Volatility: Enemy #1...

Organizations implement Operational Risk solutions to lower "volatility" in earnings growth and return on capital. The focus on volatility is because no institution likes to see peaks and valleys in their earnings or their return on capital.

A steady and consistent growth curve without "Volatility" is the goal by many steadfast organizations.

Contrary to the goal of minimized "volatility" there are also those who feed off of the chaos and the large swings between these highs and lows in the marketplace and with specific companies in vital sectors of the financial economy. Will another Blueprint for Regulatory Reform be the answer?

As a hedge fund investor, can you explain what the strategy is for your investment fund? Do you know what your money is being invested in?

Does your hedge fund manager provide transparency on calculating your return on funds invested? What was the reason you invested in alternative investments to begin with?

Carrying this analogy to the operational processes within your organization, the goal is to keep the processes running smoothly. When people or systems deviate from the agreed upon "Rule Sets" then change ensues along with the volatility of the performance measures.

Errors, Omissions and systemic "glitches" are the catalysts to volatility that creates fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Do you understand the Math? When the process gets to this stage and people don't trust the rules anymore, you are on the brink of a failure and impending loss, in dollars and/or peoples lives.

Operational Risk Management is a discipline that is remerging in our corporate ranks because it has already proven that it saves lives. The regulators and inspector generals are going to raise it’s mandate within our institutional ranks once again.

The "Rule Sets" of playing business in the financial, health care and energy sectors are not the only ones being subjected to this increased scrutiny and renewed focus on OPS Risk as lessons were learned over 15 years ago:

“In March of 2008, the Department of Defense learned that four non-nuclear nose cone assemblies and their associated electrical components for a ballistic missile where mistakenly shipped to Taiwan in the fall of 2006. These items were originally shipped in March 2005 from F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming to the Defense Logistics Agency warehouse at Hill Air Force Base in Utah. There are no nuclear or fissile materials associated with these items.

Upon learning of the error, the U.S. government took immediate action to acquire positive control of the components and arranged for their safe and secure recovery to the United States. These items have been safely returned to the United States.”

After this event, lessons learned and “After-Action-Reports” were generated in the ranks of the U.S. Treasury Department and the Department of Defense all relating to the failure of People, Processes, Systems and or External events.

Operational Risk is all around us and continuously ready for prime time focus in terms of our leadership strategy execution, implementation and measurement.

Whether you utilize Operational Risk Management (ORM) in the Defense Industrial Base or in another Critical Infrastructure sector in the United States, it’s important to revisit what it is NOT:

Operational Risk is Not:

• About avoiding risk
• A safety only program
• Limited to complex-high risk evolutions
• A program -- but a process
• Only for on-duty
• Just for your boss
• Just a planning tool
• Automatic
• Static
• Difficult
• Someone else’s job
• A well kept secret
• A fail-safe process
• A bunch of checklists
• Just a bullet in a briefing guide
• “TQL”
• Going away

The goal of Risk Management is not to eliminate risk, but to manage risk so the mission can be accomplished with minimum impact...

Problem-Solving: Transparency of Startup Operational Risks...

The lifeblood of an organization is comprised of several key components to sustain and continuously grow the enterprise.  Founders, senior management, engineers, financial and legal subject matter expertise usually comes first.  Then once the minimum viable product or solution is ready for the intended market there is a mad dash to add the sales and business development resources.

Startup mentality that initiates the planning, demand generation and "Go-to-Market" execution for the growth engine have higher Operational Risk exposure.  Many founders and new entrepreneurs who have engineering or operational expertise, underestimate the need for substantial growth engine investment early in the startup timeline.

How many times have you attended "Demo Days" or other such events intended for the startup founders to pitch their new App or service solution, begging for a first customer?  You must recognize that the new Artificial Intelligence interface, the optimized algorithm or the faster encrypted communications is not going to create a new market overnight.

Entrepreneurs require a substantial immersion into the business environment of problem-solving.  It begins with the customer or client who detects that there is an area of risk that needs remediation.  How do you think companies like Symantec and McAfee first started?  The personal computers that were becoming so pervasive were encountering something now called malware.

Solving problems from the customers perspective requires a deep and focused process with the owners, operators and end users.  It requires substantial time being embedded at the customer level or with the people who perform their daily tasks.  You need to understand the risks that the customer is experiencing.

This "Diagnostic-to-Prescriptive" process is not new.  Yet how many times have those "Demo Day" entrepreneurs or "Accelerator" graduates ended their pitch, with a plea for a first customer?  This is a recipe for failure.

How can this be changed or addressed, in order to increase the number of successful new businesses?  What should we be doing to assist these new entrepreneurs in embracing the "Operational Risks" of a customer and inventing a new solution to solve their problems?

The engineers and inventors should embrace the idea of finding customers first, who have real and risk sensitive problems they can solve.  It is not enough to just change an interface, reduce the pricing and copy an App, to do the same general function.  How long will it now take for Snap to begin building their own data centers and infrastructure?

Entrepreneurs that utilize the "Go-to-Market" strategy early in their growth cycle, will simultaneously increase exposure to substantial Operational Risks.  Take that great idea or new "Minimum Viable Product" to an established business in the industry sector you think is going to listen.  Find the right business to adopt you as a problem-solver with this new solution and take the time to learn.

Once you have lived with the same problem across several different businesses, agencies or governments, it might be time to launch the "Go-to-Market" strategy for a single industry sector or country to start.  The learning phase and early adoption of a multitude of business development processes, will establish a more solid foundation for launching the new product / solution.

When you look at Snapchat and its growth cycle, it was not obvious up front, how privacy was going to be such a tremendous risk to the business.  How you can pivot quickly from understanding your customers appetite for transparency, to also provide a robust privacy policy program, is just one way to build a trusted set of repeat customers.

Snapchat Transparency Reports are released twice a year. These reports provide important insight into the volume and nature of governmental requests for Snapchatters' account information and other legal notifications.

Legal Risk: The Insider Threat from Outside Counsel...

What will the "New Normal" be for the United States in the era of increased scrutiny on privacy law, civil liberties and the continuous quest for the security of the Homeland?  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals are ever more focused on "Information Operations" and counterintelligence functions while simultaneously working side-by-side, with their own General Counsel.  The laws in each state are changing and being updated as the Federal legislation stalemate continues:

Connecticut Updates its Data Security Laws, Imposing Stringent New Requirements By Ellen Moskowitz on July 15th, 2015 Posted in Legislation

On June 30, 2015, the Governor of Connecticut signed into law S.B. 949, “An Act Improving Data Security and Agency Effectiveness.”[1] The new law updates Connecticut’s data security laws, including by adding a 90-day hard deadline for data breach reporting, requiring companies in some cases to offer data breach victims a year of free identify theft prevention services, imposing new and specific data security program requirements on health insurance companies and other entities subject to Insurance Department regulation, and requiring state agencies to impose certain detailed security requirements on state contractors that maintain personal information. With a near constant stream of data breaches affecting entities from health insurers to retail giants to the government, the law responds to growing fears of data security.

