I've written a journal entry at eDiscoveryJournal that details my analysis of the Iron Mountain acquisition of Mimosa Systems.  Check it out at http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2010/02/iron-mountain-moves-into-software-and-buys-mimosa-systems/

There was a nice article in Mass High Tech today about how eDiscovery requires law firms to put technology in place to support their clients.  The best quote in the article was that "It’s a full time job to handle all data relative to e-discovery now."  I like attorneys are realizing just how important it is to manage information well.  In fact, Ropes and Gray has a dedicated eDiscovery attorney - Shannon Capone Kirk.  

Five years ago, many of the law firm types that I spoke with were threatened by eDiscovery technology that could allow clients to take much of the eDiscovery process in house.  Fact is, this shift meant less data for firms to review - and less revenue.  Thankfully, I hear that argument less and less now.  The good law firms recognize the need to be customer-centric.  

Many organizations ask me what the role of their law firm should be within the eDiscovery realm.  I say that a law firm should be a strategic advisor. Most have experience with eDiscovery and many litigation support managers that can advise on the right tools and solution sets.  Law firms have relationships with service providers.  Law firms have review and case management technologies that organizations need to get their data into. So, work closely with your law firm when selecting a solution, but don't ask your law firm to source it for you.

I'm doing some further research around the roles that law firms play with corporate clients when it comes to eDiscovery.  Email me with your thoughts - I'm always interested to learn more and hear different views.

Thanks!

If Microsoft, as rumored, were to buy Autonomy, there would be a seismic ripple felt through eDiscovery-related markets.  First, Microsoft would own two of the leading search products in the market (Autonomy and FAST).  Second, Microsoft would have applications to provide value on top of a SharePoint infrastructure:

 - iManage document management – which has a huge law firm and corporate legal installed base
- Meridio records management – which just so happened to be developed to provide RM functionality for SharePoint environment
- Cardiff BPM – which would give Microsoft advanced process management capabilities (all the better to build out more eDiscovery workflow, for say, legal holds?? )
- ZANTAZ archiving – which will enhance the archiving that will be native to Exchange 2010; the on-premise EAS will give Microsoft its own offering for the first time and the hosted Digital Safe will add to the Frontbridge offering Microsoft already has

And – scarily enough – that is just a smattering of the value that Autonomy would bring to Microsoft.  Not hard to see why the rumor mill has Microsoft paying a 75% premium for the Cambridge, UK-based company.

To any eDiscovery vendors out there I say, “be afraid...be very afraid.”  If Microsoft moves into the market, the following players have a lot to lose:


- Email archiving vendors – if Microsoft offers archiving natively, it almost certainly spells the beginning of the end for pure-play arching vendors; what value will they offer beyond what Microsoft will certainly offer for much less $$$? 
- eDiscovery collection vendors – Microsoft will be able to offer an infrastructure for proactive eDiscovery management; customers won’t need specialized tools to collect information in the wild (or at least won’t need them as much)…and Autonomy can offer some of the functionality necessary for managing the wild already.
- Early Case Assessment and legal hold vendors – Microsoft can turn Autonomy’s Introspect and Aungate offerings into enterprise-grade ECA and legal hold application.
- eDiscovery service providers – if customers can deploy the combined Microsoft / Autonomy product set successfully (a big if, I know), there will be less data to be processed by these service bureaus…and Microsoft will look to offer its own hosted review in the cloud. 

Interestingly, this rumor is getting almost zero play in the US, but has been discussed overseas.  I do think there would be potential anti-competitive implications, but nothing that couldn’t be overcome.

If this happens, watch out world!

I've ranted a good deal about the "head in the sand" attitude that many organizations take when it comes to eDiscovery.  Even with the Amendments to the FRCPs (which squarely place the burden on organizations to be able to find and manage electronically stored information), there are an inordinate amount that simply ignore the requirement and then play dumb.  There are organizations that felt protected because they were rarely in federal court.  Well...now more and more states are adopting similar eDiscovery rules.  Really?  Didn't see that coming (insert copious amounts of sarcasm here).


The fact is that technology exists to find and manage all types of electronically stored information.  Ignorance = sanctions.  Ignorance = huge processing and review costs.  Ignorance is unacceptable.  The call to action is clear - get your information management house in order.  I know - it's not easy; information management is a long-term initiative with multiple players (IT, legal, information workers) and tons of change management.  But, it's gotten tenable.  It's possible to put in place mechanisms for more efficient information collection, legal hold, and early case assessment that provide fast ROI.  It's also possible to make long-term plans for better information management infrastructure and understand how to make the business case for it.


I hope that we don't need a daily news story to reinforce the fact that deploying eDiscovery technology is a no-brainer.  In the meantime, I'll keep my eyes on the headlines...let me know what you think.

The FRCP Amendments that essentially put the issue of eDiscovery on the map in a big way have been in effect for almost three years; so why are most organizations so ignorant about eDiscovery?  I know it's hard to effect change; I know it's hard to implement the infrastructure for information management; I know that eDiscovery tools are relatively new.  Still, the attitude toward eDiscovery smells all to familiar.


I was talking with a high-ranking member of a corporate legal department who said, "Why on earth would I want to implement a platform that would make eDiscovery easier and more efficient?  Once I do that, I'm exposed - any other party can force me to discover anything and I'll have no way to argue against doing it."


I ran this past a few friends in the legal community and all of them could sympathize.  From one POV, I suppose I can sympathize, too.  But, c'mon!  This is such a head-in-the-sand attitude.  This smells just like the attitude that brought use Enron and banking collapse.  Let's not have history repeat itself. It is just plain wrong to not implement tools that make eDiscovery easier.  The FRCPs plainly put the burden on companies to find and manage their information.  I would hate to be this legal department member in 5 years trying to justify this attitude.  Frankly, it's the kind of attitude that will eventually have someone serving time in a minimum-security prison.


Maybe I'm a little jaded, but I'd love your feedback on this to make sure I'm not alone in my thinking here.  Comment away!

I've been hearing a lot about the challenges that SharePoint will create for eDiscovery.  I say "will create" because while SharePoint content is discoverable and has come up in many cases, the true issues with collecting it have not gotten much press.  Most collection tools are only able to grab SharePoint document libraries (as they are stored on file systems).  However, there are many more content types other than document libraries (e.g. calendar items, task lists, workflows, etc).  It's only a matter of time before the legal community figures out the value of these other content items.

In my hometown of Boston, eDiscovery is suddenly a hot topic – and not just because of the launch of Murphy Insights ;-)  The upcoming mayoral election may ride on email mismanagement by one of the mayor’s top aides.  The story shines the light back onto the fact that all organizations need to monitor and manage how their employees use information.  Let’s face it - people are going to do what they want to do with the tools and information at their fingertips.  It’s the job of every organization to ensure that information usage is monitored and managed.  That means creating acceptable use policies…and actually enforcing those policies.  That means deploying technology that can monitor, manage, and find the information.

In the case of the City of Boston, it seems to me that something as simple as email archiving could have prevented this whole problem.  And now, the taxpayers (yours truly included) will pay for forensic investigators to come in and find all the emails that could’ve been found with one click of a button had the City prepared well.  It’s sickening.

Let me know what you think.

One of the biggest problems in the eDiscovery space is the lack of good, granular data about spending, best practices, and roles and responsibilities.  Murphy Insights was created specifically to address that problem, so we are happy to announce that our first survey is underway.  Respondents will be entered into a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card.  It's a short, 10 question survey and should take only 5 minutes to respond to.  Please forward this to colleagues and friends - the more the merrier.


Find the survey here.


Thanks!!