they should be. For many, it is a problem of managing data in multiple locations; for others, it's the challenge of having unreliable data custodians.
But many attorneys are betting that these problems can be mitigated through the use of automated technology, according to Zapproved's 2017 Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report, a survey of legal, compliance, IT and corporate staff from more than 50 U.S. corporations.
The survey found that in 2017, over half—57 percent—of corporations are using automated software for legal holds, marking the first time in the survey's history that a majority of respondents are employing automated legal holds. From 2014 to 2016, the percentage using this technology hovered around 46 percent, while in 2013, it was at 34 percent.
Still, some 37 percent, a sizable minority of those surveyed, rely on manual legal hold processes, with 58 percent of those respondents expressing confidence in the defensibility of their manual process. Among those using automated legal holds, however, confidence in the automated procedures was higher at 79 percent.
Brad Harris, vice president of products at Zapproved, explained that corporate teams are more confident using automated legal holds because it allows for more uniform and defined processes. With automated legal holds, he said, “you are more likely to have repeatable processes, and you're much more likely to have best practices as part of [those processes], practices like ongoing reminders tracking acknowledgments, or following up on those who don't acknowledge.”
The survey found that 84 percent of those using automated legal holds sent periodic reminders to their custodians, while 56 percent of those using manual legal hold processes did the same. Among those sending out release notification once a matter is resolved, the number skewed 75 percent to 58 percent in favor of automated legal hold users.
Harris noted that effective legal holds are needed given the repercussions of not properly retaining data for litigation or regulatory investigations. Under the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), for example, parties can now be sanctioned for discoverable data spoliation or loss.
The move toward automated legal holds may also be occurring because the technology has become less expensive to deploy. Since most automated legal hold platforms can be hosted on the cloud, “you don't have to install, maintain, test, or upgrade all of those investments that you used to have to do on premise,” Harris said.
Alongside the increased use of automated legal holds, the survey found that many corporate legal departments have stopped training their employees on legal processes altogether. A narrow majority of 52 percent said they trained their employees in 2017, down from 69 percent in 2016, and 74 percent in 2015.
Harris noted that companies may be reining in training because they have done enough in past years and “don't have to do as much now.” He also pointed out that as automated software makes it easier to remind data custodians to create and manage legal holds, they might not need as much training as before.
Contact Rhys Dipshan at [email protected]. On Twitter: @R_Dipshan.
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 AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Trending Stories
- 1Can The Threat of a Bar Complaint Be a Settlement Tool?
- 2Sentencing Commission Addresses Inconsistent Definitions of “Loss”
- 3What Are Forbidden Sexual Relations With Clients?
- 4AEDI Takeaways: Demystifying Hype, Changing Caselaw & Harvey’s CEO Talks State of Industry
- 5New England Law | Boston Announces New Dean
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