E-Discovery Competence of Counsel Criticized in Sanctions Decision
In their Federal E-Discovery column, H. Christopher Boehning and Daniel J. Toal of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison discuss an Ethics Opinion of the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct of the State Bar of California, and how it was cited in a recent federal decision from California that severely criticized and imposed sanctions against counsel and client for discovery misconduct.
October 05, 2015 at 03:24 PM
11 minute read
In October 2015, we find ourselves 12 years post-Zubulake, over a decade since the publication of The Sedona Principles, nine years after the first round of e-discovery-specific amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), and two months from the second round of such amendments. Federal and state decisions have regularly pilloried parties for e-discovery misconduct, many with headline-generating sanctions against clients and their counsel. Practitioners on both sides of the “v” along with judges, service providers, and experts, regularly opine at seminars, during conferences, and online about best practices for e-discovery, with a focus on cooperation by and competence of counsel. Yet still, after all this, we find ourselves faced with the reality that—outside of what has been called the “Sedona Bubble”—these goals are, perhaps surprisingly, merely aspirational.
Perhaps recognizing this reality, last year the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct of the State Bar of California proposed, and in June of this year approved, a formal ethics opinion concerning the ethical obligations of the members of that bar in relation to e-discovery competence. This opinion was cited in a recent federal decision from California that severely criticized and imposed sanctions against counsel and client for discovery misconduct and that serves as a case study of the e-discovery-related responsibility of counsel in modern litigation practice.
E-Discovery Competence Opinion
“What are an attorney's ethical duties in the handling of discovery of electronically stored information?”1 This is the question at issue in the California State Bar's recent Formal Opinion No. 2015-193 (Opinion), which focuses on “competent” lawyering as it relates to e-discovery—discovery of electronically stored information (ESI).2 While the Opinion is advisory only, and then only with respect to members of the California Bar, it still reaches key conclusions that practitioners across jurisdictions should take to heart.
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.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2NYC Mayor Eric Adams Indicted on Public Corruption Allegations
- 3'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 4Conduct Board Urges 'Swift and Severe Punishment' for Phila. Judge's Facebook Posts
- 5What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
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