Jurisdiction - Singapore
Coverage from the Asia Pacific eDiscovery Exchange, 31 October 2011.

31 October, 2011




Full Agenda








What was discussed:


  • Singapore Practice directions

  • Managing Discovery in Asia Pacific

  • US Litigation for Asian Companies

  • Applying standard cost accounting and time-and-motion studies to predict and manage evidence management

  • Developing and optimizing specialized e-discovery teams within in-house corporate counsels’ offices and at law firms and measuring their cost savings

  • Designing and implementing capped-fee arrangements for legal services

  • Managing international evidence management and assessment projects in light of varying and sometimes inconsistent legal and professional standards

  • Role of eDiscovery during an FCPA invetigation

  • eDiscovery for IP litigation and government regulatory investigations

  • Best practices for proactive eDiscovery response

Quotes from the Conference  


‎”Given the complexities associated with electronic discovery, any successful effort requires a cooperative effort between in house counsel, outside counsel, IT professionals and service providers.”


Browning E Marean III, Senior Counsel, DLA Piper.


“Companies need to focus on litigation and investigation preparedness. With the proper pieces in place, such as a defensible document retention policy and an updated litigation map, business continuity is not disrupted.”


James Robinson, Senior Consultant – Legal Technologies, Control Risks.


“Understanding the electronic data within your organization is more than just for US litigation or foreign government anti-competition investigation. It is absolutely essential for a company effectively handling most internal investigations.”


Scott A. Warren, Regional Managing Director of Legal Technologies, Kroll Ontrack APAC.


“In any jurisdiction it is important to know the rules and the cases and to have an idea of the court’s expectations. In doing all that, it is easy to lose sight of the clients’ objectives and the courts’ overriding purpose of doing justice. It is generally not necessary to turn over every stone to achieve this. How much does the court really need? What really matters? It is not good enough to say “e-Disclosure is too expensive” without knowing what that cost actually is, what will be achieved by the outlay and what other costs will be saved. e-Discovery is not optional – the documents exist and must be dealt with by whatever means are proportionate to the objective.”


Chris Dale, Founder & Consultant, e-Disclosure Information Project



“Training has come up numerous times in the conference as a critical issue. One area I feel understanding is important is that the e-discovery process requires several distinct skillsets, both within the organisation and without. Often there is pushback on use of experts as there is a feeling this is increasing costs, however, to the contrary it’s vital to controlling not just costs, but retaining control of the matter overall.” 


Richard Kershaw, Asia Managing Director, Catalyst Repository Systems



“The United States’ evidence management rules impose legal duties which are sweeping and, in some instances, unbounded.  These duties drive up risks that the marketplace—solicitors and other trusted agents (aka “vendors”)—converts to costs.  Oftentimes, those costs are so large that they distract the matter’s management, diverting focus from the legal merits to disclosure disputes that afford opponents the opportunity to extort settlements.


When electronic discovery projects are properly managed, however, risks can be mitigated and costs can be made predictable and minimal. 


Doing so is more a matter of perspiration than inspiration: it requires managing the project not perfectly but with at least the same level of seriousness of purpose by which the clients normally operates its own business operations and, like normal clients’ business style, merging authority and responsibility within a team of counsel, technologists and trusted agents.


Over time, the US rules will evolve toward clarifying the trigger that imposes the duty to preserve, constraining the scope of discovery, and enhancing the opportunity for parties’ to obtain promptly judicial rulings regarding disclosure-related disputes.


It will interesting to see how Singapore avoids the peculiarities imbedded within the United State’s evidence management marketplace that denigrate efficiencies and degrade the pursuit of fair and transparent results.”


Bill Speros, Speros and Associates


What are your thoughts? Please comment in the “Leave a Reply” box below with your opinions on the topics above or any questions for the speakers. 





For further information, please contact:


Stephen Lai, Conventus Law

[email protected]






Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.