Under the new law, beginning October 1, 2015, a data breach will require any person or entity conducting business in Connecticut to give notice “without unreasonable delay,” but now no later than 90 days after discovery of the breach, to state residents whose personal information was breached or reasonably believed to have been breached. The Connecticut Attorney General stated in a press release that 90 days is an “outside limit” that does not diminish his discretion to take action against entities who “unduly delay” notification.[2] Importantly, the law also requires the provision of at least twelve months of free identity theft prevention and mitigation services, but only in cases where Social Security numbers are breached or reasonably believed to have been breached.

If you happen to be concerned about the "Insider Threat" within your enterprise, then you realize the importance of creating the foundations for a sound legal framework.  One that addresses the rules that must be followed and the protocols for building trust with key corporate partners.  This includes the outside counsel that your enterprise engages with on an annual basis.

So what legal duty of care do your retained outside counsel have to secure your information?  What do they have in the environments that they operate in that may cause additional legal risks for your enterprise?  Do they understand the difference between information security and confidentiality?

First tier supply chain partners such as outside counsel are no different than the cloud provider or the HVAC contractor that may have access to the corporate network.  So what is the root cause of substantial intellectual property theft and industrial espionage targeted on law firms?  Failing to understand the vast landscape of "Operational Risk."  This includes negligent conduct and intentional misconduct.  So what can you do now to improve the outcomes of managing the legal risks of "Outside Counsel"?

Start a Dialogue:  Request a commitment to review the privacy vs. security environment of the key retained firms who provide the outside legal work for the enterprise.  Provide a case example of your corporate information security structure and priorities.

Ask Questions:  The whole spectrum of information security deserves a deep dive in the dialogue on managing digital information, making effective "Trust Decisions" and addressing eDiscovery and Records Management questions.

Team Together:  What if you worked with your outside firm to create a solution that included a collaborative design, prioritized execution, insisted upon cooperative feedback and insured continuous improvement?  Get your legal teams to train together with your CISO and CIO security teams.

Revise the Engagement Letter:  The contracting language must include the nuances of information security, privacy controls and an informative strategic plan for the inevitable point in time when there is a data breach at your outside counsel.  More here:

As Willie Sutton supposedly said, he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.”  That also explains why law firms and lawyers are increasingly the targets of cyber-intrusion, particularly phishing scams.  Apparently, phishing in legal waters can yield a full net of stolen information.

“Most likely” to take the bait
Verizon’s 2015 Data Breach Investigations Report has found that a company’s legal department is among the ones that are “far more likely to actually open [a phishing] e-mail than all other departments.”

In case you’ve been living under a rock, “phishing” is the attempt to obtain sensitive information fraudulently by means of a deceptive electronic communication that appears to come from a trustworthy source.  (Some link the term to the indie rock group Phish, but according to Computerworld magazine, the term was coined round 1996, with the obvious analogy to the sport of angling using a lure.  Under that view, the “ph” is a nod to an old form of telephone hacking known as “phone phreaking.”)

Shockingly, Verizon found that 23 percent of recipients open phishing messages, and 11 percent click on the fatal attachments.

eDiscovery Risk: The Marketing of Privacy...

Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals from London to Paris, Berlin to Brasilia and Silicon Valley to Washington, DC are quietly smiling these days.  It is ironic, that now privacy is the new vogue marketing strategy.  After so many years of trying to explain to executives the risks that exist around confidentiality, integrity and assurance of data--now a rogue U.S. citizen charged with espionage, finally has convinced some senior business executives of the value of marketing increased privacy of their technology products and services.  Chris Strohm explains:

While Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook Inc. provide data to the government under court orders, they are trying to prevent the NSA from gaining unauthorized access to information flowing between computer servers by using encryption. That scrambles data using a mathematical formula that can be decoded only with a special digital key. 

The NSA has tapped fiber-optic cables abroad to siphon data from Google and Yahoo, circumvented or cracked encryption, and covertly introduced weaknesses and back doors into coding, according to reports in the Washington Post, the New York Times and the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper based on Snowden documents. He is now in Russia under temporary asylum.

Mitigating the risks of being hacked by a group of criminals stealing personal identifiable information from consumers on a transnational basis has not motivated these same executives to move towards investing in more effective data and information assurance strategies.  Yet now that the adversary has been described by the mainstream media as the U.S. Government, industry executives have started to listen.  Go figure...

What are the industry executives motivation for now improving the confidentiality, integrity and assurance of customers information?  Improved market share and presence.  The payback will be rapid and those organizations that have been in denial that customers expect and demand more systems and tools to protect their information, are now doing an about face.

As we quickly approach Cyber Monday and the commerce of the Internet is at a peak of annual transaction volume, some servers will be talking to each other on encrypted networks for the first time. All seamless to the end user and consumer, yet not to the adversary.  So who really is the adversary these days; the criminal organizations or the U.S. Government?  The strategists mitigating risks at commercial private organizations unfortunately in many cases, see both in the same category.  This is a real mistake and one that should be evaluated, discussed and agreed upon.

You see, U.S. based companies must have an effective symbiosis with it's legal system and rule of law. What does that mean?  Operational Risk encompasses the risks to the institution from a legal perspective.  That means that the process of processing, storing, archiving and retrieving information is subject to the laws of electronic discovery and forensic evidence.  It means that as an organization, having an effective way to encrypt information to stay ahead of the criminal organizations simultaneously requires that your organization is also adaptive to current legal statutes.  Tomorrow, you may need to identify, decrypt and produce evidence to the U.S. Government or as a result of another legal order.

As organization executives embark on the "new new" trend of marketing privacy to their customers, they should also be working along side the legal staff.  The risk management and information technology professionals should be briefing both corporate executives on the implications of being responsive to their consumers and non-responsive to plaintiff lawyers, or the U.S. Attorney or State Attorney General:

Fearful of adverse consequences if they inadvertently discard electronic documents that are deemed to be relevant in litigation, some of the biggest companies in the U.S. are simply saving all documents, including email sent via employees' electronic devices. 

A minority of federal courts say companies can be sanctioned even if they discard documents without intending to. All allow sanctions, which can mean the loss of a big case, when documents are intentionally destroyed. So companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Microsoft Corp. are asking the federal Judicial Conference to recommend a new rule that would provide uniform standards for document retention and allow sanctions only when documents are destroyed willfully or in bad faith, reports the Wall Street Journal(sub. req.).

