Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Report 2013

94

Published on

The landmark 2013 Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Survey is the most extensive survey focused on how organizations handle data preservation. Over 500 professionals dealing directly with …

The landmark 2013 Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Survey is the most extensive survey focused on how organizations handle data preservation. Over 500 professionals dealing directly with litigation hold management participated.

Download the survey report and discover:

Which methods lead to 80% higher satisfaction and 2X confidence

Who is responsible for the process, and how much time is dedicated to it

Essential habits of the most confident and efficient organizations

Why 60% of high-volume 'Power Preservers' want to upgrade their process

What percentage have had to defend their preservation efforts

This survey report reveals exclusive data on the demographics, processes, common pain points and risks associated with legal holds and data preservation. Also included are tips to improve your efficiency, confidence and satisfaction based on habits of those who are doing it best.

Published in: Software, Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
94
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. LegalHoldand DataPreservation BenchmarkSurvey2013 September 2013 Commentary by Brad Harris Survey Conducted by The Steinberg Group LLC © 2013 Zapproved Inc.
  • 2. Page 2 Executive Summary Page 4 Survey Methodology Page 4 About Steinberg Group LLC Page 5 Part One: Survey Demographics Page 14 Part Two: The Burdens of Data Preservation Page 21 Part Three: Risks of Data Preservation Page 29 What Next? – Suggestions For What You Can To Improve Your Preservation Efforts © 2013 Zapproved Inc. Contents
  • 3. LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 2 The landmark 2013 Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Survey is the most extensive survey focused on how organizations handle data preservation. The objective of the survey was to do the following: • Benchmark the legal hold process in the industry • Define, determine and compare processes and systems currently used to manage legal hold issues • Understand key pain points and challenges faced with regard to current practices and legal hold process SURVEY PARTICIPANTS Five hundred twenty-five participants completed the online survey and indicated that they actively manage litigation holds. Of the 525 respondents, 55 percent are attorneys, 34 percent are legal staff, and the remaining 11 percent are non-legal staff such as IT and records managers. A majority of participants have more than 15 years of experience and work in organizations with more than 15 attorneys. KEY FINDINGS Majority of litigation holds are still managed and tracked manually. More than half use manual/written processes for tracking litigation holds, while one third used some form of automated software tool, including commercial e- discovery tools or custom software. One out of 20 still rely on verbal legal holds. Nearly half of respondents spend more than 5 hours per month on preservation. A sub-group of “Power Preservers” that issue 6 or more holds per month comprised 14.5 percent of the sample. This group is more than twice as likely to have an automated legal hold process (64 percent), compared to 30 percent for the other users. In-house legal teams are primarily responsible for litigation holds and preservation. Not surprisingly, a vast majority of legal holds are overseen by in-house legal teams (82 percent) but some organizations have another function such as IT (12 percent) while a small percentage outsource it to outside counsel (6 percent). Automating the litigation hold process increases efficiency as well as the propensity to issue litigation holds. When a litigation hold takes more effort, respondents continued Executive Summary
  • 4. LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 3 were less likely to proactively implement one. Those using an automated legal hold management system issue 2.5 times the number of holds in same amount of time. The impact is even greater when looking at those that spend less than 5 hours /mo. on preservation; they issue four times the number of holds as those who don’t automate. When looking at current system/process satisfaction levels, automated users are 80 percent more likely to indicate a favorable rating. In total, half of the sample indicated satisfaction with their current process, but the group using an automated process showed a favorable rating 72 percent of the time, compared with only 40 percent for those with a manual process. Additionally, automated users were 3 times more likely to give “very favorable” responses. Conversely, automated legal hold issuers showed unfavorable ratings only 7 percent of the time compared to more than a quarter of those using manual processes. In looking at confidence in the face of a hypothetical deposition, respondents using a manual process were 3.3 times more likely to express a lack of confidence than respondents on an automated system. Overall, 62 percent of respondents expressed confidence in their current process, but when looking at it based on their