Technology for Meaningful Legal Collaboration

Current discussions of electronic discovery and legal technology often focus on strategies for managing large volumes of data as it is funneled through different phases of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). The goal: to produce responsive documents in the fastest and most cost-effective manner possible. Yet an important part of the discovery process ' case analysis and legal strategy ' has been a niche left unaddressed by traditional technologies. Existing “big data” technology is very good at performing thousands of discrete operations on data at a massive scale, but there are few tools in today's marketplace designed to facilitate the unique ways legal professionals think and interact as they try to understand the facts of a case and to develop an effective strategy.

My law firm, Bartlit Beck, discovered a tool that enhanced its existing workflow for case analysis by allowing attorneys to work and collaborate more efficiently. This workflow includes activities like highlighting, underlining and attaching notes to key passages, or engaging in dynamic group discussions about pieces of evidence or annotations with particular relevance to case strategy. It also includes bookmarking and grouping content that pertains to a particular legal issue (or witness or date) with color-coded tags and custom binders for quick and easy retrieval. Most legal professionals analyze cases and build arguments in this manner ' by finding connections and stringing together a series of documents, passages, research, testimony and other pieces of evidence that begin to tell a story. Such activities typically take place at the nexus of case management: e-discovery and litigation support.

At this crucial nexus point, ideas and insights about the most pertinent details of a case need to be cohered into strategy. Legal professionals must work closely together to interpret and analyze information and develop a case based on what they've learned. Analysis may involve a formal early case assessment (ECA) to identify key strengths and weaknesses that could inform important decisions down the road ' e.g., whether to settle, arbitrate, or go to trial.

The Selection Process

Bartlit Beck had already used a variety of mainstream tools for identifying, preserving, collecting, processing, reviewing and producing information housed in large databases powered by e-discovery platforms. What we lacked was the equivalent of a secure online “war room” where team members could easily access the most important case content to prepare for depositions, motion practice and ECA. We sought an electronic version of a “whiteboard” that could capture ongoing dialogue and interpretations of the relationships among key documents, testimony and research. And, because today's legal professionals are mobile and spend much of their time working online, any new tool had to be able to securely accommodate multiple devices, and its users needed to be able to interact easily and efficiently at all times.

In an example of how legal team members at Bartlit Beck often share insights, let's say that a team has identified 10 key case documents that have clear relationships to each other. The documents are sent by e-mail to four lawyers, each of whom now saves each document to their hard drive for their exclusive use. One lawyer makes a note and sends out another e-mail containing the marked up document. Other lawyers make their own notes and send out their own marked up versions. Version control soon becomes a potential problem: Which copy of each of the 10 original documents is the most current? What comments have been resolved, which are pending, which notes will impact strategy?

One solution is to use our document management software., but this would eliminate the possibility of several individuals looking at the same document or a series of documents simultaneously and having a meaningful conversation that could lead to greater insight. Generally, limitations of traditional document management software also inhibit the ability to link documents and parts of documents directly to each other. To illustrate, you might find yourself looking at a section of one document, discovering it relates to another document, and then needing to find and open that related document to put the passage you're currently reading into context. Doing that might remind you of yet another document or testimony that supports or counters that premise, so once again you have to leave the document you're looking at and find the next, or even have to open yet another program to find the testimony.

With this kind of workflow in mind, Bartlit Beck was seeking a single tool to allow its collaborative legal teams to look at documents electronically, search them, and easily link and organize related documents, passages, notes and annotations from multiple sources. All team members need to have easy access to a given group of documents and be able to create modules supporting outlines, timelines, structured arguments and other strategic functions.

Finding the Right Fit

The different types of software on the market weren't a good fit for the collaborative case analysis workflow that we wanted. We pushed the limits of the software we had, sometimes with unrealistic expectations, and often leading to frustrated teams and extra work. For example, some software accommodated full-text searches of PDFs but lacked the ability to link or share notes. Trial presentation software allows you to organize and view, but lacks full-text search capabilities and are usually loaded only on your laptop or behind your firewall. Online document production tools (i.e., the industry's well-known “big data” platforms) are designed for large-scale e-discovery, predictive coding, and creation of indexes to facilitate advanced sorting, searching and production. Such tools are not, however, designed for team interaction in the manner we needed. While Bartlit Beck has used many of the well-known industry products to perform pieces of the collaborative case analysis workflow, no single tool addressed our needs. Then we discovered Magnum from Opus2 International, a cloud-based service designed specifically for legal teams engaged in reviewing evidence and collaborating on work product for ECA, motion practice, depositions, witness and trial preparation, and for many other non-production processes. This was the only tool we found that combined all the functions necessary for our legal teams to perform substantive work in a truly collaborative way.