So this is where the marketeers and the legal staff need to get their heads together.  The privacy vs. government legal requests space is still not widely understood inside corporations let alone the average John Q. Citizen, who has never even heard of eDiscovery:

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said yesterday that there are "significant inaccuracies" in last week's news reports. He added in a blog post, referring to Outlook.com: "When we are legally obligated to comply with demands, we pull the specified content from our servers where it sits in an unencrypted state, and then we provide it to the government agency."

HSI Governance: Equilibrium of Privacy and Security...

When people are faced with increasing Operational Risk uncertainty in their organization, our inherent DNA makes us gravitate towards avoiding new risk at all costs. What any new bold policy shift requires to succeed for the masses is to face risk squarely in the eye and to manage it effectively. This is exactly how many private sector intelligence organizations have evolved and continue to thrive in a vast universe of "Open Source" and Electronically Stored Information (ESI).

The U.S. government "Homeland Security Intelligence" (HSI) enterprise has the same opportunity to embrace risk and simultaneously manage it more efficiently and effectively. Over the course of the past decade the U.S. Patriot Act has several controversial provisions that have been implemented, tested and refined. Several of these include Sec. 203(b) and (d) that allow information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the U.S. government. Another is Sec. 206 that allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices, eliminating the need for separate court authorizations for a suspect's cell phone, PC and Blackberry, for example. The civil liberties debate on Sec. 215 known as the "libraries provision" allows access to records such as what books were checked out at the library or purchased from a bookstore, as long as the records are sought "in connection with" a terror investigation.

The governance of information by the private sector may have either accelerated or detained HSI enterprises in terrorism investigations. One example are the policies private sector Internet Service Providers utilize for records management and "Electronically Stored Information" (ESI) readiness. Electronic discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) have created the requirement for private sector companies to be more prudent in "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care."

The risk associated with non-compliance of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is a major facet of Operational Risk Management. The fusion of the Corporate Governance Strategy Execution comes together with a dedicated internal "Task Force" inside the enterprise. Comprised of the General Counsel, CIO, CISO and VP of Human Resources, this team provides the mechanism for effective policy implementation and operations accountability. The mission is to carry out the fiduciary duty to create a culture of legal compliance within the organization.

The evidence obtained for Homeland Security Intelligence (HSI) investigations may only be as accessible and obtainable as the effectiveness of a private sector companies ESI policies. How often do they purge their e-mail from databases? How much data storage does the enterprise allow for each person's mailbox? Are there people circumventing the information governance policies in the private or public workplace in order to get their daily business accomplished?

The collection of information for HSI has a parallel path with the collection of evidence and it must be done according to the civil liberties and privacy laws of the United States. It is this balance and equilibrium between the governance of information and the legality of obtaining it for the purpose of a terrorism related investigation that brings us to a potential digital paradox.

Where action against a person or organization involves the law, either civil or criminal, the evidence presented shall conform to the rules for evidence laid down in the relevant law or in the rules of the specific court in which the case will be heard. This shall include compliance with any published standard or code of practice for the production of admissible evidence.

In Joshua Cooper Ramo's book "The Age of the Unthinkable","Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us and What We Can Do About It" the author discusses the concept of Deep Security. His analogy of how to think about "Deep Security" is the biological immune system. "A reactive instinct for identifying dangers, adapting to deal with them, and then moving to control and contain the risk they present."

The key word in Ramo's writing is "Adapt". Being Adaptive. However, prior to this there are two other very vital words that we feel are even more imperative. Instinct. Identifying. In other words, Proactive Intuition.

Ask any savvy law enforcement investigator or intelligence analyst on how she solved the case and you may hear just that, "I had a hunch." Talk with a Chief Privacy Officer in any Global 500 company and you might get them to admit they have a sense that their organization will be the target of a data breach incident in the coming year or two. The complexity of IT systems, data networks and the hundreds of laptops circling the globe with company executives is enough to predict that a major breach will occur.

Being adaptive and having proactive intuition in the modern Homeland Security Intelligence enterprise or private sector company does not come natural. You have to work at it and it requires a substantial investment in time and resources to make it work effectively. Once you realize that all of the legal controls, technology and physical security are not going to keep you out of harms way, you are well on your way to reaching the clairvoyance of "The Age of the Unthinkable."

Digital Paradox: Privacy v. Security...

The media communications and advertising industries are buzzing over the new U.S. Federal Trade Commission report and framework entitled: Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change. The Operational Risk Management implications to your enterprise could be significant if you currently do not understand how your marketing department provides disclosures or manages consumer collected data. If you think that you are protected because you outsource to a 3rd party, then think again. The power to the consumer is increasing and the data privacy laws are playing a quick game of catch-up on regulation:

Scope: The framework applies to all commercial entities that collect or use consumer data that can be reasonably linked to a specific consumer, computer, or other device.

Companies should promote consumer privacy throughout their organizations and at every stage of the development of their products and services.

With 500 Million plus people who are self-profiling themselves on Facebook these days, you might wonder if they even truly think about their privacy. See Controlling How You Share, Facebook

A variety of business models involve practices that fall outside the proposed “commonly accepted practices” category. These include, for example, a retailer collecting purchase information directly from a consumer and then selling it to a data broker or other third party that may be unknown to the consumer. Other examples include online behavioral advertising, in which an online publisher allows third parties to collect data about consumers’ use of the website, as well as social media services, where the service or platform provider allows third party applications to collect data about a consumer’s use of the service. In addition, as noted above, using deep packet inspection to create marketing profiles of consumers would not be a commonly accepted practice.

The new framework and panel discussions has focused on the Operational Risks associated with collecting, storing and sharing data on consumers. The regulations that change going forward to assist in consumer protections and disclosures may not have much impact on whether the consumers "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) is disclosed to nefarious transnational criminal syndicates without their permission.

If you are a U.S. government military employee you may have received notice lately from yourPenFed Credit Union that you too may have your PII in the hands of people that will use it for monetary gain. The continuous loss of data by institutions has now been verified as just another criminal business enterprise by organized crime and in many cases sanctioned by nation states. The data protection and data theft game is the modern equivalent of bank robbery yet it is moving at the speed of electrons across fiber optic networks world wide.

And now that this accelerating consumer issue of cybersecurity has made it's way to The White House, one can only wonder what may change. The cost to business is now $204.00 per record according to well respected research by Ponemon Institute. The MOU with DHS, Department of Commerce and the Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council (FSSCC) remains the window dressing on another unfunded effort to deter the cyber plague before us.

There is no shortage of people reporting about the breaches (this blog included), the hacks and the data leakage via employees using Peer 2 Peer file sharing software within the walls of their Fortune 500 company or government agency. Some people who are disclosing the information are doing it with alternative motives and rarely try to provide a potential solution to the problem.

So what can a PenFed or major U.S. Government agency do, to stem the tide of the growing digital tsunami of data thefts and transnational economic crime or acts of espionage? There is not one solution nor is there ever going to be a day when it all comes to an end. Which brings us to the mind set shift that is necessary to make a difference.