current processes, those using automated processes indicated confidence 77 percent of the time compared with 57 percent on manual processes. In looking at the other end, more than 15 percent of manual hold issuers show a lack of confidence, compared to less than 4 percent on automated processes. Most survey participants consider their processes “above average,” but those on manual processes are nearly 20 times more likely than automated users to indicate a “below standard” self-assessment. Overall, 62 percent of respondents expressed confidence in their current process, but when looking at it based on their current process there is a significant divergence. That jumps to 81 percent of respondents using automated litigation holds. On the contrary, only 0.7 percent of those on automated systems rated their process as below average, compared with 13.5 percent of their peers on manual processes. Automated systems increase the propensity for observing “best practices” by nearly a half. Examining the sub-processes of a litigation hold, namely issuing reminders, requiring custodial compliance, following up with custodians and sending release notifications, the respondents on automated processes showed on average 85.4 percent compliance compared to 56.8 percent.
  • 5. LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 4 Survey Methodology The Legal Hold and Data Preservation Survey measures what the prevailing attitudes of participants were at the time of the survey. The survey was conducted from March 27, 2013 to May 17, 2013 using an online questionnaire. Respondents in the survey came from lists compiled of people who work in the legal profession, including attorneys, paralegals and support staff within law firms. While more than 800 individuals took the survey, the sample was further screened for those who currently issued legal hold notices because the survey’s objective is to ascertain current attitudes. The final sample was comprised of 525 respondents. The margin of error is +/- 4.5%. About The Steinberg Group The Steinberg Group provides marketing research and marketing analysis services. With over 25 years experience in the market research and marketing fields, we offer each of our clients a customized approach to solving their marketing research challenges. David Steinberg is the founding partner of The Steinberg Group, LLC. Mr. Steinberg has more than ten years of agency-side marketing research and 15 years of corporate side marketing experience. He has designed and implemented over 500 survey research and focus group projects for consumer brand, education and government clients. Mr. Steinberg holds an M.B.A. from Pepperdine University and a B.A. in English Literature from the University of California at Los Angeles. Corporate experience includes marketing and research roles in Insight Schools (a subsidiary of University of Phoenix and then Kaplan Education), Crayola (a Hallmark Company) and Knowledge Learning Corporation (home of the KinderCare brand and part of the Knowledge Universe organization). n=525
  • 6. PART ONE: Survey Demographics © 2013 Zapproved Inc.
  • 7. Survey Sample by Job Title The survey sample only included individuals that affirmatively acknowledged that they are responsible for managing litigation hold processes. When looking at titles, the sample was distributed as follows: • 55% of participants were attorneys • 34% were litigation support or paralegals • Remaining 11% were non-legal staff responsible for administering legal holds, such as records managers More than half of sample are attorneys LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 6
  • 8. Current Legal Hold Processes Keep in mind, the Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Survey sample is comprised only of individuals that handle legal hold processes. That is still a fraction of the overall legal community. When asked about their current process, here’s what we learned: • One third used some form of automated software tool, including commercial e-discovery tools or custom software • More than half use manual/written processes for tracking litigation holds • One out of 20 still rely on verbal legal holds Majority of Legal Holds Are Still Manual Automated Software System 34% Manual Process 53% Verbal Legal Holds 5% Other 8% Current Legal Hold Process LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 7
  • 9. 15+ years 58% Less than 5 years 7% 5-14 years 35% More than 15 attorneys 55%Less than 5 attorneys 22% 5-14 attorneys 23% ORGANIZATION SIZE 55% work in an organization made up of 15+ attorneys, while 22% work in firms with less than 5. EXPERIENCE 58.4% of those surveyed have 15+ years of experience and only 6.6% have less than 5. Staff Size and Experience Majority of Respondents are Experienced and on Larger Legal Teams Size of Legal Staff Years of Experience LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 8
  • 10. Legal Hold Volume and Time Commitment NEARLY HALF HAVE LEGAL HOLDS AS A ‘WAY OF LIFE’ We measured the amount of holds and time spent managing them and found that 48 percent spend more than 5 hours per month, with the mean of that group being 12 hours – or three hours each week. This correlates to the volume data showing that while a majority have less than one hold per month, 14.5 percent issue 6 holds or more each month. 47.9% 37.6% 7.4% 2.1% 5.0% Less than 1 1-5 holds 6-10 holds 11-25 holds 25+ 51.8% 23.4% 9.0% 15.8% Less than 5 hrs 5-10 hrs 10-14 hrs 15+ hrs Hours per Month on Legal Holds Legal Holds Issued per Month LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 9
