Evolving Beyond Discovery: Former HPE Counsel on Her Move to Legal Services
Jessica Watts, a veteran both of e-discovery and corporate legal, joins Counsel on Call as business development director. In this Q&A, she looks back on her e-discovery career and talks the next big thing for legal technology.
January 11, 2018 at 02:05 PM
4 minute read
Jessica Watts.
Jessica Watts is no stranger to legal department efficiency. As discovery counsel and associate general counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise, she helped reduce the company's total discovery spend by 71 percent in a period of six years. Yet corporate legal is far from the only arena where Watts, in her 20-year career, has made her mark. A recognized e-discovery expert, Watts speaks at industry conferences and is looked to for advice on the practice.
Watts recently joined legal services provider Counsel on Call as director of business development. She spoke with Legaltech News about her work in the e-discovery and corporate legal worlds, and where she sees the legal industry heading.
|Plugged In
LTN: This is an interesting move for you. Will you be handling a lot of e-discovery work in your role?
JW: I don't do a lot of e-discovery work, but I certainly am a subject matter expert, and we have clients that need help on the review side. Through all of my e-discovery work, I've learned a little about the different types of databases and managed services for particularly in-house counsel. So in talking to clients, we're able to find their current pressure points.
We do a lot of M&A work, contract extraction, and with all the [General Data Protection Regulation] stuff that's coming out, manage their procurement contracts making sure they're compliant. That's all on top of the e-discovery stuff we think about.
Where are businesses at on the road to GDPR compliance?
It's the big hot-button issue right now. It's on everybody's radar, and I have seen the gamut of people who are very well prepared for May, and clients who are still working on their plans to get prepared for May.
How does it feel to sort of step back from the e-discovery world?
My last job title was director, e-discovery. I did a lot of other types of work in that. In particular, when you look at operations type of work at legal departments, there was a lot of reporting, a lot of metrics for litigation departments that I worked on. So I had a lot of contact within our legal department with people in other areas to see where their pressure points were.
For instance, we were working on how to digitize our I-9s as a company, and so working with our compliance and HR teams as the e-discovery person, I have knowledge of the best processes of how to digitize documents.
It's good to broaden my horizons on all of legal services as opposed to just e-discovery, but it's not something that's brand new to me either.
How did you get into e-discovery?
I had a case—I was working for EDS at the time—where we had a large stock drop that at the end of the day involved [New York Stock Exchange], [Securities and Exchange Commission] and [Department of Justice] investigations, 26 shareholder lawsuits, six [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] and six derivatives all over the same time. And it was a tremendous amount of discovery and very short turnaround. Working for a company called Electronic Data Systems, the vast majority of our information, even back then, was electronic. So we quickly had to come up with the tools and attorneys we would use to review that information.
In your view, do you think the evolution of the e-discovery industry has been slow?
I don't. I think it's been very quick. If I look at when I began practicing law—I'm a 20-year attorney—everything was on paper, and it used to go to warehouses. In 20 years, in less than a generation of lawyers, we've completely changed the practice of discovery.
Being an e-discovery expert, what are your thoughts on the most recent Sedona Principles?
So I was at the Sedona Conference last March. We talked about basically the role of technology and what it's doing for us. It's still all about proportionality. It's still all about finding the best and most efficient way forward, and I think that there are some of the very best legal minds in the community that are working on these principles. And they're doing a great job.
What about the next iteration of what's in legal tech?
It's all about AI right now, about the analytics, about, 'How can we take this huge corpus of information and drill down to find what we need for these cases?' And it's just getting those analytics, those tools to be better and faster.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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