The Security vs. Privacy legal topic is somewhere in the mix of the solution. The education of our digital natives at a young age is another. Many kids know how to type with their thumbs better than they can write a legible letter to grand mother. And finally, the implementation of new technologies that will enable law enforcement to their jobs more effectively.

Now back to the mind set shift. Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post reports:

As the United States looks at ways to better protect Internet users’ privacy, Europe is going through its own update of online privacy rules. The 27-nation European Union is taking a more aggressive approach to privacy by setting higher bars for how data can be collected on Web users.

European laws prohibit Web sites from tracking users without their permission. The E.U. is also weighing legislation that would let users delete all their information from a Web site, such as Facebook, and transfer data from one wireless provider to another without leaving profiles behind.

Viviane Reding, the vice president of the E.U. Justice Commission and head of privacy regulation, visited The Post on Wednesday to talk about her approach to protecting users in the age of Internet over-sharing. On Thursday, she is scheduled to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss ways the E.U. and U.S. can cooperate on safeguarding consumers' personal information, including data on travel and finances. The talks may also touch on the recent disclosure of classified documents by Wikileaks.

Legal Risk: Early Case Assessment...

After a few days at LegalTech New York this week, it's now confirmed that a very small percentage of small to medium enterprises (SME) are truly ready for the Operational Risk of litigation. How can a General Counsel achieve a defensible standard of care in this vast sea of software, technology and vendors that are trying to address the modern day business problem called "Electronic Stored Information?" (ESI)

Yet the likes of Bank of America and the Attorney General of New York are well aware of the importance of the "Meet-and-Confer" process as the allegations of fraud look for the "Digital Smoking Gun". Let the metadata wars begin:

Legal action has begun against Bank of America and its former bosses, accusing them of duping investors and taxpayers during the takeover of Merrill Lynch.

The defendants are accused of intentionally withholding details of huge losses Merrill was suffering.

New York state officials have filed the action against the bank, former chief executive Kenneth Lewis and former chief financial officer Joseph Price.

Principle 12 to the Sedona Principles states: Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case. Sedona Principles 2d Principle 12

The issues faced by legal counsel at large Fortune 50 organizations are no different with the Small to Medium Enterprise when it comes to the "Meet-and-Confer." Making the decisions on what is relevant and the scope of eDiscovery is increasingly about the economics of litigation. Law firms are trying to reduce their costs and impact of billable hours with their clients and General Counsels are making sure that internal IT records management tasks are a top priority.

What many vendors are advocating in process and tools at LegalTech is the idea of Early Case Assessment (ECA). In other words, the Plaintiff is going to have to show their hand early and without slight of hand. These interviews with the Hon. James Holderman explains:

Editor: Doesn't that pretty much move in the direction of requiring the plaintiff to provide specific facts about the basis for the complaint? How can the discoverable "ESI" to be preserved and produced be determined unless the plaintiff comes forward with the specific facts on which its case is based?

Holderman: It cannot be done, and that is why the plaintiff needs to cooperate by divulging that information at the outset. Hiding the ball is a concept from the last century that can't be a part of present-day litigation. This is reflected in the Supreme Court's decisions in Iqbal and Twombly . Discovery is expensive and let's get the information out early. What is the benefit of bare-bones pleadings when the expense of e-discovery is so great? If the plaintiff has information then let's see whether the plaintiff has a sufficient basis for going forward to withstand a motion for summary judgment.

Where is the information you seek? In more places than you may realize as the investigation, forensics collection and rules of evidence are engaged. The risk of sanctions is real. The analysis of custodians Blackberry e-mails, BBM's and just plain text messages will be overwhelming as the Attorney General builds the case for fraud. The US Treasury, Federal Reserve and other government agencies will also be producing Terabytes of data for inquiry.

Regardless of the General Counsel's approaches at Bank of America or Merrill, the key risk items that they should have been addressing long before this trial with outside counsel are some of the following topics, again from LegalTech:

• Cloud-based email and records management provides a new approach for cost-effectively managing law firm content
• Securely archive information assets and maintain compliance with all regulatory standards, including the FRCP
• Meaning Based Computing to enable automatic categorization of ESI for the application of retention policies
• Sophisticated retention policies that enable non-critical data to be purged appropriately
• The ability to easily and transparently retrieve archived data, prepare the data for potential future legal holds or preservation, and to rapidly respond to a litigation and investigation pertaining to the firm

• How has legal changed the way we think about back-up?
• What does "inaccessible" mean in discovery?
• How can you implement a reasonable, defensible information management strategy that reduces risk?

As a law firm you always have to look at the fine print. B of A's procedures with outside counsel are available for review online:

These Procedures shall constitute the written engagement, or contract, of the firm for any matter for which it is engaged on behalf of Bank of America, and shall govern the terms of the engagement. These Procedures are applicable to all law firms and attorneys providing legal services to Bank of America. Law firms retained by Bank of America should ensure that a copy of these Procedures is provided to all attorneys, paralegals, administrative, clerical or other assistants assigned to a particular matter before work begins on any matter.

Economic Impact: Proving the Truth...

The Madoff investigations into so called "feeder firms" are now gaining momentum. The question on who are the victims and where fraud is suspected continues it's due course. The process of client referrals is not a crime and allegations that correlate this with fraudulent behavior is a flawed mindset. The current basis in the Merkin case has more to do with non-disclosure of where clients money was actually invested:

Andrew Cuomo, the New York attorney general, yesterday filed civil fraud charges against the hedge fund manager Ezra Merkin, alleging he secretly channeled more than $2.4bn to Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme in exchange for lucrative fees.

The move is the second regulatory action in two weeks against one of the big so-called "feeder" funds that sent billions of dollars to Mr Madoff, who pleaded guilty to one of history's biggest investment frauds.

Mr Cuomo accused Mr Merkin, a leading figure in the New York charity community and former chairman of financing company GMAC, of steering money from charities, universities and non-profit organisations to Mr Madoff without their permission and reaping about $470m in fees for his three funds.

"Merkin duped individual investors, non-profits and charities into believing he was responsibly managing their investments, when in actuality he was dumping them into history's largest Ponzi scheme,'' Mr Cuomo claimed yesterday.

Operational Risk professionals in these hedge funds and other alternative investment firms are getting prepared. These organizations will continue to be under the regulatory spotlight for years to come. Fraud and the fear of fraud will make their potential clients even more diligent in their understanding of where their funds are being invested. The federal watchdogs, oversight mechanisms and civil law suits will require firms to have their risk management "Act" together.

When it comes time to prove the truth, whether innocent or guilty, it will come down to information. The likelihood that this information is housed in a database, e-mail system or off-site disaster recovery repository is almost certain. Digital information that is part of any inquiry for civil or criminal action is subject to the "Rules of Evidence" and the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." This is where most of the alternative investment firms have their greatest exposure and vulnerability today. Call it the "Readiness Factor".

