5 Responses to What Do You Think? (Your Secrets Are Safe Here)

  1. Janet M. Powell, Paralegal, Miami office says:

    I was irritated with Patrick Oots article because it was really addressing concerns that some attorneys may have regarding getting certification, and not every other person who is working in this field.

    The balance of his comments related to a for profit company that set itself up very recently to capitalize on this developing area of law, and which very aggressively markets itself. By grouping that organization in with the few others that are better established and education based, he was insulting educators and mentors in this field that did not deserve to be painted with the same brush.

    • Eli Nelson says:

      Certification is a marketing tool. This industry is too multi-disciplinary and fluid for static curricula / certification schemes to mean very much, but there is enough FUD that consumers will nevertheless over-rely on any “objective” standards they can find.

      Learn the basics from the wealth of on-line resources available (like this blog and the innumerable CLEs and groups on Yahoo and Linkedin), ask a lot of questions, and verify vendor or candidate selections by calling references. Just like you would do for any other important decision.

  2. ESIDence says:

    “Certification is a marketing tool.”

    And lawyers don’t market? Doctors? Accountants? C’mon, seriously? Seems the average jury-candidate-of-your-next-trial probably has seen ads on TV for law firms. Remember that nothing happens (in any professional-services business, and frequently among their CLIENTS) until somebody sells something.

    “This industry is too multi-disciplinary and fluid for static curricula / certification schemes to mean very much…”

    Gee, you mean, like STANDARDS OF CARE? Demands for FRCP amendments spelling out (in detail) what a “reasonable” litigation hold should contain & how it should be delivered and managed? Or, like limitations on the evidence a party is entitled to know about (much less, have delivered) despite the mountains of potential evidence in their adversary’s possession, custody and control?

    Lawyers’ agita over e-Discovery is no more surprising, nor any less difficult to face, than precedents of information-management initiation suffered by CFO’s during Sarbanes-Oxley, or by COO’s during the race to maintain competitive parity with ERP-system implementations. They didn’t get a “bye from the teacher”, as some in the legal profession are demanding now. Lawyers should own the problem and address it thoughtfully. The chorus of “we don’t need no stinkin’ education” is just the latest plea for special handling, one in a long line since the 2006 amendments made horrible corporate information-management practices the LAWYERS’ problem. If you’re a corporate litigator, be thankful that you’ve been able to avoid it for so long.

  3. Chasmine says:

    If not for your writing this topic could be very cvonoleutd and oblique.

  4. Tinzing Artmann says:

    Yet again, I will say this- I can never get tired of reading postings by Professor Losey. I am so glad I am finally enrolled in his class. It takes about 2-6 hours to finish one module including reading all assignments, but at the end of the module, I feel so confident and proud of rationals behind understanding E-Discovery from legal point of view. Thanks again Professor Losey!

Leave a Reply