Merger and Acquisition Due Diligence Part II- The Devil in the Details

Our prior scholarship examined the legal and technical challenges involved in modern Merger & Acquisition ( M&A ) due diligence practices associated with transactions ( Deals ), given recent but steady advances in technology and related increases in sophistication seen in Deal participants-primarily the organizations or assets targeted (the Targets ) as part of the Deal, and the organizations that pursued and/or resulted from the Deal (the Acquirers ). We then proposed a framework addressing five particular verticals of interest and concern: data privacy ( DP ), information security ( IS ), e-Discovery, information governance ( IG ), and the due diligence and record keeping associated with the Deal itself ( Deal Information ) (collectively, the Framework )

The Shifting Sands of Cost Shifting

The cost-shifting analysis employed by the federal courts in ruling on discovery disputes is flawed. There is tremendous variability in how courts interpret the factors guiding the analysis. There is tremendous variability in the information courts rely on in deciding whether to preclude the discovery or shift its costs. The result is waste for the litigants, courts, and society as a whole. This Article argues that there is a better way: mandate cooperation before cost shifting. The courts should condition proportionality and cost-shifting rulings on cooperation. The cooperation should be substantive: require disclosure of objective information about the disputed discovery and, if costs are shared, share control over the process. Cooperation will not come about by exhortation or proclamation; it will come if the cost of discovery, or the discovery itself, hangs in the balance. With that comes the possibility of reducing costs. Asking “is the discovery unduly burdensome” results in a different answer than asking “can it be done more efficiently”? This Article argues that the courts should ask the latter question first and require cooperation in answering it. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, with its mandate to construe the rules to seek the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” demands it

Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform

This Article addresses the myriad problems posed by unfettered discovery in the United States Rather than promoting fairness and efficiency in the American legal system, plaintiffs today often use discovery in an abusive and vexatious manner to coerce defendants into accepting quick settlements Over the past several decades, discovery has expanded in both scope and magnitude such that discovery costs now account for at least half of the total litigation costs in any given case The advent of electronic discovery has only exacerbated the problem, given the sheer number of electronic documents generated in the course of business and the corresponding time, effort, and cost associated with electronic discovery Although recent efforts to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have failed to combat the abuses of civil discovery, meaningful and effective reform of the current system is possible This Article proposes a number of pragmatic reforms-including adopting the English rule for discovery disputes and suspending discovery during the pendency of a motion to dismiss-to mitigate the abusive and costly nature of discovery in the United State

Making the case for a digital lawyering framework in legal education

نُشر تقريرٌ في عام 2015 عن ممارسات مهنة المحاماة في العصر الرقمي في المجلة الدولية للتعليم القانوني العيادي، قدم المؤلف والزميل/ مايكل ساليس اقتراحًا متواضعًا من شأنه أن يجعل خريجي الكليات المتخصصة في القانون أكثر قدرة على خدمة موكليهم بطريقة حديثة وفعّالة. واقترح الزميل أنه بجانب أهمية توفير عيادات قانونية وغيرها من الأنشطة التجريبية، يتعين على كليات الحقوق اعتماد إطار لمهارات المحاماة الرقمية كجزء من مناهجها لتعليم الطلاب كيفية استخدام التقنية للمساعدة في تقديم الخدمات القانونية. ويدفع المؤلف في هذه المقالة بأن مهارات المحاماة الرقمية من شأنها مساعدة طلاب ودارسي القانون في تعلم الكفاءات الأساسية اللازمة في مهنة يتزايد الاعتماد فيها على التقنية مع زيادة توافر الخدمات القانونية وملاءمتها. وعليه، يقترح المؤلف على كليات الحقوق وهيئات تنظيم التعليم القانوني النظر في اعتماد إطار استشاري رقمي للمحاماة والقضايا، والذي من شأنه أن يخضع للمزيد من المراجعات في المستقبل. ويُستخدم هذا الإطار حاليًا في نموذج مهارات المحامين للسنة الثانية والذي يدرسه كاتب المقال، ولقد تم تنقيحه من خلال الأفكار الحدسية والتعليقات التي تعقب كل محاضرة. وتستعرض هذه الورقة البحثية الإطار المقترح في صيغته النهائيةIn 2015, in a practice report on lawyering in a digital age published in the International Journal of Clinical Legal Education, the author and colleague Michael Sales made a modest proposal that could make law graduates more capable of serving their clients in a modernised and efficient manner. It was proposed that, in addition to offering law clinics and other forms of experiential activities, law schools could adopt a digital lawyering skills framework as part of their curricula to teach students how to use technology to assist in the delivery of legal services. The author submits in this article that digital lawyering skills will assist law students in learning core competencies needed in an increasingly technological profession whilst increasing the availability and convenience of legal services. The author therefore proposes to law schools and legal education regulators that they consider a consultative digital lawyering framework that could be subject to further review in the future. The framework is currently being utilized in a second-year Lawyers’ Skills module taught by the author, and it has been revised intuitively and through feedback after each lesson. The proposed framework in this paper is in its final version

