Our response to LegalTech News

This morning, Legaltech News published an article titled “E-Discovery a ‘Stain’ on the Legal System” in response to an open letter Logikcull and our CEO Andy Wilson published in four of the leading ALM publications this month. That letter can be read on our website.

In the LTN piece, author Erin Harrison, who is the publication’s editor-in-chief, said that “in an exclusive interview” Andy “backtrack[ed] from the strong words used in his letter.”

To be clear: we were not given an exclusive interview, nor are we “backtracking” from a single word in the letter, which we put significant time, effort, and consideration into drafting.

The LTN piece insinuated that our open letter is literally calling for the end of the exchange of electronic evidence. That is quite obviously not the case. It should be clear from the context of our letter, the fact that Logikcull’s technology was built to make the exchange of electronic information easier and more transparent, and our very responses to Ms. Harrison that we are not calling for a literal end to discovery of electronic data. That this is an intractable part of the legal process should go without saying.

Posted below are, verbatim, Ms. Harrison’s emailed questions followed by our responses, which we sent to her only after we were declined the opportunity to speak by phone. We don’t believe her invitation to “Let me know if you want to email a couple of comments tonight” qualifies as an “exclusive interview.”

We welcome and encourage debate. That debate is necessary and is the only way we will collectively move forward.

Emailed responses

Ms. Harrison: 1) what kind of reaction have you received from the letter so far? Do you think the industry is open to the idea?

Andy Wilson: We’ve gotten a very positive reaction from people and organizations who are ready to embrace the change this industry so desperately needs. Our message is a rallying cry for improvement that resonates with those who are tired of the status quo in the eDiscovery space, a category which has become synonymous with waste, inefficiency, and added risk. To be sure, we anticipate significant pushback from companies and practitioners who have a vested interest in perpetuating this inertia, opaqueness, and extreme cost that characterizes “eDiscovery” today.

2) what do you mean “putting an end to e-discovery?” How is that possible given the enormous amounts of electronic data that exists today?

AW: We are obviously not calling for the end of the discovery process or the exchange of electronic information — which is an intractable part of litigation. What we are calling out is the waste, inefficiency, antiquated workflows, extreme cost and poor technology that comprise the “eDiscovery” category of solutions, services, and processes. We think the process of discovery can be made much more affordable, more transparent, and less risky with better, more accessible technology.

3) how does the Logikcull platform eliminate e-discovery?

AW: Again, Logikcull, clearly, does not eliminate the process of discovery — or the legal mandate to gather, identify and produce electronic information for legal purposes. It does, we believe, make the process much less complicated, more secure and more affordable, and we invite those who are skeptical of our message to try it for themselves. We’d be delighted if the market chose Logikcull for discovery, but whether or not we are chosen, we believe that there has got to be a better way.

We understand that Ms. Harrison has advertisers to answer to, and appreciate she is in a difficult situation. But her article does not accurately portray our message, or our efforts to explain that message to her.

We encourage your feedback and, again, welcome healthy debate. Andy can be reached at  Andy@logikcull.com.