Explore
February 16, 2018

Collection and the Duty of Technology Competence – Collection Fundamentals Series, Part 1

1 / 8
SHARE:

A multi-part series on the essentials practitioners need to know about ESI collections

As electronically-stored information (ESI) has become the norm, as computers and mobile devices have proliferated, and as eDiscovery tools have multiplied, competence with technology has become an essential part of being an effective legal practitioner.  Since 2012, that practical requirement has been slowly becoming a formal one.

The Duty of Technology Competence in Discovery

In August 2012, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted updates to its model rules to make the need for technology competence explicit.  Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 establishes a lawyer’s general duty of competence in their work, and the last Comment to that rule covers “Maintaining Competence” over time through continuing legal education (CLE), individual study, etc.  The new updates amended that comment to add technology:

To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.  [emphasis added]

Over the years since, twenty-nine states have adopted some form of technology competence requirement for lawyers, with most following the ABA Model Rule.  Twenty-six of those states – Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming – have implemented the ABA Model Rule update.  Florida has done so and has also added an explicit technology CLE requirement and addressed reliance on technical experts, and North Carolina has implemented a slightly rephrased version.

In 2015, California promulgated a more detailed ethics opinion (Formal Opinion No. 2015-193) focused more specifically on eDiscovery, to which many look as a guideline for core technology competencies legal practitioners should acquire.

Collection and the California Opinion

The California opinion identifies nine core competencies that lawyers must either have themselves or obtain through collaboration with relevant non-lawyer experts:

  1. “initially assess e-discovery needs and issues, if any”
  2. “implement/cause to implement appropriate ESI preservation procedures”
  3. “analyze and understand a client’s ESI systems and storage”
  4. “advise the client on available options for collection and preservation of ESI”
  5. “identify custodians of potentially relevant ESI”
  6. “engage in competent and meaningful meet and confer with opposing counsel concerning an e-discovery plan”
  7. “perform data searches”
  8. “collect responsive ESI in a manner that preserves the integrity of that ESI”
  9. “produce responsive non-privileged ESI in a recognized and appropriate manner”

Of these nine requirements, two explicitly refer to collection (#4 and #8), and four more relate to collection activities by implication (#1, #2, #3, and #5).  Thus, understanding the technology fundamentals of collection is essential to fulfilling a lawyer’s duty of technology competence in California and, likely, in twenty-eight other states as well.

Upcoming in this Series

Over the coming weeks in this series, we will discuss collection fundamentals including: the scope of collection, how data is stored and recovered, available collection tools and methods, the importance of metadata, forensic soundness and chain of custody, and more.

About the Author

Matthew Verga

Director, Education and Content Marketing

Matthew Verga is an electronic discovery expert proficient at leveraging his legal experience as an attorney, his technical knowledge as a practitioner, and his skills as a communicator to make complex eDiscovery topics accessible to diverse audiences. An twelve-year industry veteran, Matthew has worked across every phase of the EDRM and at every level from the project trenches to enterprise program design. He leverages this background to produce engaging educational content to empower practitioners at all levels with knowledge they can use to improve their projects, their careers, and their organizations.

Related Articles

Collection and the Duty of Technology Competence – Collection Fundamentals Series, Part 1
Article 1 / 5
Posted January 10, 2019
Why Understanding Processing is Important, Processing Fundamentals Series Part 1
ESI processing for discovery is one of the areas in which legal practitioners need some level of technology competence to fulfill their duty. Although it is often given short shrift compared to the steps that come before it (preservation and collection) and after it (assessment, review, and production), effective processing is critical to the success of those downstream steps and includes a variety of important decisions to make.
Collection and the Duty of Technology Competence – Collection Fundamentals Series, Part 1
Article 1 / 3
Posted November 15, 2018
The Evolving Duty of Technology Competence, eDiscovery Competence Series Part 1
In discovery specifically, and in legal practice generally, the role of electronically-stored information (ESI) and new technology has grown exponentially over the past decade. As a result, it has become a practical reality that effective legal practice and effective discovery requires some level of technology literacy and competence, and since 2012, that practical reality has been slowly transforming into a formal requirement.
Collection and the Duty of Technology Competence – Collection Fundamentals Series, Part 1
Article 2 / 8
Posted February 26, 2018
The Broad Scope of Collection – Collection Fundamentals Series, Part 2
The broad scope of collection is broken down into the legal scope and the technological scope. The practical scope of ESI collection is determined both by the actual requests from other parties and by your own information needs related to the matter. The maximum-possible scope is established by the FRCP or your state’s equivalent ruleset. The technological scope is summarized in that nothing can be overlooked based purely on its file format or source type. Read to learn details on both the scopes.

Whether you prefer email, text or carrier pigeons, we’re always available.

Discovery starts with listening.

(877) 545-XACT / or / Complete Contact Form