The Development of Digital Forensics Workforce Competency on the Example of Estonian Defence League

03.07.2014 kehtestati Vabariigi Valitsuse määrus nr. 108, mis reguleerib Kaitseliidu kaasamise tingimusi ja korda küberjulgeoleku tagamisel. Seega võivad Kaitseliidu küberkaitse üksuse (KL KKÜ edaspidi KKÜ) kutsuda olukorda toetama erinevad asutused: näiteks Riigi Infosüsteemide amet (RIA), infosüsteemi järelevalveasutus või kaitseministeerium või selle valitsemisala ametiasutused oma ülesannete raames. KKÜ-d saab kaasata info- ja sidetehnoloogia infrastruktuuri järjepidevuse tagamisel, turvaintsidentide kontrollimisel ja lahendamisel, rakendades nii aktiivseid kui passiivseid meetmeid. KKÜ ülesannete kaardistamisel täheldati, et KKÜ partnerasutused / organisatsioonid ei ole kaardistanud oma spetsialistide olemasolevaid pädevusi ja sellele lisaks puudub ülevaade digitaalse ekspertiisi kogukonnas vajaolevatest pädevustest. Leitut arvesse võttes seati ülesandeks vajadustest ja piirangutest (võttes arvesse digitaalse ekspertiisi kogukonda kujundavaid standardeid) ülevaatliku pildi loomine, et töötada välja digitaalse ekspertiisi kompetentsipõhine raamistik, mis toetab KKÜ spetsialistide arendamist palkamisest pensionini. Selleks uurisime KKÜ ja nende olemasolevate koolitusprogrammide hetkeolukorda ning otsustasime milliseid omadusi peab edasise arengu tarbeks uurima ja kaaluma. Võrreldavate tulemuste saa-miseks ja eesmärgi täitmiseks pidi koostatav mudel olema suuteline lahendama 5-t järgnevat ülesannet: 1. Oskuste kaardistamine, 2. Eesmärkide seadmine ja ümberhindamine, 3. Koolituskava planeerimine, 4. Värbamisprotsessi kiirendamine ning 5. Spetsialistide kestva arengu soodustamine. Raamistiku väljatöötamiseks võeti aluseks National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework (NICE Framework) pädevusraamistik mida parendati digitaalse ekspertiisi spetsialistide, ja käesoleval juhul ka KKÜ, vajadusi silmas pidades. Täiendusi lisati nii tasemete, spetsialiseerumise kui ka ülesannete kirjelduste kujul. Parenduste lisamisel võeti arvesse töös tutvustatud digitaalse ekspertiisi piiranguid ja standardeid, mille lõpptulemusena esitati KKÜ-le Digitaalse Ekspertiisi Pädevuse ontoloogia, KKÜ struktuuri muudatuse ettepanek, soovitatavad õpetamisstrateegiad digitaalse ekspertiisi kasutamiseks (muudetud Bloomi taksonoomia tasemetega), uus digitaalse ekspertiisi standardi alajaotus – Mehitamata Süsteemide ekspertiis ja Digitaalse Ekspertiisi Pädevuse Mudeli Raamistik. Ülesannete ja oskuste loetelu koostati rahvusvaheliselt tunnustatud sertifitseerimis-organisatsioonide ja erialast pädevust pakkuvate õppekavade abil. Kavandatava mudeli hindamiseks kasutati mini-Delphi ehk Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE) tehnikat. Esialgne prognoos vajaduste ja prioriteetidega anti KKÜ partnerasutustele saamaks tehtud töö kohta ekspertarvamusi. Kogu tagasisidet silmas pidades tehti mudelisse korrektuurid ja KKÜ-le sai vormistatud ettepanek ühes edasise tööplaaniga. Üldiselt kirjeldab väljapakutud pädevusraamistik KKÜ spetsialistilt ooda-tavat pädevuse ulatust KKÜ-s, et suurendada nende rolli kiirreageerimisrühmana. Raamistik aitab määratleda digitaalse ekspertiisi eeldatavaid pädevusi ja võimekusi praktikas ning juhendab eksperte spetsialiseerumise valikul. Kavandatud mudeli juures on arvestatud pikaajalise mõjuga (palkamisest pensionini). Tulenevalt mudeli komplekssusest, on raamistikul pikk rakendusfaas – organisatsiooni arengule maksimaalse mõju saavutamiseks on prognoositud ajakava maksimaalselt 5 aastat. Antud ettepanekud on käesolevaks hetkeks KKÜ poolt heaks kiidetud ning planeeritud kava rakendati esmakordselt 2019 aasta aprillikuus.In 03.07.2014 Regulation No. 108 was introduced which regulates the conditions and pro-cedure of the involvement of the Estonian Defence League (EDL) Cyber Defence