Document Review - Resource Considerations
I am a member of a couple of working groups related to the Electronic Discovery Reference Model. One is an ongoing project trying to keep up with changing standards in document review. I’m supposed to come up with language describing recent trends in resource considerations.
Basically, this is going to be a description of issues and trends in management, human resources and physical resources as they relate to document review.
Many of the members of EDRM are vendors and/or law firm representatives. I am one of few individual members, and I want to represent the interests of the contract attorney in the process. One thing that I really want to hit on is to bring the contract attorney perspective to the process. If you check out the current version of what the EDRM has related to this issue, you can see that it’s put together pretty much from the perspective of the large law firm and the large vendor.
As an example, the first paragraph of the Review Environment, Communication and Technical Support section states:
Depending on the needs of the case, a centralized location for the review may be set-up. It is equally acceptable for the review team to work remotely or within their individual offices although this may require a greater need for internal communication protocols. In any case, the review environment should be well lit, be free of distracting outside noise, and be positioned so that no unrelated foot traffic runs through the area.
If this fits your document review situation (toss up whether you use your individual office or work in the same room with the other attorneys) then I guess I don’t need much additional input. If, however, your review experience was a little different (foot traffic, insect traffic, no windows, smells, crowding, uncomfortable chairs….) then please give it some thought and let me know what you think should be a part of a standard set of considerations when putting a document review together.
February 27th, 2009 at 18:27
If the optimal conditions cannot be maintained, please brief those persons sharing the workspace to show respect for the workspace and the workers. That is, any necessary lawyers/paralegals sharing that space, through need for files, copiers, etc., should respect the professionalism of the document reviewers and their need for concentration.
February 28th, 2009 at 01:19
The excerpt you quoted included this:
“It is equally acceptable for the review team to work remotely or within their individual offices although this may require a greater need for internal communication protocols.”
What exactly does “remotely” mean here? Is this just “remote” within a law firm’s building, or does it include people working from their own homes or offices in various cities? Are there “internal communication protocols” that would allow the latter to be done with adequate security?
February 28th, 2009 at 07:32
DVW - I think that remotely here meant at a central location in the firm, but I agree that remotely has to include the possible option of working from home or somewhere else to add the benefit of reduced commuting, laundry, etc. It is possible to do, and I’ve worked a few at home reviews. They’re great with the right group of reviewers. The communication and oversight has to be on a different level, though. We’ve used weekly in person meetings and mail-lists for substantive discussions among the reviewers. Thanks, DVW.
Also, Tenessee Traveller, I agree that Respect towards the reviewers needs to be built into the process in a variety of ways. One way is direct communication like you mention, others include lighting, workspaces with windows, access to internet and putting one of those fancy pieces of art the firm cares so much about in the room.</p></p>
March 4th, 2009 at 13:36
Generally, I feel the advantages of having the review team in one central area are mostly realized in the first couple of weeks of a new project. As everyone is getting up to speed, learning how to use the tools, asking lots of questions, identifying any weaknesses or inconsistencies in the review protocols, the communication and orientation process is greatly enhanced by being able to overhear what is being said around the room. After that time, however, when everyone settles into a routine and less and less new information is being disseminated, there is a point of diminishing returns to having everyone clustered together in one big area. Noise from routine chit chat can become a productivity reducing irritant. The “throat clearer” (there’s always at least one) will start to wear on some people’s nerves. The morning’s banana peels become the afternoon’s toxic fumes, etc.
The three “BIG C’s” of document review are really the underlying justifications for a centralized facility: Communication, Control and Consistency. The longer a project continues, however, the more options become available to achieve these goals without mandating a central location for the review.
March 21st, 2010 at 16:28
I was just browsing for cool articles to read when I came across your blogsite. I enjoyed reading and learning from your article.