In a groundbreaking case from the past year, Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05CV1958, 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Calif. March 5, 2008), the court found the plaintiffs to have committed "monumental and intentional" discovery violations for failing to produce thousands of documents requested in discovery. The court cited the "impressive education and extensive experience" of Qualcomm's attorneys to justify significant sanctions for failure to produce relevant e-mails, including reporting to the State Bar of California.

The "Readiness Factor" goes far beyond the process or procedures for preserving evidence. It starts with the creation of information inside the organization. How is it classified, where is it stored and who has access to it? These are fundamental Information Technology and Records Management 101 questions that any prudent organization has already answered. Where most firms find themselves with their backs up against the "legal wall" has to do with relevance, authenticity, and admissibility of information.

The "Alternative Investment" industry is quickly learning that their own IT professionals are going to end up on the witness stand and in early depositions. They are going to be hearing questions such as:

• What policies or procedures do you manage in your department/organization?
• What training do you have on the collection and preservation of "Electronically Stored Information"?
• Explain your responsibility or supervision of access controls, folder management, indexing, purging controls and metadata?
• Describe the procedures your firm utilizes to identify the places, people (custodians) and quality of the data that has been preserved for this case?

The list continues and the IT professionals better be ready. Adversarial counsel will be digging deep to get after the key components of authenticity and spoilation issues. The unfavorable outcomes from a lack of readiness can produce an "Economic Factor" that far exceeds the cost of just finding and producing the information for e-Discovery.

The economic impact of proving the truth in any case can be significant. If you were a savvy and smart prosecuter, the cases that would filter to the top for scrutiny may very well be those firms that display the most "IT Immaturity." Getting some wins under your belt with some relevant case law could determine how fast future cases are settled far in advance of ever getting to trial.

For those "Alternative Investment" firms that are behind the 8 Ball, here is a good place to start your own discovery of the total cost of proving the truth. The E-Discovery Road Map.

2009 Outlook: OPS Risk Top Priorities...

In light of the 2009 outlook and the fact that Operational Risk is now a much greater priority, here are vital areas to focus on for the New Year. As restructuring, downsizing, layoffs and overall corporate strategy and governance initiatives are kicked-off for the 2009 calendar year; here are the top priorities according to Peter L. Higgins, Managing Director of OPS Risk advisory firm 1SecureAudit.

"Operational Risk will continue to be a major focus for Boards of Directors in 2009 and for good reason. Governance Strategy Execution, Information and Records Management and Legal Risk are all in need of a critical review and a robust injection of new resources. We are at the beginning of a new "S" curve cycle on the down slope just as we saw in late 2001 post 9/11 and the "Dot Com" era, Higgins said."

"This requires a renewed and substantial commitment to keeping our code of practice guidance and implementation advice narrowly focused on several key areas of the corporate enterprise:"

• Organizational Security
• Information Security Infrastructure: Cooperation between organizations
• Appropriate contacts with law enforcement authorities, regulatory bodies, information service providers and telecommunications operators shall be maintained.
• Asset classification and control
• Information Classification: Information labelling and handling
• A set of procedures shall be defined for information labelling and handling in accordance with the classification scheme adopted by the organization.
• Personnel Security
• Responding to security incidents and malfunctions: Reporting security weaknesses
• Users of information services shall be required to note and report any observed or suspected security weaknesses in, or threats to, systems or services.
• Communications and operations management
• Operational procedures and responsibilities: External facilities management
• Prior to using external facilities management services, the risks shall be identified and appropriate controls agreed with the contractor, and incorporated into a contract.
• Exchanges of information and software: Security of electronic mail
• A policy for the use of electronic mail shall be developed and controls put in place to reduce security risks created by electronic mail.
• Access Control
• Monitoring system access and use: Monitoring system use
• Procedures for monitoring the use of information processing facilities shall be established and the result of the monitoring activities reviewed regularly.
• Business Continuity
• Aspects of Business Continuity Management: Testing, maintaining and re-assessing BCP
• Business continuity plans shall be tested regularly and maintained by regular reviews to ensure that they are up to date and effective.
• Compliance
• Compliance with legal requirements: Collection of evidence
• Where action against a person or organization involves the law, either civil or criminal, the evidence presented shall conform to the rules for evidence laid down in the relevant law or in the rules of the specific court in which the case will be heard. This shall include compliance with any published standard or code of practice for the production of admissible evidence.

Here are some of the top cases to review for OPS Risk lessons learned in 2008:

01/04/08 - Detroit: Eleven Indictments in International Illegal Spamming and Stock Fraud Scheme - Eleven individuals were indicted in a wide-ranging international fraud scheme which manipulated stock prices through illegal spam e-mail promotions.

02/15/08 - Washington: DOD Employee Arrested in Chinese Espionage Case - Gregg William Bergersen, a Weapons Systems Policy Analyst at the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense, was arrested for passing classified documents to the People’s Republic of China.

02/22/08 - Miami: Five Individuals Indicted for $200 Million Hedge Fund Fraud - Michael Lauer, founder of Lancer Group Hedge Fund, and four others were indicted on conspiracy and wire fraud charges in a $200 million hedge fund fraud.

02/29/08 - Houston: Chinese Chemist Indicted for Theft of Trade Secrets - Qinggui Zeng, aka Jensen Zeng, a legal permanent resident from China, was indicted and charged with theft of trade secrets and computer fraud.

03/14/08 - Cincinnati: Financial Enterprise Executives Found Guilty in $3 Billion Fraud Scheme - Five former executives of National Century Financial Enterprises were found guilty of conspiracy, fraud and money laundering in a $3 billion security fraud scheme.

05/16/08 - Washington: Guilty Plea in Espionage Charge Involving China - Tai Shen Kuo pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver national defense information to the People’s Republic of China.

06/20/08 - Operation Malicious Mortgage Nets 406 Individuals - Charges in Operation Malicious Mortgage, a nationwide takedown of mortgage fraud schemes which inflicted approximately $1 billion in losses, were brought in every region of the country.

10/17/08 - FBI Coordinates Global Effort to Nab “Dark Market” Cyber Criminals - A two year undercover operation, Dark Market, which joined forces with international law enforcement, resulted in 56 arrests and $70 million in economic loss prevention.

11/28/08 - Dallas: Holy Land Foundation and Leaders Convicted - The Holy Land Foundation of Relief and Development and five of its leaders were found guilty of illegally funneling at least $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas.