Unit (CDU) in ensuring cyber security. This means that EDL can be brought in by the Information System Authority, Ministry of Defence or the authorities of its area of government within the scope of either of their tasks e.g. ensuring the continuity of information and communication technology infrastructure and in handling and solving cyber security incidents while applying both active and passive measures. In January 2018 EDL CDU’s Digi-tal Evidence Handling Group had to be re-organized and, thus, presented a proposal for internal curriculum in order to further instruct Digital Evidence specialists. While describing the CDU's tasks, it was noted that the CDU's partner institutions / organizations have not mapped out their specialists’ current competencies. With this in mind, we set out to create a comprehensive list of needs and constraints (taking into account the community standards of DF) to develop a DF-based competence framework that supports the devel-opment of CDU professionals. Hence, we studied the current situation of CDU, their existing training program, and contemplated which features we need to consider and ex-plore for further development. In order to assemble comparable results and to achieve the goal the model had to be able to solve the 5 following tasks: 1. Competency mapping, 2. Goal setting and reassessment, 3. Scheduling the training plan, 4. Accelerating the recruitment process, and 5. Promoting the continuous development of professionals. The frame-work was developed on the basis of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework (NICE Framework), which was revised to meet the needs of DF specialists, including EDL CDU. Additions were supplemented in terms of levels, specialization, and job descriptions. The proposals included the DF limitations and standards introduced in the work, which ultimately resulted in a proposal for a Digital Forensics Competency ontology, EDL CDU structure change, Suggested Instruc-tional Strategies for Digital Forensics Use With Each Level of revised Bloom's Taxonomy, a new DF standard subdivision – Unmanned Systems Forensics, and Digital Forensic Competency Model Framework. The list of tasks and skills were compiled from international certification distribution organizations and curricula, and their focus on DF Special-ist Competencies. Mini-Delphi or Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE) techniques were applied to evaluate the proposed model. An initial estimation of competencies and priorities were given to the EDL CDU partner institutions for expert advice and evaluation. Considering the feedback, improvements were made to the model and a proposal was put forward to the CDU with a future work plan. In general, the proposed competence framework describes the expected scope of competence of an DF specialist in the EDL CDU to enhance their role as a rapid response team. The framework helps in defining the expected compe-tencies and capabilities of digital forensics in practice and offers guidance to the experts in the choice of specialization. The proposed model takes into account the long-term effect (hire-to-retire). Due to the complexity of the model, the framework has a long implementation phase — the maximum time frame for achieving the full effect for the organization is expected to be 5 years. These proposals were approved by EDL CDU and the proposed plan was first launched in April 2019

More on the Ethics of E-Discovery: Predictive Coding and Other Forms of Computer-Assisted Review

This paper was circulated at a TAR conference hosted by the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) in 2015. With the author\u27s permission, the paper has been archived in the scholarship repository. This document does not represent the views of Duke Law School, Duke University, their faculties, or any other organization

