EDBP is a new reference of legal best practices for practicing attorneys and paralegals. It is also an open project where other specialists in the field are invited to make contributions. I am writing the beginning statements of best practices (about half-way through) and will serve as the first editor and gate-keeper for future contributions from others. The ten-step diagram below serves as the basic structure of the tasks performed by attorneys in electronic discovery practice. This structure may also change with time to keep up with evolving attorney practices.
All flow charts look somewhat alike and so there is necessarily some similarity in appearance with the traditional EDRM chart. But otherwise there is no connection with that chart or fine group. Even the overlap in coverage between the Electronic Discovery Reference Model and Electronic Discovery Best Practices is limited. Unlike the EDRM, the EDBP does not attempt to cover all activities that go on in e-discovery, only the legal service components. Further, the EDBP is not concerned with any vendor activities or best practices. It is only concerned with legal services. The EDBP is by and for lawyers only, and the fine paralegals that assist them. For a complete statement of the purpose of EDBP, see its Mission Statement. Also see the EDBP home page for information on who can contribute to EDBP and how. Membership is not required. Join in the comments there and get in on the ground floor of this new project.
All practicing attorneys and paralegals who specialize in e-discovery are invited to participate in this compilation of attorney best practices. You may submit for possible inclusion in EDBP a proposed description of an attorney best practice, a proposed edit to an existing description, or comments on the general structure of EDBP. See our Mission Statement for guidance on the scope of this project. Please do so in the public comments section below or in private email to Ralph Losey. If your proposed addition to EDBP is accepted, you will be identified as the author of that description in comments and retain co-copyright-ownership of that contribution, or, if you wish, you may remain anonymous. Editing will be provided. Practicing attorneys may also submit separate stand alone articles on attorney best practices for consideration for linkage by EDBP.
Anyone may freely use the charts provided here, but are requested to include linkage to EDBP.com.
In addition to the information provided by EDBP according to the ten-step model, practicing attorneys seeking quality information on best practices are referred to the many e-discovery writings of The Sedona Conference® Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production.
I don't often blog about the industry my day job is based on (to avoid concerns about IP issues, etc), but this seemed too interesting (to me at least) not to blog about. Everyone in the EDD/eDiscovery/ESI/Lit Support industry has seen the EDRM diagram;
So we need another in the EDPB? I think so... The ESI part of the litigation process is still pretty new and the practicing attorneys and paralegals focus of EDPB is interesting to me, not that I'm a practicing attorney or paralegal, but I really like understanding the business I'm helping develop for and they ARE the business. To me, it feels that EDRM is pretty vendor focused, so this refinement by a domain expert for his domain needs serious attention.
This quote caught my eye;
"Attorney Best Practices, Not Vendor Standards
I have been working on the creation of best practices for two major law firms over the last six years. In my blog two weeks ago I mentioned that my work on this new lawyer-centric model was nearing the public stage. Analysis of the Official Report on the 2011 TREC Legal Track – Part Two. As I explained then, my work is not on standards, Jason Baron and others are working on that. I understand they are focused on vendor ISO type standards. EDBP is instead focused on best practices for law firms and corporate law departments. The EDBP model does not include vendor activities.
Best practices in the field of law is something very different from standards. Standards represent a kind of base-line agreement of minimal requirements. It is consensus driven and often local in nature. Failure to meet such customary standards of care in legal practice is considered professional negligence. EDBP is not concerned with what a reasonably prudent lawyer in a particular jurisdiction would do. EDBP is instead concerned with what the best lawyers in the world would do. It is concerned with aspirational best practices and extraordinary jurisprudence, not reasonable standards of care or ordinary prudence. The knowledge, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by other members of the Bar similarly situated, which is the base standard for legal malpractice, is worlds away from Electronic Discovery Best Practices.
The creation of the legal best practices is not an academic undertaking, although study and learning are a prerequisite to their development. Best practices come out of actual practice, trial and error. They come out of constant refinement and improvement, learning from mistakes and successes. Best practices are born from knowledge and experience, and high skill levels, but they also born from experimentation and inspiration.
In any field, best practices are usually developed by a few creative leaders. The same is true for e-discovery. ..."