12/12/08 - Chicago: Illinois Governor Arrested - Governor Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff John Harris were arrested on federal corruption charges including conspiring to trade or sell the Illinois’ Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Beyond the Bernie Madoff fraud scheme that rocked the Hedge Fund universe the real systemic risks to deal with in 2009 will continue to be tied to the housing and mortgage sector:

• Recent statistics suggest that escalating foreclosures provide criminals with the opportunity to exploit and defraud vulnerable homeowners seeking financial guidance.
• Perpetrators are exploiting the home equity line of credit (HELOC) application process to conduct mortgage fraud, check fraud, and potentially money laundering-related activity.

The Operational Risks in corporate enterprises will be increasing as the economy adjusts and finds it's new equilibrium. Hang on for a wild ride in 2009!

ESI Risk: Seizing Electronic Evidence...

In this issue of Board Member Magazine, Lisa Ferri reminds us of the importance of the risk of Electronic Evidence.

If the only thing better than learning from your mistakes is learning from the mistakes of others, then directors need to take a lesson from Philip Morris. A few years ago the tobacco giant was slapped with a $2.75 million fine by a federal court. The offense? Wrongful destruction of e-mails, otherwise known in legal circles as spoliation of evidence. The court found that at least 11 Philip Morris executives “at the highest corporate level” were guilty of violating a court order concerning document retention. In other words, they purged and paid the price.

United States of America v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al. is a cautionary tale of the problems awaiting companies that are either unaware of or unprepared for the world of electronic evidence. The rules governing that world are evolving at warp speed.

In the United States, does an employee need the companies permission to seize your computer at the workplace for electronic evidence? In order to be more informed about this procedure and the legal implications in your enterprise, see CCIPS.

Warrantless workplace searches occur often in computer cases and raise unusually complicated legal issues. The starting place for such analysis is the Supreme Court's complex decision in O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987). Under O'Connor, the legality of warrantless workplace searches depends on often-subtle factual distinctions such as whether the workplace is public sector or private sector, whether employment policies exist that authorize a search, and whether the search is work-related.

Your compliance or legal office can provide you with the guideance for any employee that is suspected of violating company policies with regard to computers crime or theft of confidential information or intellectual property. The question remains, what policy is in existence today and what methods have been utilized for full disclosure to employees that may impact their rights of privacy on the job?

For more help on this subject see: Best Practices for Seizing Electronic Evidence.

Just remember, Forensics and gathering electronic evidence in a criminal matter is in opposition to your recovery. Once a violation has occured, you can make changes, clean up the problem and get back to normal or you can preserve the crime scene for evidence. It's one or the other. If it's not, then that is when you run into problems. Document retention strategies in combination with Forensic Digital Discovery procedures are critical to any organization that cares to mitigate the ongoing risks of electronic evidence.

Legal Ecosystem: Survival of the Fittest...

The life cycle of monetary policy and financial fraud is being mapped once again in concert with new investigations into corporate malfeasance. As economic trends run their systemic course so do the highs and lows of human behavior to create new schemes to defraud customers, partners and even fellow employees.

Prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn are stepping up their scrutiny of players in the subprime-mortgage crisis, focusing on Wall Street firms and mortgage lenders, the Wall Street Journal said on its Web site.

A task force of federal, state and local agencies will look into potential crimes ranging from mortgage fraud by brokers to securities fraud, insider trading and accounting fraud, the Journal said.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is already targeting major corporate insiders and criminal groups in its investigation of fraud in the mortgage lending industry. The FBI has said it is investigating 19 companies in mortgage cases.

The formation of the task force amplifies efforts already under way in Brooklyn, where prosecutors are investigating whether investment bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research) improperly valued its mortgage-securities holdings, the report said.

Also being investigated are the circumstances surrounding the failure of two hedge funds at Bear Stearns Cos (BSC.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which collapsed last summer because of losses tied to mortgage-backed securities, the report said.

Fraud, like other crimes of opportunity, have three common attributes:

1. A growing supply of motivated offenders
2. The availability of prospective or ideal targets
3. The lack of consistent oversight mechanisms—control systems or someone to monitor the business

Beyond the typical motivations for initiating deceptive practices and fraud are the underlying mind sets. "Neutralization" creates the road map for nullifying internal moral objections. The type of fraud is not the issue here as much as that offenders seek to justify or rationalize their actions and methods. Grace Duffield and Peter Grabosky have captured the four main categories of fraud in their paper, "The Psychology of Fraud."

• Fraud committed against an organisation by a principal or senior official of that organisation
• Fraud committed against an organisation by a client or employee
• Fraud committed against one individual by another in the context of face-to-face interaction
• Fraud committed against a number of individuals through print or electronic media, or other indirect means

Now the IT departments will be buzzing as they will be under orders to preserve e-mail archives as evidence as soon as notices arrive on the doorsteps of not only the large funding institutions themselves, but the hundreds of organizations in the corporate supply-chain.

The duty to preserve attaches immediately once the company is on notice. Once an investigation or lawsuit is reasonably anticipated or a complaint is received, the requirement to preserve materials attaches and preservation efforts need to be undertaken as soon as possible. There are no cases that provide definitive guidance as to how quickly litigation hold notices must be sent once the duty is triggered, but any such case will be evaluated in hindsight, i.e., after relevant materials have been destroyed, and very little if any delay is likely to be tolerated by the courts.

Let's do some simple math here. Multiply the number of banking branches x the number of mortgage brokers for each branch x the number of appraisal firms and you start to understand the magnitude of the volume of data. While some larger banking institutions have centralized underwriting operations for all of the branches, they still rely on a supply-chain of small businesses in the local market to address the valuations and appraisals of property.

The next trend line we will see is the up tick in court filings and the litigation wars for the next few years to come. One fact remains obvious. Organizations large and small will be drawn into these Operational Risk Management challenges without the proper policies, practices and behavior to prevail. In any "legal ecosystem" we know about the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" comes to mind and this one, will be no different.

"Survival of the fittest" is sometimes claimed to be a tautology. The reasoning is that if one takes the term "fit" to mean "endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and reproduction" (which is roughly how Spencer understood it), then "survival of the fittest" can simply be rewritten as "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving".

Rule-Set Reset: Evidence Life Cycles...

Here are a few of the "Top of Mind" topics these days at the nexus of Legal Risk and "Defining the New Rules Sets" for Information Management and Digital Forensics. What is a "Rule-Set Reset"?

When a crisis triggers your realization that your world is woefully lacking certain types of rules, you start making up those new rules with a vengeance (e.g., the Patriot Act and the doctrine of preemption following 9/11). Such a rule-set reset can be a very good thing. But it can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease.

• The Computer as Witness--What The Courts Allow.
• Improper and Negligent Records Hold Practices.
• Calculating Settlement Values in a Digital World..
• Economics of Electronic Discovery.
• Evaluating Outside Law Firms: Competing for Client Revenue.
• Discovering the Legal Value of Electronic Information.
• Chain of Custody Controls and Vulnerabilities.
• Logs, Metadata and Backups.
• Evidence Life Cycle Management.
• Operational Risks in Existing Corporate Information Management Practices.

