Peddlers or Partners?

The parallel universe (or universes) concept is fascinating. In this science-fictiony theory, our universe is not alone, but exists among other similar universes that are nearly identical. But nearly is the operative word.

As no two human beings are completely identical ' beneath every Big Mac bun nestles small disc-like pickle portions rotated at a slightly different degree ' so our supposed almost-identical universes exist alongside one another in almost perfect harmony.

Of course, the allure of a parallel universe, as any true Star Trek fan knows without prompting ' and as most other people can imagine ' is the interesting contradictions that could materialize into view. The small inconsistencies that may not be logical, or even possible, in our universe may be the norm in parallel universes.

In our parallel universe, for instance, Madonna might be an insurance agent, frogs might fly and the sun might rise in the west and turn purple at noon. But everything else would be a mirror image of our reality ' everything except that at least some of the time, our eerie twin world would boast an harmonious alliance between electronic discovery vendors and their attorneys/litigation-support professional clients.

This professional bliss among e-discovery service providers and clients, as well as their clients' clients, would manifest itself as e-evidence being requested, obtained, processed, produced and presented at trial in a nearly flawless, and highly effective, manner.

But, as service providers and attorneys know, in our normal world ' this imperfect universe without warp drive, transporters and advanced-intelligence nonhumans working as a well organized, highly effective partnership ' there often exists a somewhat strained relationship between service providers and their attorney and litigation-support client managers.

Indeed, much as in the courtroom, service providers and clients often find themselves struggling with an adversarial dynamic, which, of course, is counter-productive to both partners and their mutual interests, and entirely avoidable.

Back To Nirvana

While star ships and spacemen may jet about between matter and antimatter in parallel universes (or just in authors' imaginations), we can easily draw on examples of high-stakes, high-skill cooperation in our actual, working ' though nonetheless interesting ' here-and-now domain.

Consider seasoned NASCAR racer Scott Riggs and his racing team partners. Riggs counts on Valvoline engine lubricants to get him to that finish line in record time. He waves the Valvoline flag and Valvoline returns the favor by waving the Scott Riggs (eg, Chevrolet) flag. Valvoline smooths to lightning speed his dash around the practice track, in the pit and during the qualifying laps. It is hard to distinguish the endeavor and enthusiasm between the Valvoline folks and Riggs and his team. Riggs enthusiastically puts new Valvoline products through their paces and offers the research and development folks his input. Riggs understands that his own success is Valvoline's success, and as goes the smooth unified working of a well-maintained competition clutch and gear-shift shaft, Valvoline knows vice-versa.

This alliance between client and customer represents a mutually beneficial partnership. In the end, Riggs and Valvoline are winners.

Here's the checkered flag in this sprint of reason: We litigation-support folks and attorneys could stand to get a bit of grease under our fingernails and, in doing so, learn a little from the NASCAR folks and their automotive-industry partners.

Finger Pointing and Searching The Mirror

In our actual universe, few law firms, government legal offices and in-house corporate counsel can point to many victory laps that were the result of a true client-customer alliance. Unfortunately, more often than not, lack of communication and collaboration yield a sub-par litigation-support effort.

This lacking may stem from a certain level of mutual mistrust, or a belief that the goals of the e-evidence provider clash with those of the litigator and his or her clients.

Both sides of the team and pit crew have some questions to ponder in their race to success. Consider:

• Which side is responsible for fostering such counterproductive notions?
• Is it the service provider that is suspected of viewing the client as just another prospect that may fill that looming monthly quota?
• Is it the client who deems the electronic-evidence service provider as an aggressive salesperson looking out for her or his own interests?
• In order to keep our actual universe in a working order that fits the prescriptions of modern physics, and successful e-discovery and litigation, we need to face up to some facts ' chief among them that two parties that truly need each other's skills, trust and respect to bring about desired results must put aside differences and focus on the goal.

Crossing The Universal Divide

How can we inhabitants of our own everyday world adopt the success of the parallel universe of e-discovery service provider and client collaboration?

