Peer to Peer Magazine

the quarterly magazine of ILTA 63 Peer to Peer Since the original upload of client and matter metadata was completed from the conflicts report and not the client authorizations, after a few weeks, we gave IT a list of client and matter numbers that ultimately did not transfer. IT was then able to delete the uploaded metadata for all the non- transferred matters. In the meantime, on the physical side, we stored every file behind doors that only the records department could access. Although this is not possible for all firms, we found that restricting access allowed greater control over the content since the records staff were able to verify the client's authority before any retrieval request was fulfilled. In the early days, it forced the records department and the attorneys into a partnership so that missing client authorizations could be located. When clients were waiting for work to be done, even though it may have seemed like a bureaucratic annoyance, it was amazing how fast the authorizations appeared. Each file box was coded with the attorney's name, in some cases the other firm's client and matter number, and a flag. The flags indicated processing priority. A green flag signaled an active matter and thus had the highest priority. A yellow flag meant it was second priority. If the box had no flag, it was currently an inactive matter and had the lowest priority. As it would take months to process all of the files received, each attorney's boxes were separated into stacks. This limited what needed to be sifted through when an attorney requested a specific file requiring a priority escalation. So far we have reviewed the transfer of active electronic content and onsite physical content, but there was additional offsite content that was also authorized for transfer. We did not want to physically process each of these files as there were over 25,000 of them; and they, in most cases, were files that would never be needed. As there were approximately 2,000 boxes scattered across the U.S. that had to be moved to our offsite storage vendor, we negotiated with the dissolving firm to transfer them directly to our vendor, and to keep record of each box number with its inventory. Our pitch was that they already had each file profiled in their system and, if they could find a way to segregate the boxes they were packing for us, they could simply run a report. They were happy to do it, thereby saving us thousands of processing hours. As of the writing of this article, the offsite transfer has not yet been completed. When it is, however, we will have the data on a spreadsheet that we can upload into our records management system. Conclusion We set out to make this transfer keeping ethics and risk at the forefront, and no frogs were harmed during our process. Through this case, however, we discovered cracks in our workflow; and we've begun an initiative to span these gaps and adopt a policy for lateral transfers based on what we learned. ILTA Avoiding Risk in Lateral Transfers: Lessons Learned Jerry Rugh, ERM, has worked as an innovator in the legal environment for over 11 years. he is currently the Records Manager at Davis Wright tremaine llP, where he has inspired one practice group to move to a paperless environment, prepared their records management policy for implementation and implemented their legal hold policy. Previously he worked at Microsoft as the legal Records Manager. Jerry is an aiiM certified Electronic Records Management Master, and he is an active participant in aRMa and ilta. he can be reached at jerryrugh@dwt.com. In contrast, U.K. law firms may be allowed to represent multiple parties in a transactional matter, provided that they can employ the use of ethical walls to segregate information. Auction scenarios are a good example of this. In an auction situation, the firm can service two competitive clients' interests at the same time, both successfully and fairly, through judicious use of information barriers. Because of the disparities between states and countries, all international law firms must be keenly mindful of the rules in the multiple jurisdictions in which they operate. Each firm's IT leaders need to proactively dictate risk limitation procedures in accordance with variances in regulatory requirements. Firms with offices in both the U.K. and the U.S. need to be particularly mindful of regulatory differences, so they can effectively maintain compliance and reduce risk. Though they share one common language, they are subject to many different laws. By making these considerations a major priority in the planning of an ethical wall solution, legal IT professionals can reduce risk and facilitate the new business process for the firm. ILTA Yuri Frayman is President and CEO of The Frayman Group, creators of the Compliguard Risk Management Suite, a comprehensive end-to-end risk management solution.

• Cover