Confer with Legal Counsel

The lawyer should at least document the following: For example, if a case involves 10 employees, records should not be requested for another 100 employees. If backup tapes are not needed for the case, the lawyer should not fight for it. If the lawyer decides to fight for such information, he should be willing to pay if the other party uses the same tough tactic and the judge loses patience with both parties. Finally, the judge ordered both parties to return to the drawing board to meet, deliberate and submit a search and review protocol for approval. Unable to reach an agreement, the counterparties submitted different proposals. The judge, who was obviously frustrated at having to act as an arbitrator, called both parties` proposals “flawed” and imposed his own protocol. Finally, consult the other party on how the data should be created. Should we prioritize a certain type of data? Be sure to cover the metadata that needs to be created, the format in which documents should be reviewed, and the unique considerations associated with different formats. [7] In the case of a represented organization, this rule prohibits communication with any part of the organization that regularly monitors, directs or consults or is authorized to engage the organization in connection with the matter, or whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be attributed to the organization for civil or criminal purposes. The consent of the organization`s lawyer is not required to communicate with a former elector. If a part of the organization is represented in the case by its own lawyer, that lawyer`s consent to a notice is sufficient for the purposes of this rule.

Compare Rule 3.4(f). When communicating with a current or former part of an organization, a lawyer cannot use methods to obtain evidence that violates the legal rights of the organization. See Article 4.4. Consult with audiovisual and acoustic consultants to determine project design requirements. Failure to hold a meeting and conference may result in sanctions or the court`s refusal to rule on motions you submit if the matter should have been dealt with first at a meeting and conference. Working with opposing lawyers, not against them, is uncharted territory for many lawyers. They are used to a contradictory approach to e-discovery. Meet and Confer is a very important legal concept.

Often, it`s important to have a lawyer on the other side, and a good lawyer is even more important. It may be counterintuitive, but I`ll explain why. Opposition lawyers must work together – even in a highly contentious and contentious case – to move the case forward. Despite their opponents, opposing lawyers must work together to resolve issues that could be resolved before going to the judge. In fact, it is a mandatory legal obligation. The lawyer should use the meeting and conference process to control the discovery from a cost and case perspective. Logic dictates justfensibility that controls key factors of discovery, such as conservation, production, etc., associated with processes and scope. It is also important to consider the legal lock: when it was issued, its current state, and the processes in place to ensure compliance. In today`s business world, many companies outsource some or all of the IT functions, such as hosting and managing the messaging system.

Therefore, the legal counsel must also work closely with these third-party providers. The lawyer must record everything in writing and report to the court everything that has been discussed by the parties and the opposing lawyer. This will prove that the processes used have been well thought out and that there will be no ambiguity afterwards. When you sit down with an opposing lawyer, your common goal is to establish an ESI (Electronically Stored Information) protocol for a case. There is no time for confrontation; Instead, you want clarification on the material you`ll be looking for, its format, and the appropriate conservation efforts you want to use. This is the time to discuss the scope of eDiscovery for your case and consider the options available to reduce the associated costs. You can ask the opposing lawyer if they are open to using early case assessment tools to refine the search, or if there are methods to deduplicate the data before production. Some lawyers are tempted to skip the meeting and counselling because they think it will save them time or not be necessary for their case. On the contrary, these procedural requirements are indeed a useful way to streamline the eDiscovery process and ensure compliance in a case. [8] The prohibition on communicating with a represented person applies only in cases where the lawyer knows that the person is actually represented in the matter to be discussed.

This means that the lawyer has real knowledge of the representation; but this real knowledge can be derived from circumstances. See Article 1.0(f). Thus, the lawyer cannot escape the obligation to obtain the consent of a lawyer by turning a blind eye to the obvious. Consult with departmental IT representatives and consultants to review the technology requirements of the project. Prior to the first meeting and consultation, the consultant must have a working knowledge of the client`s data sources and retention policies. This knowledge can include the following: In reality, today`s eDiscovery issues are so complicated that the meeting and conference call can span multiple meetings or conference calls. During the stress of litigation and the rush to meet deadlines, it can be tempting for a lawyer to get started and understand eDiscovery during the course of the case. However, by documenting and proving the processes used during eDiscovery, the lawyer can address potential concerns that the actions taken were not appropriate or sufficient. It also involves familiarizing yourself with the customer`s IT environment as quickly as possible.

This should also include discussions with key IT and business stakeholders. The court rejected this argument and ordered Facebook to meet and deliberate, ruling that “the clear direction of the rules, case law and comments related to the investigation suggests that `communication between lawyers is essential to the success of an eDiscovery process.`” E-discovery should not be used as a stick, but as a way to achieve the best result for the customer. With the right approaches and information, both parties can use the meeting and conference to achieve a fair, fast and cost-effective legal dispute. A thorough meeting and conference process can help avoid these types of situations. The lawyer should also be able to understand the value of the case, allowing him or her to make strategic decisions about whether to reach an early agreement or go to court. The meeting and conference can also help solve cost transfer problems. While a general mentality towards Meet and Confers is that they are a hurdle to overcome, they are actually a chance to reduce your discovery costs and overall litigation time. In addition, they can be a beneficial opportunity to reduce the complexity and uncertainty surrounding eDiscovery.