With Magnum, we can load our key documents, make links and notations, and engage in real-time discussions about issues without having to fire off multiple e-mails and wait for responses. We can also go into a key document ' a contract for example ' scroll down to the language that's pertinent to the issue we're exploring, and perhaps find a link or series of links, embedded by a colleague, that take you to other documents, or specific parts of documents or transcripts. We can insert our own notes on the fly, or easily create new links to other relevant material. At a glance, we can look at a document and pinpoint exactly where the issue is debated or supported and how that same issue plays out in other evidence. We can even preview links within a split screen panel before clicking on them. All of this takes place within an appealing toolbox interface that functions exactly the same whether you are accessing documents, transcripts, research, work product or other document types within the shared workspace.

Implementation

Generally, we've found the two biggest adoption hurdles for software are cost and ease of use. We typically adopt new tools on a case-by-case basis, and that was true of Magnum, which we acquired for a particular case and client shortly after taking on the case. It was what we call a case rollout, which generally fits our process for adopting new tools. For each case we find the right solution ” a philosophy of “the best tool for the best result.” A different case may not require a lot of collaboration, and we may not need all the functionality of Magnum. Before investing in a new tool, we make sure we can clearly demonstrate its functionality from the beginning. We ask: “Will team members actually use it; is it just more or is it better? Is the cost justified and competitive?” In this case, the answer to both questions was “yes.”

Magnum immediately proved to be the right solution for this case. Interestingly, it wasn't long before we were thinking of other scenarios where we could put it to use. Because the tool is cloud-based (more on that below), we weren't required to undergo a long installation process on local machines, and the hosted workspace was established, loaded, and ready to go within a few days. Workflow improved immediately because attorney work product was always available in a single accessible workspace. Collaborative efforts between our Denver and Chicago-based attorneys became seamless. We reduced or eliminated dozens of duplicative efforts, like copying documents to multiple tools or saving repeatedly to a local drive that didn't allow synchronization. It will continue to be impressive during client meetings, because we eliminate the problem of fumbling for documents.

Cost and Efficiency Advantages of Cloud-Based Technology

Because our firm's model is fixed-fee, results-based and above all, focused on quality and efficiency, cloud-based Magnum is a perfect fit. We use Magnum only when we need it, and we don't pay for it when we're not using it. There is no local software or hardware for IT staff to install, maintain and upgrade. I have often collaborated with Opus2 on design suggestions from an end-user perspective ' because they own, service, and design Magnum entirely, any function improvements can be made without a corporate buy-in. There are virtually no limits to scalability. Magnum is at home with cases involving tens of thousands of documents, but it can also be the perfect solution to very small matters of say, a few thousand documents. Video depositions, which we anticipate using, will be reviewable from anywhere, anytime, without an enterprise purchase of server space and without being hindered by laptop space limitations. Attorneys aren't tied to the office; they can work at home or on the road without losing any functionality and are always working with the real-time data.

Looking Forward

We've already begun to use Magnum for early case assessment and strategy planning. Our next use will be deposition preparation and trial preparation. Now if a client needs us to make an early assessment based on just a few hundred key documents, we have a great way to look at them in a meaningful way and forge links between them quickly and efficiently. We have in mind other uses for Magnum, including:

• Small cases. Cases with 1,000 or fewer documents don't require traditional discovery tools. Magnum has the ability to scale down to manage a small number of documents without sacrificing cost-efficiency.
• Arbitrations. The UK arbitral courts have already reported great success with this tool; U.S. arbitral courts could find it useful as well.
• Preparation of corporate filings. These require the ability to look at a complete set of documents collaboratively and annotate them.
• Transcripts. The advanced tools in Magnum, particularly the “Designations” tools, as well as video links may allow us to replace traditionally licensed, enterprise-based transcript software.

Conclusion

Any time a legal matter ' large or small ' requires that you be able access and view the key documents, search and annotate and categorize them, create links within and between documents, and discuss them collaboratively in real time, Magnum is likely to be the most efficient, cost-effective tool.

Catherine McPherson is a Litigation Management Consultant with Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP in Denver. She has over 30 years of experience in litigation support and has conducted many onsite data collections, both e-data and custodian documents, and has utilized a wide variety of proprietary and Web-based databases to manage discovery and trial evidence. She has conducted many end-user beta tests of software and has consulted on design and functions of vendor software.

