The explosion of digital data in the last decade has forced legal practitioners to reconsider what constitutes a "big" case.  The daunting task of collecting and reviewing a million pages seemed to test the boundaries of technology and manpower 10 years ago.  Now, one million page document reviews are commonplace, and the largest cases encompass tens of millions of electronic documents.  Recently, federal district courts have certified class actions with as many as 1.6 million potential class members.  Given the likelihood of a massive and complex data population, it has become impossible to manage a document review project without technology.

The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have placed even greater pressure on legal practitioners engaged in electronic discovery.  The ability to effectively manage projects involving large document populations has become a necessity for practically every corporate law department, as well as for the firms that provide legal services to them.  Consequently, law firms and corporations continually struggle to implement the best blend of personnel and technologies to support comprehensive, consistent management of their large-scale document review projects. 

Some projects use in-house attorneys exclusively, while others farm out all review work to trusted firms, contract attorneys hired by the firm or staffing agencies.  Additionally, most projects involve a variety of technological tools.  Some of these are adopted off-the-shelf, while others are provided by a litigation support vendor.  No matter which of these different approaches you ultimately embrace, there are three critical issues you should consider when planning a large-scale document review.  Proactive attention to these simple points will help ensure efficiency, reduce costly errors and avoid missed deadlines.

Choose Technology Wisely
Recent advances in technology have made the organization and review of large-scale projects more orderly and efficient.  Litigators must now face the daunting task of fully understanding the wide array of available tools, their benefits and requirements, and making selections that suit the parameters of each particular project. 

Without a doubt, large data populations should be maintained in a centralized database repository, preferably hosted by a reputable and reliable third party.  The once unwieldy and intimidating volume of data becomes easily searched, reviewed and managed in perpetuity with the right combination of database and review tools.  Further, secure repositories are efficient and affordable; compared to other methods, centralized databases can greatly reduce the project's cost in both time and money.  A few companies specialize in hosting documents for legal review and can host in a native format and "repurpose" previously reviewed documents for future use by a client.  These capabilities will dramatically reduce the cost associated with data processing and review time.

In order to be truly effective, the repository must be augmented with a review application that is suitable for the challenges of a large-scale review.  Such a platform must integrate seamlessly with the centralized repository and must provide core capabilities such as customized searches and simple tools to exclude irrelevant material from review assignments.  Additionally, the review platform should streamline the production process to ensure that deliverables are complete, consistent and correct.   As decision makers consider all of the available options, there are a few helpful criteria to remember.  One, use tools that are robust and scalable, in case the project grows in unexpected ways.  Two, partner with a litigation support provider with a solid reputation and extensive experience with large-scale projects.  Three, do not settle on the first option you consider or make a decision based solely on familiarity or comfort levels.  There have been many significant advancements in hosting and review technologies.  Ask for recommendations from peers, and look for reviews in industry journals and on the Web.  Be sure to test-drive a variety of possible solutions before making a final selection.

Develop a Communication Protocol
In large-scale actions, even the most meticulous planning can be undermined by poor communication.  A thoughtful and practical communication protocol must be developed prior to the beginning of the review.  Once the review is underway, all reviewers must be continually monitored and provided with regular feedback.  Also, as decision makers introduce new material or revise previous directions, there must be 100 percent dissemination of critical information to everyone involved.  For the most part, a successful communication protocol can be created using available technologies.

In the past, communication methods at the review site included public whiteboards, memos, and frequent team meetings.  There were many problems with these low-tech communication methods.  Sometimes attorneys were not present and missed important instructions.  In other cases, printed information wasn't circulated to everyone.  And of course, verbal instructions were often misheard or misunderstood.

Recently, legal review technologies have incorporated many practical communication solutions that can be integrated into a larger communication protocol. 

Much of the time, review attorneys' access to the Internet and standard e-mail platforms is strictly limited.  This protects client confidentiality and limits outside access to sensitive information.  However, it also limits communication.  In response, some of the leading review platforms have incorporated internal messaging systems that include both e-mail and instant messaging.  The e-mail system can be used to distribute information to as many or as few users as needed, based on assignments or levels of authority.  The instant messaging allows for easy, seamless and instant collaboration among attorneys reviewing similar material.  These technological tools resolve many of the issues that used to hamper communication; furthermore, all communication is documented and can be archived for future reference.

Develop a Workflow Protocol
Technological innovations are slowly replacing the old methods of assigning and distributing review tasks in large-scale projects.  For the last decade, managing attorneys have tracked review assignments and completion using printed lists and ranges of document ID numbers.  These methods were prone to mistakes, made tracking progress difficult and wasted valuable time.  It was a clumsy way to assign and control workflow, but it was familiar, and it was generally the best a manager could do with the tools that were available.

Now, with advancements in review software technology, workflow can be generated, assigned, monitored and verified flawlessly.  A few leading review platforms provide supervising attorneys with the ability to divide large populations of data in any number of ways.  They can then create and assign to-do lists to individual attorneys based on a variety of criteria, such as level of experience, relevant issues, custodian name, date ranges and more.  Additionally, this next generation of review platforms allows supervising attorneys to monitor progress in real time with user-friendly "dashboards" that display up-to-the-minute review statistics.  Finally, these applications provide powerful quality control tools that can be used to prevent inconsistent use of tags, and to validate responsive and privilege calls prior to production.  The best-of-breed review platforms give supervising attorneys an unprecedented degree of flexibility in designing a custom workflow that generates assignments, monitors progress and automates much of the quality control process.

Large-scale document reviews can seem overwhelming at times; however, technology has done a great deal to make some of the most daunting aspects of these projects easier to manage.  Continued integration of technological innovations, along with proper training, strong leadership and appropriate use of human resources will increasingly ensure that litigants conserve their clients' time and money while delivering the highest quality work product.

About our author :: :: ::

James Crane is an attorney, consultant and author with extensive experience in e-discovery management.  In his practice, James has defended corporate clients in a variety of complex matters including multi-jurisdictional class actions and internal corporate and government regulatory investigations.  James consults with corporate counsel to ensure compliance with amended Federal Rules.  He can be reached at james.crane@altep.com.