True to the concept of collaboration, let us suggest that both parties take some of the following initiatives, each one either party would normally consider on its own in a process aimed at building understanding, respect, cooperation and success. In that spirit, we offer these 10 steps to successful partnerships, and successful litigation process.

1. Clients shouldn't hesitate to ask service providers to get involved in the initial strategic planning of a digital-evidence strategy. Don't wait until the discovery-cutoff deadlines tighten; instead, bring your service provider in from the get-go. After all, if counsel is in the midst of analyzing the scope, strategy and goals of e-discovery, what better resource is there than the professional who confronts these same issues daily and, with that experience, knows what works and what doesn't.

2. Service providers should query clients and try to understand their particular strategic goals and pricing considerations. Clients should query service providers on vendor philosophies, practices, prices and other key considerations.

3. Both parties should discuss any potential legal or evidentiary obstacles that may preclude admission of favorable evidence or compel inclusion of damaging evidence.

4. Service providers and the client(s) must make a concerted effort to get to know each other. The service provider should invite key members of the client's outfit to tour the provider's offices, and attend seminars and workshops. Legal counsel may want to invite the service provider to firm functions such as retreats and continuing legal education presentations. Even more important ' if feasible ' the legal professionals and e-discovery professionals should get to know each other as individuals. A lunch or Friday afternoon mingling sessions can turn a slightly strained quasi-adversarial relationship into a friendship.

5. Neither party should fear looking at things differently ' ie, thinking outside the box. This might result in clients asking service providers to engage in some unconventional projects, and in clients doing the same. Service providers have tremendous resources at their disposal in the way of access to legal authorities including e-discovery and industry-specific experts who may be available to advocate for the client in a hotly contested e-discovery dispute. Clients can ask their service providers to undertake some of these research or consultative endeavors.

6. Service providers should be sure to address organizational concerns with the client. Service providers, for instance, should understand counsel's retention policies, the ability to restore backup archival data loading and transformation tapes, and existing methods of communication between counsel and client.

7. Both partners should assign multiple contact people to the matter at hand. A sales representative, litigation-support manager, partner overseeing the litigation and customer-support representative will be key; however, additional players should be identified and brought on board so that there is little chance for a communication blackout. Client executives, experts, litigation-support consultants and trainers, head paralegals, associates and IT staff at the law firm and vendor site need to get acquainted with one another. Contact information should be swapped and weekend contact numbers need to be exchanged.

8. A service provider must quickly run a conflict-of-interest check. But keep in mind that even if the service provider uncovers a conflict, it's not necessarily a death blow to a partnership. The service provider may exclude itself from that particular litigation altogether (and remain in touch with the client, and be ready to continue a more active, hands-on partnership on the next case). The service provider could also attempt to form a permeable barrier that would allow engaging the project if the service provider can ensure that no entity (person or machine) at the provider's site that would work on the new matter is also working on the conflicting one.

9. Don't be afraid to admit fallibility. Like any other partners (spouses, law partners, business partners) there will be snags and tough times. Understand this truism in advance, and expect a few roadblocks along the way ' and plan for them occurring and how to resolve them, with these steps among the possible solutions. Anything less will be setting everyone involved up for disappointment.

10. Share success. A successful result from combined forces and efforts of a law firm and an e-discovery service provider is a testament to the capabilities and determination of each partner. Celebrate success and, above all, the lasting partnership that brought it about.

Then Pat Yourself On The Back and Take The Lead

This seemingly “motherhood and apple pie” discussion is one that needs to be oversimplified at the outset. Yes, it is crucial that the service provider focuses on quality of output ' there is no replacement for that. However, it is important to remember that in a service relationship, the client has a big part to play in ensuring a successful outcome. Opening the communication channels and invoking honesty and transparency as the foundation for communication is the best first step.

Striving for a true collaborative partnership by implementing the suggestions in this article will let e-discovery teams ' partnerships ' find unity within your own, real-world universe, while putting your team in the litigation pole position.

