Are You Competent To Accept A Matter That Will Require Extensive E-Discovery?

Download

The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2015-193 addressed this question from the perspective of a lawyer’s ethical duty to handle his own client’s electronically stored information. The Committee stressed that “a lack of technological knowledge in handling e-discovery may render an attorney ethically incompetent to handle certain litigation matters involving e-discovery ... even where the attorney may otherwise be highly experienced. It also may result in violations of the duty of confidentiality, not withstanding a lack of bad faith conduct.”

The Committee provided two checklists to assist lawyers in deciding whether to accept a matter requiring e-discovery – one when the lawyer does not have the required e-discovery competence and one in which the lawyer does:

  1. An attorney lacking the required competence for e-discovery issues has three options:
    1. acquire sufficient learning and skill before performance is required;
    2. associate with or consult technical consultants or competent counsel; or
    3. decline the client representation.
  2. Attorneys handling e-discovery should be able to perform (either by themselves or in association with competent co-counsel or expert consultants) the following:
    • assess e-discovery needs and issues at the outset;
    • implement procedures to preserve electronically stored information, or ensure that others do so;
    • analyze and understand a client’s electronically stored information systems and storage;
    • advise the client on available options for collection and preservation of electronically stored information;
    • identify custodians of potentially relevant electronically stored information;
    • meet and confer with opposing counsel concerning an e-discovery plan;
    • perform data searches;
    • collect responsive electronically stored information in a manner that preserves its integrity; and
    • produce non-privileged electronically stored information in a recognized and appropriate manner.

Using a hypothetical fact situation, the opinion provides a good analysis of e-discovery ethical and malpractice considerations. It is readily available via Google. (last viewed on 9/15/2015)

 


323 West Main Street, Suite 600 | Louisville, Kentucky 40202 | Phone: 502-568-6100 | Fax: 502-568-6103

Disclaimer: The contents of this Web site are intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. It is not the intent of this Web site to establish an attorney’s standard of due care for a particular situation. Rather, it is our intent to advise our policyholders to act in a manner which may be well above the standard of due care in order to avoid claims having merit, as well as those without merit. In the event any statement on the Web site differs from a statement in an issued policy the policy will control.

SITE BY SCARNEGIE INTERACTIVE, LLC