Current discussions of electronic discovery and legal technology often focus on strategies for managing large volumes of data as it is funneled through different phases of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). The goal: to produce responsive documents in the fastest and most cost-effective manner possible. Yet an important part of the discovery process ' case analysis and legal strategy ' has been a niche left unaddressed by traditional technologies. Existing “big data” technology is very good at performing thousands of discrete operations on data at a massive scale, but there are few tools in today's marketplace designed to facilitate the unique ways legal professionals think and interact as they try to understand the facts of a case and to develop an effective strategy.

My law firm, Bartlit Beck, discovered a tool that enhanced its existing workflow for case analysis by allowing attorneys to work and collaborate more efficiently. This workflow includes activities like highlighting, underlining and attaching notes to key passages, or engaging in dynamic group discussions about pieces of evidence or annotations with particular relevance to case strategy. It also includes bookmarking and grouping content that pertains to a particular legal issue (or witness or date) with color-coded tags and custom binders for quick and easy retrieval. Most legal professionals analyze cases and build arguments in this manner ' by finding connections and stringing together a series of documents, passages, research, testimony and other pieces of evidence that begin to tell a story. Such activities typically take place at the nexus of case management: e-discovery and litigation support.

At this crucial nexus point, ideas and insights about the most pertinent details of a case need to be cohered into strategy. Legal professionals must work closely together to interpret and analyze information and develop a case based on what they've learned. Analysis may involve a formal early case assessment (ECA) to identify key strengths and weaknesses that could inform important decisions down the road ' e.g., whether to settle, arbitrate, or go to trial.

The Selection Process

Bartlit Beck had already used a variety of mainstream tools for identifying, preserving, collecting, processing, reviewing and producing information housed in large databases powered by e-discovery platforms. What we lacked was the equivalent of a secure online “war room” where team members could easily access the most important case content to prepare for depositions, motion practice and ECA. We sought an electronic version of a “whiteboard” that could capture ongoing dialogue and interpretations of the relationships among key documents, testimony and research. And, because today's legal professionals are mobile and spend much of their time working online, any new tool had to be able to securely accommodate multiple devices, and its users needed to be able to interact easily and efficiently at all times.

In an example of how legal team members at Bartlit Beck often share insights, let's say that a team has identified 10 key case documents that have clear relationships to each other. The documents are sent by e-mail to four lawyers, each of whom now saves each document to their hard drive for their exclusive use. One lawyer makes a note and sends out another e-mail containing the marked up document. Other lawyers make their own notes and send out their own marked up versions. Version control soon becomes a potential problem: Which copy of each of the 10 original documents is the most current? What comments have been resolved, which are pending, which notes will impact strategy?

One solution is to use our document management software., but this would eliminate the possibility of several individuals looking at the same document or a series of documents simultaneously and having a meaningful conversation that could lead to greater insight. Generally, limitations of traditional document management software also inhibit the ability to link documents and parts of documents directly to each other. To illustrate, you might find yourself looking at a section of one document, discovering it relates to another document, and then needing to find and open that related document to put the passage you're currently reading into context. Doing that might remind you of yet another document or testimony that supports or counters that premise, so once again you have to leave the document you're looking at and find the next, or even have to open yet another program to find the testimony.

With this kind of workflow in mind, Bartlit Beck was seeking a single tool to allow its collaborative legal teams to look at documents electronically, search them, and easily link and organize related documents, passages, notes and annotations from multiple sources. All team members need to have easy access to a given group of documents and be able to create modules supporting outlines, timelines, structured arguments and other strategic functions.

Finding the Right Fit

The different types of software on the market weren't a good fit for the collaborative case analysis workflow that we wanted. We pushed the limits of the software we had, sometimes with unrealistic expectations, and often leading to frustrated teams and extra work. For example, some software accommodated full-text searches of PDFs but lacked the ability to link or share notes. Trial presentation software allows you to organize and view, but lacks full-text search capabilities and are usually loaded only on your laptop or behind your firewall. Online document production tools (i.e., the industry's well-known “big data” platforms) are designed for large-scale e-discovery, predictive coding, and creation of indexes to facilitate advanced sorting, searching and production. Such tools are not, however, designed for team interaction in the manner we needed. While Bartlit Beck has used many of the well-known industry products to perform pieces of the collaborative case analysis workflow, no single tool addressed our needs. Then we discovered Magnum from Opus2 International, a cloud-based service designed specifically for legal teams engaged in reviewing evidence and collaborating on work product for ECA, motion practice, depositions, witness and trial preparation, and for many other non-production processes. This was the only tool we found that combined all the functions necessary for our legal teams to perform substantive work in a truly collaborative way.