These topics and more are worth investing time, resources and manpower for vital learning, education and convergence within the legal department of your institution. Why? Just ask Waters Edge Consulting. Because just preparing for ESI custodian depositions under Rule 30(b)(6) will not be enough for your team to win these days. It's going to take substantially more investment in governance strategy execution within the ranks of the CIO, CSO and General Counsel in the aftermath of the sub-prime "Armageddon."

Today, many organizations have Enterprise Records Management (ERM) systems that provide clear guidelines for data retention and destruction. In addition, organizations facing frequent lawsuits often use Electronic Data Discovery (EDD) vendors and outside counsel to process and review electronically stored information (ESI) during discovery.

Unfortunately, neither solution creates a framework that recognizes all data as potential evidence and puts a consistent methodology in place for handling it efficiently and cost effectively.

Evidence Lifecycle Management (ELM) is such a framework. An ELM system, such as MatterSpace from WorkProducts, provides:

• Automated identification, preservation, and collection of structured and unstructured matter-specific ESI from all accessible eRecords sources
• Role-based collaboration and communications that drive all case-specific ESI activities
• Auditing and reporting of all ESI communications and events, including litigation holds

ELM bridges the gap between ERM and EDD, speeding up ESI delivery while reducing the risk and cost of ESI processing and legal review.

A prudent governance execution strategy would include a ratio of new learning, education and policy development combined with the correct tools and managed services. Yet how do you determine the right recipe for your institution? After all, you are unique and unlike any other organization out there.

The fact is that it has to be customized to your exact size, exposures and vulnerabilities. You first have to establish the baseline and develop the foundation for making the right decisions in the right order. Most importantly, it has to be co-designed with the legal team and the custodians of the information if you are to ever find any chance of success. Underlying all of the dialogue on who a particular matter relates to and where the information is located brings up another area that is imperative to the overall resilience of the organization. Continuity of Operations.

At the end of the day, this is what you are really buying. True DataVaulting means exchanging the headaches and liability of maintaining your own backups for the simplicity and convenience of contractually backed Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

Without effective DataVaulting, DRP and overall Continuity of Operations as an underlying foundation for managing the life cycle and longevity of your institutions records, you may already be subjected to the increased risk of fines and non-compliance sanctions from FINRA or the SEC.

The correct Business Resilience Architecture begins with a firm statement of applicability for your institution. The statement of applicability (SOA) is the architectural blueprint that identifies controls that are pertinent to your environment, and explains how and why they are appropriate. The SOA is derived from the output of a comprehensive operational risk assessment and development of an enterprise wide "Early Warning System."

Centre-left leaders from around the world called on Saturday for urgent reform of global financial institutions to prevent a recurrence of the credit crisis.

About a dozen leaders, brought together by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, issued a communique urging the International Monetary Fund to help develop an effective early warning system to guard against financial risks to the global economy.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the world had to learn the lessons from the credit crisis, sparked eight months ago by massive default on U.S. sub-prime mortgage debt.

"Too often in the past when these sorts of events have occurred ... the lessons are lost. The lessons must be learned and applied, otherwise we will face a very rocky future indeed," Rudd told a news conference after the "Progressive Governance" conference outside London.

The leaders, also including South African President Thabo Mbeki, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, gathered just before key Group of Seven and IMF meetings in Washington next week which will discuss the financial turbulence.

Also attending were the heads of the IMF, World Trade Organisation (WTO), the African Development Bank and several U.N. agencies.

ESI Lessons Learned: CREDO & Qualcomm...

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., Case No. 05cv1958 (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), issued on January 7, 2008, should be a major wake-up call for corporate litigants. (The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California) This case is about electronically stored information (ESI) and the ability to manage and produce the correct records at the time requested.

Evidence Lifecycle Management (ELM) is imperative in the context of Governance Strategy Execution within the halls of corporate legal departments. Having an Operational Risk Framework to address legal matters is the "Holy Grail" for many Audit Committees of global Fortune 50 institutions and the General Counsel. What are some of the elements of enterprise ELM? To start:

• Automated identification, preservation, and collection of structured and unstructured matter-specific ESI from all accessible eRecords sources
• Role-based collaboration and communications that drive all case-specific ESI activities
• Auditing and reporting of all ESI communications and events, including litigation holds

Duane Morris LLP has this to say about the Qualcomm case:

Emphasizing that it is the responsibility of attorneys (both in-house counsel and retained counsel) to make certain that their clients carry out an effective and comprehensive document search, the court noted that "[p]roducing 1.2 million pages of marginally relevant documents while hiding 46,000 critically important ones does not constitute good faith and does not satisfy either the client's or attorney's discovery obligations." The court suggested that in-house counsel have a duty to confirm the veracity of any signed papers produced during discovery.

The district court's solution was to order Qualcomm to implement a "comprehensive Case Review and Enforcement of Discovery Obligations ('CREDO') program" which, at a minimum, includes:

(1) identifying the factors that contributed to the discovery violation, (2) creating and evaluating proposals, procedures, and processes that will correct the deficiencies identified in subsection (1), (3) developing and finalizing a comprehensive protocol that will prevent future discovery violations, (4) applying the protocol that was developed in subsection (3) to other factual situations, such as when the client does not have corporate counsel, when the client has a single in-house lawyer, when the client has a large legal staff, and when there are two law firms representing one client, (5) identifying and evaluating data tracking systems, software, or procedures that corporations could implement to better enable inside and outside counsel to identify potential sources of discoverable documents, and (6) any other information or suggestions that will help prevent discovery violations.

The court ordered that the attorneys submit a proposed protocol for the court to evaluate and revise, if necessary. While the district court's immediate goal was to remedy this specific instance of misconduct, the court hoped that its opinion would be a "road map" for electronic discovery and would "assist counsel and corporate clients in complying with their ethical and discovery obligations and conducting the requisite 'reasonable inquiry.'"

The risk associated with non-compliance of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is a major facet of Operational Risk Management. The fusion of the Corporate Governance Strategy Execution comes together with a dedicated internal "Task Force" inside the enterprise. Comprised of the General Counsel, CIO, CISO and VP of Human Resources, this team provides the mechanism for effective policy implementation and operations accountability. The mission is to carry out the fiduciary duty to create a culture of legal compliance within the organization.

The Board of Directors have learned their lesson turning over the entire process to outside counsel. The trend of outsourcing the many tasks and duties assigned to the discovery and admissibility of (ESI) is coming to an end. Soon the General Counsel will be standing up the internal "Task Force" to identify and produce in a reliable and cost-effective manner. The trend is gaining momentum and law firms are getting more "Requests for Information" (RFI) on their true electronic discovery capabilities.

