As I've been thinking about my talents, education and interests, I've looked at jobs that want some background in statistics, of which I have none. So I keep thinking that I should take a statistics class but hadn't seriously looked into it. Until a free class fell into my lap a few weeks ago.
Much to my surprise, my alma mater is starting a Statistics Class for Attorneys. Even more surprising? Tuition waived for alumni. And? They're applying for CLE credits! The book? $30! That's an incredible deal. Because law school hours are 50 minutes and CLE hours are 60 minutes, there will be a conversion. I assume that CLE credits will be based on each night of class, though it could be done as an aggregate. I think it'll be about 11.5 credits total. That, plus the CLE I attended in July and the one Sept. 11, takes me to about the halfway mark.
I e-mailed the contact person immediately, providing my year of graduation so am in the class.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Chinese Walls! With Embroidered Dragons!
I'm lying about the dragons but the effort to retain confidentiality within each document review currently taking place on the floor is there. As previously mentioned, there is more than one group here. We're on the other side of the elevator bank and have a kitchenette to ourselves; we recently met the hospitality person who provides our supplies and she decided to give her phone number to each separate review group, and designate us by number so we may contact her directly when we're low on supplies. Otherwise it goes through a whole chain of people. Our group number is associated with the name of our minder so products are charged to the right group.
There's one restroom on each side of the elevator bank, and I lucked out in being on the same side as the restroom I use; those who need to travel to the other side must go through the elevator banks, which means carrying your key. One of the groups expanded last week, and as I see people walking around instead of going through, the new people must not have gotten that memo.
There are two groups on the other side, and when we started, we used their kitchenette and were told that we weren't allowed to talk to those people except in the kitchenette. They also pointed out tape lines on the floor indicating where you could get safe passage. If any of you shared a room with a sibling when you were younger, this might sound familiar. At one point I shared a room my sister and when we fought we divided the floor. Of course one of us got the door and the other was stuck by the window.
I feel fortunate not to have to follow the electrical tape to make way to my designated area. It's much better than needing to watch it, though I doubt people would wander to talk to others; we have to whisper when we talk and don't talk much.
There's one restroom on each side of the elevator bank, and I lucked out in being on the same side as the restroom I use; those who need to travel to the other side must go through the elevator banks, which means carrying your key. One of the groups expanded last week, and as I see people walking around instead of going through, the new people must not have gotten that memo.
There are two groups on the other side, and when we started, we used their kitchenette and were told that we weren't allowed to talk to those people except in the kitchenette. They also pointed out tape lines on the floor indicating where you could get safe passage. If any of you shared a room with a sibling when you were younger, this might sound familiar. At one point I shared a room my sister and when we fought we divided the floor. Of course one of us got the door and the other was stuck by the window.
I feel fortunate not to have to follow the electrical tape to make way to my designated area. It's much better than needing to watch it, though I doubt people would wander to talk to others; we have to whisper when we talk and don't talk much.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Absurd Results in Document Reviews
Because we're thoughtlessly responding to the queries, based on the litigation team's analysis of the discovery requests, document reviews always generate absurd results. When I say "thoughtlessly" I mean that it isn't up to me to interpret what I've been told; if it meets the criteria, it's in. Whether it makes sense? Totally different question.
For example, if I was on the case of Barbie v. Bratz (yeah, I know it's Mattell v. whoever manufactures the Bratz dolls and Barbie is a jealous bitch because Bratz were outselling her), reviewing the Bratz materials, it's very likely that any mention of Barbie or Mattell would be responsive. Even if it was a newsletter from the Barbie fan club. Or Amazon update about a Barbie sale. Barbie birthday cake? It's in. These are the types of absurdities about which I speak; I know that the planning related to somebody's child's Barbie birthday party is non-responsive, but under the rules with which I have been provided, it's responsive. There's always something of this nature during a document review, whether it's travel plans mentioning a responsive hotel, mention of Euro Disney (which might be generated by a controversy over Disney or over Euros), or the appearance of a weekly M&M newsletter.*
Sometimes people ask whether the absolute junk responsive items really are responsive. We're usually told yes. That could change later, when someone at a higher level in the food chain starts examining the documents and asks the partner about these incredibly responsive documents. At that point, we might be told not to include certain types of documents, but only after it's far too late and the third-level reviewers have to screen them out instead of just verifying that the document review group included the appropriate information.
There's a fine line between responding to the discovery request and dumping documents. I'm not sure what it is; by excluding even the junk documents that are per se responsive based on discovery requests, a firm risks accusations of withholding; including the junk documents could lead to allegations of document dumping. Then again, with the law firmly believing that what matters are the words of a document on its face, this could leave you in the did not! did too! zone.
It's quite likely that the attorneys formulating discovery requests are thinking of the types of documents in which they're interested which will be generated by the discovery request and don't give a thought to completely useless items also generated by the same document request. Meanwhile, until I'm told otherwise, if it's responsive, though completely junk, it's in.
*examples have no relation to any reviews on which I have worked.