  • 11. Responsibility for Legal Holds As one would expect, a majority of organizations give the responsibility for overseeing legal holds to in-house legal teams. The survey was set to learn what percentage “outsourced” this task to outside counsel. Based on the survey results, that group is very small with just over 1 in 20 organizations outsourcing. It will be interesting to track this trend and see how it evolves in the future. Some organizations do have non-legal departments that take ownership of this task, most often the Information Technology group. In-house Legal Teams Manage Preservation Process in Vast Majority of Organizations In-house Legal 82% Outside Counsel 6% In-house Non-legal 12% Oversight of Preservation Process LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 10
  • 12. Process Maturity by Role LEGAL STAFF MORE LIKELY TO AUTOMATE PROCESS THAN ATTORNEYS When drilling down into how role plays into whether a process is automated or not, we see that Litigation Support and Paralegals are 70 percent more likely to use a software tool to manage data preservation. Automated Hold Process 23% Manual Hold Process 77% Automated Hold Process 51% Manual Hold Process 49% Hold Process Used by Attorneys Hold Process Used by Legal Staff LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 11
  • 13. Process Satisfaction by Role LEGAL STAFF MORE SATISFIED THAN ATTORNEYS WITH CURRENT HOLD PROCESS Litigation support and paralegals rate their satisfaction with their legal hold process as being much higher than attorneys. When comparing the top 2 (very satisfied/satisfied) levels against the bottom 2 (dissatisfied/very dissatisfied), legal staff are 30% more likely to consider themselves satisfied than attorneys. 2.8% 10.7% 25.5% 34.0% 27.0% 1 2 3 4 5 2.5% 20.4% 30.6% 35.7% 10.6% 1 2 3 4 5 Attorneys’ Satisfaction with Current Hold Process Legal Staff’s Satisfaction with Current Hold Process LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 12
  • 14. 2.9% 14.1% 37.6% 33.6% 11.8% Don't Understand Fully Understand Employee Training on Preservation WHILE 7 OUT OF 10 TRAIN EMPLOYEES ON LEGAL HOLDS, LESS THAN HALF BELIEVE EMPLOYEES ‘GET IT’ Two questions focused on the level of training within the respondents’ organizations. Of those that gave responses, most have some training for employees but less than half responded that employees are tuned into their obligations which suggests more training is necessary. • 70 percent of respondents affirmed that their organization trains employees about legal holds. • When asked about their perception of whether employees understand, only 45 percent selected “fully understand” or “mostly understand.” Do Employees Understand Preservation Obligation? LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 13 30.0% 70.0%Yes No Does Organization Train Employees on Legal Holds?
  • 15. PART TWO: The Burdens of Data Preservation © 2013 Zapproved Inc.
  • 16. The Burdens of Data Preservation The survey was designed to explore current processes and what impact they had on the amount of time and satisfaction of those overseeing litigation holds. We compared responses on several axes, including the following: • Manual Processes vs. Automated Systems • Hold Volume o ‘Power Preservers’ (see inset box) o Low-volume preservers issue 5 or less holds/mo. Legal Holds per Month 1-5 holds 37.6% Less than 1 47.9% POWER PRESERVERS – 14.5 PERCENT A sub-group that issues 6 or more holds per month and comprised 14.5 percent of the sample. This group is more than twice as likely to have an automated legal hold process (64 percent), compared to 30 percent for the other users. LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 15
  • 17. Disposition of Legal Holds More than 6 Out of 10 See Holds Progress Further Less than Half the Time 43.5% 20.4% 16.3% 19.7% <25% 25-49% 50-74% 75+% Percent of Matters Proceeding to Collection or Discovery Legal Hold Matters That Proceed to Collection or Discovery LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 16 Litigation holds are the first step in preservation following a “trigger event.” However, just because there is a “reasonable anticipation of litigation” does not mean that the matter will progress any further., i.e. to collection or discovery. The survey included a question to understand the correlation between issuing a hold and the matter progressing beyond that state. • 64 percent of respondents see legal holds progress to collection or discovery less than half the time. • 20 percent are on the other end of the spectrum and see matters in which a litigation hold was issued progressing more than 75 percent of the time.