With Magnum, we can load our key documents, make links and notations, and engage in real-time discussions about issues without having to fire off multiple e-mails and wait for responses. We can also go into a key document ' a contract for example ' scroll down to the language that's pertinent to the issue we're exploring, and perhaps find a link or series of links, embedded by a colleague, that take you to other documents, or specific parts of documents or transcripts. We can insert our own notes on the fly, or easily create new links to other relevant material. At a glance, we can look at a document and pinpoint exactly where the issue is debated or supported and how that same issue plays out in other evidence. We can even preview links within a split screen panel before clicking on them. All of this takes place within an appealing toolbox interface that functions exactly the same whether you are accessing documents, transcripts, research, work product or other document types within the shared workspace.

Implementation

Generally, we've found the two biggest adoption hurdles for software are cost and ease of use. We typically adopt new tools on a case-by-case basis, and that was true of Magnum, which we acquired for a particular case and client shortly after taking on the case. It was what we call a case rollout, which generally fits our process for adopting new tools. For each case we find the right solution ” a philosophy of “the best tool for the best result.” A different case may not require a lot of collaboration, and we may not need all the functionality of Magnum. Before investing in a new tool, we make sure we can clearly demonstrate its functionality from the beginning. We ask: “Will team members actually use it; is it just more or is it better? Is the cost justified and competitive?” In this case, the answer to both questions was “yes.”

Magnum immediately proved to be the right solution for this case. Interestingly, it wasn't long before we were thinking of other scenarios where we could put it to use. Because the tool is cloud-based (more on that below), we weren't required to undergo a long installation process on local machines, and the hosted workspace was established, loaded, and ready to go within a few days. Workflow improved immediately because attorney work product was always available in a single accessible workspace. Collaborative efforts between our Denver and Chicago-based attorneys became seamless. We reduced or eliminated dozens of duplicative efforts, like copying documents to multiple tools or saving repeatedly to a local drive that didn't allow synchronization. It will continue to be impressive during client meetings, because we eliminate the problem of fumbling for documents.

Cost and Efficiency Advantages of Cloud-Based Technology

Because our firm's model is fixed-fee, results-based and above all, focused on quality and efficiency, cloud-based Magnum is a perfect fit. We use Magnum only when we need it, and we don't pay for it when we're not using it. There is no local software or hardware for IT staff to install, maintain and upgrade. I have often collaborated with Opus2 on design suggestions from an end-user perspective ' because they own, service, and design Magnum entirely, any function improvements can be made without a corporate buy-in. There are virtually no limits to scalability. Magnum is at home with cases involving tens of thousands of documents, but it can also be the perfect solution to very small matters of say, a few thousand documents. Video depositions, which we anticipate using, will be reviewable from anywhere, anytime, without an enterprise purchase of server space and without being hindered by laptop space limitations. Attorneys aren't tied to the office; they can work at home or on the road without losing any functionality and are always working with the real-time data.

Looking Forward

We've already begun to use Magnum for early case assessment and strategy planning. Our next use will be deposition preparation and trial preparation. Now if a client needs us to make an early assessment based on just a few hundred key documents, we have a great way to look at them in a meaningful way and forge links between them quickly and efficiently. We have in mind other uses for Magnum, including:

• Small cases. Cases with 1,000 or fewer documents don't require traditional discovery tools. Magnum has the ability to scale down to manage a small number of documents without sacrificing cost-efficiency.
• Arbitrations. The UK arbitral courts have already reported great success with this tool; U.S. arbitral courts could find it useful as well.
• Preparation of corporate filings. These require the ability to look at a complete set of documents collaboratively and annotate them.
• Transcripts. The advanced tools in Magnum, particularly the “Designations” tools, as well as video links may allow us to replace traditionally licensed, enterprise-based transcript software.

Conclusion

Any time a legal matter ' large or small ' requires that you be able access and view the key documents, search and annotate and categorize them, create links within and between documents, and discuss them collaboratively in real time, Magnum is likely to be the most efficient, cost-effective tool.

Catherine McPherson is a Litigation Management Consultant with Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP in Denver. She has over 30 years of experience in litigation support and has conducted many onsite data collections, both e-data and custodian documents, and has utilized a wide variety of proprietary and Web-based databases to manage discovery and trial evidence. She has conducted many end-user beta tests of software and has consulted on design and functions of vendor software.