The parallel universe (or universes) concept is fascinating. In this science-fictiony theory, our universe is not alone, but exists among other similar universes that are nearly identical. But nearly is the operative word.

As no two human beings are completely identical ' beneath every Big Mac bun nestles small disc-like pickle portions rotated at a slightly different degree ' so our supposed almost-identical universes exist alongside one another in almost perfect harmony.

Of course, the allure of a parallel universe, as any true Star Trek fan knows without prompting ' and as most other people can imagine ' is the interesting contradictions that could materialize into view. The small inconsistencies that may not be logical, or even possible, in our universe may be the norm in parallel universes.

In our parallel universe, for instance, Madonna might be an insurance agent, frogs might fly and the sun might rise in the west and turn purple at noon. But everything else would be a mirror image of our reality ' everything except that at least some of the time, our eerie twin world would boast an harmonious alliance between electronic discovery vendors and their attorneys/litigation-support professional clients.

This professional bliss among e-discovery service providers and clients, as well as their clients' clients, would manifest itself as e-evidence being requested, obtained, processed, produced and presented at trial in a nearly flawless, and highly effective, manner.

But, as service providers and attorneys know, in our normal world ' this imperfect universe without warp drive, transporters and advanced-intelligence nonhumans working as a well organized, highly effective partnership ' there often exists a somewhat strained relationship between service providers and their attorney and litigation-support client managers.

Indeed, much as in the courtroom, service providers and clients often find themselves struggling with an adversarial dynamic, which, of course, is counter-productive to both partners and their mutual interests, and entirely avoidable.

Back To Nirvana

While star ships and spacemen may jet about between matter and antimatter in parallel universes (or just in authors' imaginations), we can easily draw on examples of high-stakes, high-skill cooperation in our actual, working ' though nonetheless interesting ' here-and-now domain.

Consider seasoned NASCAR racer Scott Riggs and his racing team partners. Riggs counts on Valvoline engine lubricants to get him to that finish line in record time. He waves the Valvoline flag and Valvoline returns the favor by waving the Scott Riggs (eg, Chevrolet) flag. Valvoline smooths to lightning speed his dash around the practice track, in the pit and during the qualifying laps. It is hard to distinguish the endeavor and enthusiasm between the Valvoline folks and Riggs and his team. Riggs enthusiastically puts new Valvoline products through their paces and offers the research and development folks his input. Riggs understands that his own success is Valvoline's success, and as goes the smooth unified working of a well-maintained competition clutch and gear-shift shaft, Valvoline knows vice-versa.

This alliance between client and customer represents a mutually beneficial partnership. In the end, Riggs and Valvoline are winners.

Here's the checkered flag in this sprint of reason: We litigation-support folks and attorneys could stand to get a bit of grease under our fingernails and, in doing so, learn a little from the NASCAR folks and their automotive-industry partners.

Finger Pointing and Searching The Mirror

In our actual universe, few law firms, government legal offices and in-house corporate counsel can point to many victory laps that were the result of a true client-customer alliance. Unfortunately, more often than not, lack of communication and collaboration yield a sub-par litigation-support effort.

This lacking may stem from a certain level of mutual mistrust, or a belief that the goals of the e-evidence provider clash with those of the litigator and his or her clients.

Both sides of the team and pit crew have some questions to ponder in their race to success. Consider:

• Which side is responsible for fostering such counterproductive notions?
• Is it the service provider that is suspected of viewing the client as just another prospect that may fill that looming monthly quota?
• Is it the client who deems the electronic-evidence service provider as an aggressive salesperson looking out for her or his own interests?
• In order to keep our actual universe in a working order that fits the prescriptions of modern physics, and successful e-discovery and litigation, we need to face up to some facts ' chief among them that two parties that truly need each other's skills, trust and respect to bring about desired results must put aside differences and focus on the goal.

Crossing The Universal Divide

How can we inhabitants of our own everyday world adopt the success of the parallel universe of e-discovery service provider and client collaboration?

