Originally published on August 31, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter. TechnoLawyer publisher Neil J. Squillante contributed to this article.
The challenges posed by paper discovery seem quaint by comparison to the electronically stored information (ESI) we face today. The ascendancy of electronic discovery (eDiscovery) reflects the social shift from the written word to the computerized one. To provide a framework for these new challenges, consultants George Socha of Socha Consulting and Thomas Gelbmann of Gelbmann & Associates launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) in May 2005.
The Model That Now Guides the Industry
The 2003 and 2004 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Surveys found that general counsel and their outside counsel were unable to compare vendors or distinguish quality providers from wannabes. This frustration lead Socha and Gelbmann to launch EDRM in May 2005 "to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market."
EDRM's most significant accomplishment to date is the formulation of its nine part model (see above), placed in the public domain in May 2006. The model is a diagrammed flowchart of eDiscovery tasks that provides a workable paradigm for the management of ESI throughout the discovery process. Recognized in court decisions and treatises, the model has achieved near universal acceptance among lawyers and vendors.
Universal Standards for Load Files and Metrics
While this model has helped both litigators and vendors better visualize the steps involved in eDiscovery, Socha and Gelbmann encountered an even bigger problem — transforming the model into actual litigation workflows and measuring the return on investment of the human and technical resources employed.
For example, you may have encountered the debate over whether to review ESI in its "native" format or convert it into PDF or TIFF format. But beneath this geeky debate lies an even geekier one — how to import these files into the growing number of eDiscovery tools, and ensure interoperability so that ESI does not become trapped.
Socha and Gelbmann believe the ideal "load file" consists of an XML-based standard (XML is a document format). As a result, the EDRM XML Project launched in May 2006. Although the EDRM site contains scant information on this project, Socha reports that significant progress has occurred. He describes the goal as "[providing] a standard, generally accepted XML schema to facilitate the movement of [data] from one step of the electronic discovery process to the next, from one software program to the next, and from one organization to the next."
EDRM released version 1.1 of the XML schema in February with version 2.0 in the works. To date, "18 software providers have self-certified import, export, or import and export compliance with the schema," Socha noted.
In conjunction with the EDRM XML Project, Socha and Gelbmann also launched the EDRM Metrics Project "to provide an effective means of measuring the time, money, and volumes associated with eDiscovery activities." In other words, it's designed to help you better manage your eDiscovery projects and the people assigned to work on them.
Near-Universal Support for EDRM
An electronic discovery professional who contacted us and requested anonymity feels these initiatives have taken too long. "It's reasonable to expect standards organizations to create and communicate timelines and be accountable for milestones for technical projects," he said. "So why is it apparently unreasonable for legal professionals to expect the same from the EDRM?"
However, this professional could not point us to anyone else in the industry willing to criticize EDRM on or off the record, even anonymously. Instead, support for EDRM and its pursuit of technical standards seems to run deep.
Tom O'Connor, an eDiscovery consultant and founder of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center, is one such supporter. "Vendors don't have interest in open standards," he said. "It's very difficult to promulgate technical standards, and when you're doing it in a volunteer group, it's even harder."
For his part, Socha feels the critique is not fair, and "appears to be based at least in part on a desire for instant gratification." "Standards take time to develop, even more [time] to deploy by early adopters, and yet more time to be more broadly accepted," he countered.
What's Next?
For the remainder of this year, EDRM working groups will continue to fine-tune the model and tackle a number of other projects, including a Model Code of Conduct for eDiscovery. EDRM also launched two new projects at its May 2009 Kick-Off Meeting — EDRM Jobs and the Information Management Reference Model (IMRM). EDRM Jobs will focus on developing a framework for evaluating eDiscovery personnel and technology issues while IMRM will focus on developing a framework for information management within organizations.
"The initiatives we undertake are challenging ones that, as far as we know, others have not undertaken," Socha observed at the end of our interview. He may have some company soon, however.
On June 4, 2009, the International Law Discovery & Disclosure Group (ILDD) announced its existence. It seeks to help its members and the legal world at large get a better handle on international eDiscovery. The ILDD's first Annual Conference takes place in London this month.
Socha doesn't know the people behind the ILDD, but welcomes collaborating with them. "Our hope is that the various organizations attempting to provide guidance and set standards will be able to work together as we move forward, sharing results and avoiding unnecessary overlap," he said.
How to Get Involved in EDRM
EDRM welcomes both individuals and organizations as members. Membership fees depend on whether you want to participate in only one project such as the EDRM XML Project or several. The annual fees range from range from $150 to $200 for individuals, and $750 to $7,500 for organizations (depending on the number of employees). If you lost your job this year, you may qualify for free membership.
EDRM's membership has steadily risen over the years though it may decline this year thanks no doubt to the recession.
- 2009-2010: 79 member organizations (to date)
- 2008-2009: 96 member organizations
- 2007-2008: 79 member organizations
- 2006-2007: 68 member organizations
You can also participate for free in the sense that EDRM makes all of its materials available on its Web site. "Many who have benefited from the EDRM materials have made no investment in the creation of those materials," said Socha. "We do not see this as a problem but rather as a sign of success."
That's apparently how Sir Timothy Berners-Lee feels about a well-known standard he invented — the Web. While EDRM will never become an English word, it has already done for eDiscovery what the Bluebook did for legal citations, and it may eventually make document production as seamless as it was when the legal profession rallied around another standard — paper.
Addendum: Though perhaps not in quite as dramatic fashion as Mark Felt, our anonymous source, Rob Robinson, unmasked himself today on his blog, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, to respond to the above column. Please read his response, EDD and EDRM — Standards Acceptance and Use. — Neil J. Squillante, Publisher
How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