Tracking the Functions of AI as Paradata & Pursuing Archival Accountability

While a familiar term in fields like social science research and digital cultural heritage, \u27paradata\u27 has not yet been introduced conceptually into the archival realm. In response to an increasing number of experiments with machine learning and artificial intelligence, the InterPARES Trust AI research group proposes the definition of paradata as \u27information about the procedure(s) and tools used to create and process information resources, along with information about the persons carrying out those procedures.\u27 The utilization of this concept in archives can help to ensure that AI-driven systems are designed from the outset to honor the archival ethic, and to aid in the evaluation of off-the-shelf automation solutions. An evaluation of current AI experiments in archives highlights opportunities for paradata-conscious practice

Aligning with the rapidly shifting technological goalposts : the review and update of the RIMPA technology survey

In 2008 the Records and Information Management Professionals Australasia (RIMPA) organisation (then known as the Records Management Association of Australasia – RMAA) launched its Technology Survey. The survey attempted to capture a snapshot, predominantly but not exclusively in Australia and New Zealand, and gain empirical evidence about the use of technology adoption trends, RIM capabilities in host organisations and the role of RIM personnel in technology selection and adoption. The survey had a particular focus on Records Management (RM) and Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems and processes, but also featured questions on the demographics of the participants, organisational policies and processes around these technologies and peripheral devices. In 2010 the survey was repeated. Consequently, the survey became more than a one-off cross-sectional snapshot and could lay claim to being a longitudinal study, however as a longitudinal study instrument the current survey is lacking validity and reliability. A consensus exists, however, that changes are required going forward if the survey is to continue. This consensus is based on issues that have emerged from analysis of the two iterations of the current instrument. The issues that need to be addressed are: • Low participation rate • The relatively high number of questions skipped • The overall length of the survey • Ensuring the survey has a clear and distinct aim • Ensuring what is captured is core to the survey’s aim • Ensuring what is captured is relevant to the RIM profession • The ambiguity of questions • Misunderstanding of questions • Scope – expansion of the instrument to encompass technology learning, knowledge and skills of RIM professions These issues were identified by Brogan and Roberts in their analyses of the 2008 and 2010 data (2009, 2011 and 2012). This study is an examination and revision of the current technology survey instrument, aimed at ensuring that issues of relevancy, currency, usability, design and clarity of terms and definitions are all addressed, resulting in a valid and reliable longitudinal study instrument. The research design employed involved: a) investigation of the peer reviewed literature on survey participation and instrument design; b) investigation of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature on technology in the RIM space; c) Convening of a panel of experts (focus group) to provide feedback on the existing instrument; d) Re-design of the existing instrument taking into account outcomes from a-c; and e) Validation of the re-designed instrument via the Focus Group The Focus Group review involved six highly regarded and knowledgeable participants pro-active in the RIM profession who trialled the instrument in a subsequent Pilot Test. The Focus Group provided additional feedback on scope and usability from a user perspective. The final survey produced will enable RIMPA to be informed on the technology education and training needs of its members, as well as continuing to track technology adoption and RIM program trends in the workplace

Effective Keyword Selection Requires a Mastery of Storage Technology and the Law

Selecting keywords for searching large volumes of electronically stored information (“ESI”) is an unavoidable, but necessary step in the process of electronic discovery. The parties to a case, or the court, may choose the terms for the search. However, an efficient alternative to both options involves a mediator, neutral, or special master with a thorough understanding of the legal elements of the case and the technology systems that will be subject to keyword search. This alternative can benefit both parties, as well as the court, because a “technology-aware” mediator can expedite an agreement that allows both parties to maintain oversight of the keyword selection process. This serves both parties’ interests because, as the Zubulake court noted, “[i]t might be advisable to solicit a list of search terms from the opposing party for [the purpose of preservation], so that [opposing counsel] could not later complain about which terms were used.” A poorly designed search term list guarantees that the parties will have to perform a series of subsidiary searches as gaps and problems in the original search become apparent. This can easily be mitigated with a mediator who knows the relevant law and technology. An effective search that results in responsive items being identified begins with the intangible creativity that forms a bond between knowledge of the law and technology