Establishing "A Defensible Standard of Care" within the enterprise continues to be the ultimate goal. While some law firms have started to offer services to determine the readiness of their clients for large ESI cases, more corporate institutions are reversing the economic process associated with E-Discovery and asking:

"What are the Electronic Discovery Capabilities of our outside counsel?"

FRE 502: Evidence & Digital Discovery...

What could the implications of this ruling be for employees in New York state? Scott v Beth Israel Med. Ctr. Inc.

The writing is on the wall with the attorney-client privilege and Federal Rules of Evidence 502. A review of current e-mail policy may also be in order at your institution if you plan on achieving "A Defensible Standard of Care."

On December 11, 2007, Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced S. 2450, a bill adding new Evidence Rule 502 to the Federal Rules of Evidence. The legislation addresses waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product protection and is identical to proposed Evidence Rule 502, which was approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States and transmitted to Congress for its consideration in September 2007.

Here are comments by the BLT:

If approved, the legislation would allow litigants to avoid waiving privilege on inadvertent disclosures if parties took reasonable efforts to vet the documents and asked for the return of any privileged information in a timely manner.

"The surging use of email and other electronic media has forced parties to spend billions of dollars and countless hours to guard against the unintentional release of such information," Leahy's office reported. Specter added that the new rule would help ensure that "the wheels of justice will not become bogged down in the mud of discovery.”

Stephen D. Whetstone, Esq. of Stratify says this:

Given the increased risks and costs, it is no surprise that many companies are trying to wrest control over the discovery process. More companies are now directing outside their counsel to leverage technology to automatically organize huge data collections, help understand foreign languages and detect privilege and thereby drive down the costs and mistakes that result from fatigued human review. The rule-makers get it, too. The Advisory Committee Notes to proposed FRE 502 provide: "Depending on the circumstances, a party that uses advanced analytical software application and linguistic tools in screening for privilege and work product may be found to have taken 'reasonable steps' to prevent inadvertent disclosure."

In short, in the 12 months since adoption of the new discovery rules, the sky did not fall. But, for some, it grew darker and more expensive to prop up.

In case you haven't noticed your CIO in the General Counsel's office lately, you soon will. The use of automated tools for Electronic Content Management (ECM) have converged with the tools for Disaster Recovery Management (DRM). In the middle of the pile of documents, email and other electronically stored information (ESI) is something called effective Records Management.

Managing information that is discoverable through email from Party A to Party B using the internal e-mail system provided by the employer to the third parties outside of the organization including lawyers is the nexus here. How can an organization make sense of it all and keep the GC from pointing fingers at the CIO?

The answer begins with building awareness and education with all employees in the organization, not just the legal staff and IT. It begins the moment any employee opens the word doc or excel spreadsheet. The second you reply to that IM or e-mail on your PDA . Only through effective education and policy management will the enterprise learn how to modify behavior regardless of what tools and systems are put in place to organize, sort and query ESI.

"Whether building the castle walls or defending the crown jewels, knowing the right questions can make all of the difference."

The beginning of your educational journey starts here: CastleQuest

ECM Security: Trusted Information...

When it comes to Enterprise Content Management (ECM), security is an issue that continues to challenge most vendors. John Newton is in search of topics at AIIM that address the security needs of the market place:
Content Log

• Common identity. There needs to be a common way of addressing identity between different services whether those services are in the enterprise or outside.
• Common Models for Rights Management. The big, looming problem in content is the fact that huge numbers of users are adding, accessing or updating an even larger number of pieces of content.
• Distributed Directory Services. Identity is not sufficient for determining roles or entitlements.
• Mashup Frameworks for Security. Mashups, the integration of different systems at the browser level, represent the fastest-growing and easiest mechanism to weld systems together. Almost all mashups have no notion of security and only work on public systems.
• Search and Security. As search becomes increasingly federated, such as through the OpenSearch API, managing identity and entitlements on content becomes very problematic.

Whether John will find the answers is questionable. And that is exactly the issue when it comes to hosting or managing enterprise information. Almost a year ago before Stellant (Sealed Media) was purchased by Oracle, their survey of 29 CIO's who had invested more than $1M. in ECM had these as their top priorities:
The concerns were ranked on a scale of one to eight, eight being the most important.

1. Guarantee ISO 17799 compliance: 6.03
2. Protection of intellectual property during offshoring or outsourcing: 5.52
3. Protection of high- and executive-level communications: 4.79
4. Improvement of workflow-process automation: 4.41

So what?

If you are an ECM vendor and you only have so many bucks to spend on development of the next generation of your software, what are you going to add and what are you going to fix? So why is number one and two so important to CIO's who have invested so much money in their platforms?

Some of the answers can be found in the root cause of their concerns. We found some relevant discussion in a position paper entitled:

W3C Workshop on Transparency and Usability of Web Authentication by Jeffrey Ritter & Said Tabet

Statement of Issues: The conflict between the potential of Web Services and the inadequacy of web authentication is potentially best described as “a failure to communicate”. As enterprises extend and evolve into more dynamic, real-time facilities, central operations require the ability to express their security requirements in greater detail than can be currently enabled. Corporations must define and adhere to increasingly large directories of requirements in the management of their internal security controls; requiring compliance with those controls by participants in the extended enterprise is becoming essential.

Corporate operations increasingly distribute their computing and data processing requirements across a network of third party services, some of which are engaged and employed for controlled, finite sessions. But those third parties, for so long as they are processing data and functioning as part of the operating whole of the primary corporation, are being pressured to demonstrate their adherence to the security controls of their customers. This requirement is an expression of a requirement for trustworthiness—to be engaged as a part of the extended enterprise is to be trusted to perform in compliance with the applicable controls.

The enterprise who has exposure to continuous litigation is evaluating new ways to look at 3rd Parties who manage their information and this includes law firms. When you hand over management of critical and legally binding information to a 3rd party, trust is a key component of that decision. So how do you know if your law firm(s) and database marketing companies such as Merkle, Inc. or other outsourced service providers have the trustworthiness to be part of your extended enterprise? The fact is you don't unless you require the new and existing parts of the information supply chain in your organization to operate as one seamless trusted entity.

The greatest economic risk companies face with electronic discovery is choosing the wrong law firm. Under the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the amounts at stake are not just legal fees or settlement costs; searching for and recovering electronic business records causes productivity losses and threatens revenue. Bottom line, selecting a law firm that is ill-prepared to effectively manage electronic discovery can cost enormously - internal records preservation and production costs are considered one of the largest uncontrolled expenses in corporate America.

So how do you select the right firm?

For corporations, Evaluating the Electronic Discovery Capabilities of Outside Law Firms: A Model Request for Information and Analysis provides corporate law departments, records management and IT departments an invaluable tool to ensure that the legal risks of e-discovery are competently addressed by their outside law firms.

Here is a peek at the line up so far this year by just one government regulator, the SEC.