For example, if I was on the case of Barbie v. Bratz (yeah, I know it's Mattell v. whoever manufactures the Bratz dolls and Barbie is a jealous bitch because Bratz were outselling her), reviewing the Bratz materials, it's very likely that any mention of Barbie or Mattell would be responsive. Even if it was a newsletter from the Barbie fan club. Or Amazon update about a Barbie sale. Barbie birthday cake? It's in. These are the types of absurdities about which I speak; I know that the planning related to somebody's child's Barbie birthday party is non-responsive, but under the rules with which I have been provided, it's responsive. There's always something of this nature during a document review, whether it's travel plans mentioning a responsive hotel, mention of Euro Disney (which might be generated by a controversy over Disney or over Euros), or the appearance of a weekly M&M newsletter.*
Sometimes people ask whether the absolute junk responsive items really are responsive. We're usually told yes. That could change later, when someone at a higher level in the food chain starts examining the documents and asks the partner about these incredibly responsive documents. At that point, we might be told not to include certain types of documents, but only after it's far too late and the third-level reviewers have to screen them out instead of just verifying that the document review group included the appropriate information.
There's a fine line between responding to the discovery request and dumping documents. I'm not sure what it is; by excluding even the junk documents that are per se responsive based on discovery requests, a firm risks accusations of withholding; including the junk documents could lead to allegations of document dumping. Then again, with the law firmly believing that what matters are the words of a document on its face, this could leave you in the did not! did too! zone.
It's quite likely that the attorneys formulating discovery requests are thinking of the types of documents in which they're interested which will be generated by the discovery request and don't give a thought to completely useless items also generated by the same document request. Meanwhile, until I'm told otherwise, if it's responsive, though completely junk, it's in.
*examples have no relation to any reviews on which I have worked.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Hush Memos
When I worked on a project at the big local doc. review center, we periodically received hush memos. In addition to the document reviwers, there was also law firm support staff, presumably engaged in work related to electronic discovery on some level. When people were unusually chatty, someone would complain.
I was part of the largest group, so if there was noise, it was generally believed to be our fault, though not necessarily true; in one case another, smaller group was laughing and joking with their minder. That's right, their minder was part of the equation. What happened? Our minder received a complaint about the disruptive nature of our group and we received a hush memo.
Because this center does 100% quality reviews, there's always another group of QC'ers; in one case, a review group received a hush memo when it was their QC contingent actually making the noise! There was a perception that QC'ers behave better but not so!
As I only worked on one project in that situation, I haven't received a hush memo since. And I like it like that!
I was part of the largest group, so if there was noise, it was generally believed to be our fault, though not necessarily true; in one case another, smaller group was laughing and joking with their minder. That's right, their minder was part of the equation. What happened? Our minder received a complaint about the disruptive nature of our group and we received a hush memo.
Because this center does 100% quality reviews, there's always another group of QC'ers; in one case, a review group received a hush memo when it was their QC contingent actually making the noise! There was a perception that QC'ers behave better but not so!
As I only worked on one project in that situation, I haven't received a hush memo since. And I like it like that!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Privacy is only a Mirage
According to California Courts, privacy really isn't privacy. Why not? Because interception doesn't count unless information is actually in transit.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Location! Location! Location!
My current, soon-to-end project is in a different part of downtown; before, I was nearer the edge, so parking was $7.50 and the bus dropped me off on the doorstep of the building in the morning; I had to walk a block in the afternoon. Now that I'm closer to the heart of downtown, I have a three-block walk in the morning and three in the afternoon; if I walked the two blocks, the bus is full by then. I'm further from where the bus starts its route so walk a block down in order to catch a bus sooner.
This location is more convenient for shopping, which I'm trying not to do; major department store is just through the skyway and they have all kinds of things, including lunch. I've been good about bringing lunch and have done so all but the first day.
My lunch tends to be boring; sandwich and fruit. I bring a breakfast bar or granola bar, yogurt and banana for morning and at some point branch out to sandwich and more fruit later in the day. I drink a lot of water and try to avoid snacking. There's a convenience store on skyway level; which, for those of you who live in cities without skyways, is the second floor. Many buildings downtown are connected above street level with enclosed walkways. Think Habitrail for humans.
While this location is better in some ways, it's further from: my credit union, friends who work downtown and the bus pass store. It isn't that far, but a bit too far to go on a 15-minute break.
This location is more convenient for shopping, which I'm trying not to do; major department store is just through the skyway and they have all kinds of things, including lunch. I've been good about bringing lunch and have done so all but the first day.
My lunch tends to be boring; sandwich and fruit. I bring a breakfast bar or granola bar, yogurt and banana for morning and at some point branch out to sandwich and more fruit later in the day. I drink a lot of water and try to avoid snacking. There's a convenience store on skyway level; which, for those of you who live in cities without skyways, is the second floor. Many buildings downtown are connected above street level with enclosed walkways. Think Habitrail for humans.
While this location is better in some ways, it's further from: my credit union, friends who work downtown and the bus pass store. It isn't that far, but a bit too far to go on a 15-minute break.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)