  • 18. Process Based on Hold Volume Respondents with a high volume of litigation holds were two times more likely to manage holds using an automated software system, which is not an unexpected result given that systems are designed to streamline processes. Further, the benefits of automating are significantly greater for those organizations that need it more, inherently reaping more ROI from the investment. Power Preservers (6+ holds/mo.) • 2 out of 3 rely on automated systems for overseeing legal holds Low-Volume Preservers (5 or less holds/mo.) • 7 out 10 are on manual processes for tracking legal holds 2 Out of 3 Power Preservers Automate Automated Process 64% Does Not Use Automated Process 36% Automated Process 30% Does Not Use Automated Process 70% ‘Power Preservers’ Low-Volume Preservers LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 17
  • 19. Time Spent On Preservation Comparing VolumeAnd Process AUTOMATING ALLOWS MORE HOLDS IN SAME AMOUNT OF TIME When comparing the amount of time spent on legal holds, whether a user has high or low volume, the impact of automation is clear. • When using an automated process, those who spend on average more than 5 hours per month on legal holds are processing 2.5 times the volume as those using a manual process. • Those who spend more time on holds issue more than two times the number of holds with an automated process • The impact is more dramatic for those who spend less time: they issue 4 times the number of holds than those doing it manually. 3.2 7.2 0.8 3.3 Less than 5 hrs/mo. 5+ hrs/mo. Automated Manual Legal Holds per Month (mean) LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 18
  • 20. Rating Satisfaction with Current Process Power Preservers POWER PRESERVERS THAT AUTOMATE ARE NEARLY TWICE AS SATISFIED We asked Power Preservers to rate their satisfaction levels with their current process. • 72 percent of those on automated processes rated their satisfaction as favorable • 40 percent on manual processes rated their satisfaction as neutral or lower • When comparing the “satisfied” and “unsatisfied” responses in aggregate, automated users are 1.7 times more satisfied, a significant difference. Satisfaction Rating - Automated Processes Satisfaction Rating - Manual Processes 0.7% 6.3% 21.0% 42.0% 30.0% Very Unsatisfied Very Satisfied 4.3% 21.9% 33.5% 30.9% 9.4% Very Unsatisfied Very Satisfied LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 19
  • 21. Upgrading 62% Not Upgrading 38% Upgrading 30% Not upgrading 70% Intention to Upgrade Legal Hold Process 6 OUT OF 10 POWER PRESERVERS ON MANUAL PROCESS LOOKING TO UPGRADE Those with a high volume of litigation holds regularly incur the challenge of staying on top of the data preservation process. When asked about their desire to upgrade from the process they are currently using the results were stark: • 62 percent of Power Preservers using a manual hold process are looking for a change • 70 percent using automated processes are satisfied and have no plans to upgrade Issues Legal Holds Manually Automated Legal Hold Process LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 20
  • 22. PART THREE: Risks of Data Preservation © 2013 Zapproved Inc.
  • 23. Word Association with “Legal Hold” As part of the online survey, we asked participants to type the first word that comes to mind regarding legal hold. The answers varied and we have illustrated the top responses below using a “word cloud.” The larger the font, the more frequent it was suggested. The top three responses were : 1. Litigation 2. Pain 3. Retention The Risks of Data Preservation The burden of litigation holds and data preservation stems from more than just the effort and time of the legal staff to oversee the process. It also comes in the form of the risk an organization faces. Or, more accurately, the risks perceived by those who are accountable for executing legal holds. The survey aimed to explore current processes, what impact they had, and the amount of time and level of satisfaction for those overseeing the litigation hold process. The analysis compared responses on several axes, including: • Confidence in the face of a hypothetical deposition • Meeting the current legal standard • Perceived risk • Best Practices LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 22
  • 24. Rating Confidence with Current Process CONFIDENCE IN PROCESS IS TWICE AS HIGH WHEN AUTOMATING We asked respondents to rate their confidence levels with their current process if faced with a hypothetical deposition to defend their preservation process. • Those with automated processes self-report lower confidence much less often, and are over twice as likely to report highest confidence • Those who have already had to defend their practices are no more likely to be confident/less-confident 0.0% 3.5% 19.9% 39.7% 36.9% Not Confident at All Very Confident Confidence Rating - Automated Processes Confidence Rating - Manual Processes 2.6% 12.5% 28.3% 41.9% 14.7% Not Confident at All Very Confident LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 23
  • 25. 23.3% 12.5% 9.7% 8.2% 22.2% 24.2% <10% 10-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% 100% Percent of Matters with Legal Holds Percentage of Matters with Legal Holds LESS THAN HALF ISSUE LITIGATION HOLDS IN 75 PERCENT OR MORE MATTERS Respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of matters for which they issue litigation holds. Of those that answered with a specific percentage, a picture emerged of those that do or do not issue holds. • 46 percent of respondents issue a litigation hold notice in more than three quarters of their matters • 23 percent issued holds for less than 10 percent of matters Percentage of Matters for Which Legal Holds Are Issued LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 24