True to the concept of collaboration, let us suggest that both parties take some of the following initiatives, each one either party would normally consider on its own in a process aimed at building understanding, respect, cooperation and success. In that spirit, we offer these 10 steps to successful partnerships, and successful litigation process.

1. Clients shouldn't hesitate to ask service providers to get involved in the initial strategic planning of a digital-evidence strategy. Don't wait until the discovery-cutoff deadlines tighten; instead, bring your service provider in from the get-go. After all, if counsel is in the midst of analyzing the scope, strategy and goals of e-discovery, what better resource is there than the professional who confronts these same issues daily and, with that experience, knows what works and what doesn't.

2. Service providers should query clients and try to understand their particular strategic goals and pricing considerations. Clients should query service providers on vendor philosophies, practices, prices and other key considerations.

3. Both parties should discuss any potential legal or evidentiary obstacles that may preclude admission of favorable evidence or compel inclusion of damaging evidence.

4. Service providers and the client(s) must make a concerted effort to get to know each other. The service provider should invite key members of the client's outfit to tour the provider's offices, and attend seminars and workshops. Legal counsel may want to invite the service provider to firm functions such as retreats and continuing legal education presentations. Even more important ' if feasible ' the legal professionals and e-discovery professionals should get to know each other as individuals. A lunch or Friday afternoon mingling sessions can turn a slightly strained quasi-adversarial relationship into a friendship.

5. Neither party should fear looking at things differently ' ie, thinking outside the box. This might result in clients asking service providers to engage in some unconventional projects, and in clients doing the same. Service providers have tremendous resources at their disposal in the way of access to legal authorities including e-discovery and industry-specific experts who may be available to advocate for the client in a hotly contested e-discovery dispute. Clients can ask their service providers to undertake some of these research or consultative endeavors.

6. Service providers should be sure to address organizational concerns with the client. Service providers, for instance, should understand counsel's retention policies, the ability to restore backup archival data loading and transformation tapes, and existing methods of communication between counsel and client.

7. Both partners should assign multiple contact people to the matter at hand. A sales representative, litigation-support manager, partner overseeing the litigation and customer-support representative will be key; however, additional players should be identified and brought on board so that there is little chance for a communication blackout. Client executives, experts, litigation-support consultants and trainers, head paralegals, associates and IT staff at the law firm and vendor site need to get acquainted with one another. Contact information should be swapped and weekend contact numbers need to be exchanged.

8. A service provider must quickly run a conflict-of-interest check. But keep in mind that even if the service provider uncovers a conflict, it's not necessarily a death blow to a partnership. The service provider may exclude itself from that particular litigation altogether (and remain in touch with the client, and be ready to continue a more active, hands-on partnership on the next case). The service provider could also attempt to form a permeable barrier that would allow engaging the project if the service provider can ensure that no entity (person or machine) at the provider's site that would work on the new matter is also working on the conflicting one.

9. Don't be afraid to admit fallibility. Like any other partners (spouses, law partners, business partners) there will be snags and tough times. Understand this truism in advance, and expect a few roadblocks along the way ' and plan for them occurring and how to resolve them, with these steps among the possible solutions. Anything less will be setting everyone involved up for disappointment.

10. Share success. A successful result from combined forces and efforts of a law firm and an e-discovery service provider is a testament to the capabilities and determination of each partner. Celebrate success and, above all, the lasting partnership that brought it about.

Then Pat Yourself On The Back and Take The Lead

This seemingly “motherhood and apple pie” discussion is one that needs to be oversimplified at the outset. Yes, it is crucial that the service provider focuses on quality of output ' there is no replacement for that. However, it is important to remember that in a service relationship, the client has a big part to play in ensuring a successful outcome. Opening the communication channels and invoking honesty and transparency as the foundation for communication is the best first step.

Striving for a true collaborative partnership by implementing the suggestions in this article will let e-discovery teams ' partnerships ' find unity within your own, real-world universe, while putting your team in the litigation pole position.