  • 26. Rating Process for Meeting Current Standard Power Preservers AUTOMATING LEGAL HOLDS LEAD TO HIGHER ‘SELF ESTEEM’ We asked Power Preservers to consider how their process compares to their peers when it comes to meeting the current legal standard on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being “Better than Most.” • Those with automated process consider themselves to be meeting the standard much better than their peers. • More than 50 percent of respondents using an automated system rated themselves at “Better than Most.” 0.0% 0.7% 18.3% 28.2% 52.8% Worse than Most Better than Most Meeting Legal Standard Rating – Automated Processes Meeting Legal Standard Rating – Manual Processes 0.4% 13.1% 31.8% 30.2% 24.5% Worse than Most Better than Most LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 25
  • 27. Rating Risk or Impact of Legal Holds We asked respondents to assess their risk or impact from legal holds. Those who responded “medium” and “high” were seen to have considered themselves as “At Risk.” • Of those that made a choice, 54 percent of respondents consider themselves to be “at risk.” • Those who have had to defend their preservation practices more often consider themselves at risk more than those who have not. • Power Preservers with automated processes consider themselves at risk less often than those without Having to Defend Preservation Increases Perception of Risk Significantly 13.5% 40.5% 46.0% 4.7% 28.6% 66.7% Unsure Not at Risk At Risk Automated Manual Confidence Rating of Power Preservers: Automated vs. Manual Processes LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 26
  • 28. Defending Preservation Practices About One of Five Have Had to Defend Preservation Efforts It has become common practice in commercial litigation for opposing sides to challenge each other’s preservation efforts. There are two categories in this area: Those that have defended preservation and those that will. So far, a small percentage of respondents indicate that they have had to respond to inquiries about preservation. It will be interesting to track this trend over time. 77.8% 22.2%Yes No Have You Had to Defend Your Preservation Process? LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 27
  • 29. Legal Hold Process Compliance in Four Key Areas AUTOMATING HOLD PROCESSES ENCOURAGES BEST PRACTICES Achieving the current legal standard of good faith and reasonableness is challenging. The survey looked at four key processes that are considered integral to having an adequate hold process: 1. Requiring tracking custodial compliance, 2. Providing for regular reminders, 3. Following up with non-responsive custodians, and 4. Sending release notifications. Of those respondents with automated software, they reported meeting these process elements on average 85.4 percent of the time across the board, as compared with 56.8 percent in aggregate for those using a manual process.57.1% 66.8% 48.4% 54.7% 83.9% 87.2% 83.9% 86.6% Release Notifications Follow-Up Periodic Reminders Custodian Acknowledgment Automated Manual LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 28
  • 30. LEGAL HOLD AND DATA PRESERVATION BENCHMARK SURVEY 2013 | 29 After reading the results of the Legal Hold and Data Preservation Benchmark Survey 2013, you may be motivated to examine your own data preservation processes. Following are several actions you can take to address areas in which many organizations can use improvement. AUDIT CURRENT PRESERVATION PROCESS Continually re-evaluate your efforts by measuring their effectiveness and whether they meet the threshold of the current legal standard. Does the process involve an effective written hold to which custodians acknowledge affirmative compliance? Do you send regular updates and reminders? Are you sending release notifications? PREPARE TO DEFEND PRESERVATION When responding to opposing counsel for documentation of your legal holds and data preservation practices, what is your confidence level in responding? If it is wavering, make certain your goals include process consistency and capturing a detailed audit trail. EMPHASIZE TRAINING AND A CULTURE OF COMPLIANCE One telling response was that despite many organizations training employees, there was a gap between those that provided training and those who felt employees understood what is expected of them. Work internally with the stakeholders to find opportunities to refresh the message with employees about the importance of the preservation process that demands their attention. EDUCATE YOURSELF CONTINUOUSLY This is a fast-moving area of the law. Stay on top of case law and take every opportunity to learn about best practices from leading experts and peers. What Next? SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT YOU CAN DO TO IMPROVE YOUR PRESERVATION EFFORTS RESOURCE Download “Legal Hold and Data Preservation Best Practices” (Dec. 2012). It’s a comprehensive resource with the latest thinking by leading experts in electronic discovery. www.legalholdpro.com/resourcecenter
  • 31. © 2013 Zapproved Inc.

×