Conflicts of Interest
Clients regularly ask us whether we screen for conflicts on new matters. That question stems from a lawyer’s ethical obligation to make sure that neither the lawyer nor the lawyer’s firm undertakes to give legal advice to opposing parties in a business transaction or a case. It can also extend to representing opposing interests in a public or regulatory matter.
Our protocol for conflicts checking depends on the nature of our engagement. When we are retained primarily as a technology vendor, we do not undertake conflict checks. In this type of engagement, Catalyst provides primarily technical and project management capabilities to the legal team, but is not generally engaged to help develop legal strategy.
In some cases our Professional Services consultants are engaged to provide substantive help with legal strategy, such as working with counsel to assist with Predictive Analytics or helping with case and analytics strategy (as opposed to helping with formatting searches or generally using Insight). In those instances, we do perform conflicts checks to ensure that our Professional Services consultants are not asked to advise parties with conflicting interests.
Technology Matters
When we are engaged primarily to provide repository services, Catalyst does not undertake conflict checks but instead proceeds as if every matter it undertakes is confidential. We also do not discuss the matters we are asked to take on, either directly or through our partner network. In most cases, we are not at liberty to disclose the fact that we have undertaken a repository engagement. A request for conflicts information necessarily requires disclosure of another engagement, even if only by the declaration that there is or is not a conflict.
Under no circumstances does Catalyst share information regarding one client’s repository matter with other clients or partners. Each client’s data is maintained separately in separate sites. In joint repositories, shared data is also protected through private fields, sub-collections, private and shared folders and locked-down auditing rights.
Matters Involving Substantive Assistance from Professional Services
In cases where Professional Services is engaged to provide substantive consulting on a case (i.e. on analytics and case or review strategy), we will first check for conflicts before accepting the work. For our conflicts check, we will ask the client for a case caption or other listing of the parties in the matter along with other information relevant to our inquiry (e.g. a list of all legal counsel).
If a potential conflict of interest is identified, we will immediately advise of the conflict (without breaching any confidentiality obligations we have to any other clients). If appropriate, we will then do what we can to mitigate or eliminate the conflict. This may include asking affected parties for permission to continue the engagements subject to appropriate procedures to protect confidentiality or implementing ethical walls to ensure any consultants with conflicts do not work on the case
We will not proceed with an engagement where any conflicts have been identified until those conflicts have been resolved and the resolution is adequately memorialized to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
If, notwithstanding earlier conflicts checks, we subsequently learn that any existing client of our Professional Services group is adverse to the matter in another engagement, we will promptly notify the existing client (without breaching any confidentiality obligations we have to any such other clients) and will take all reasonable steps to resolve or mitigate the conflict.
Procedures for Separate Matters Involving Related Parties
In cases where we have been separately asked to provide repositories and related services (e.g. processing, productions, project management) on the same matter, we follow these procedures:
Our Director of Project Management is made aware of the multiple engagements and manages the assignment and supervision of project managers for all engagements.
Separate project managers are assigned to each repository. Each project manager is given access to one site and prohibited from accessing any related sites.
Project managers are instructed not to speak to each other about their separate engagements or to disclose information relating to those engagements with any other project manager.
Catalyst consultants engaged to assist with respect to search or review strategy will limit their efforts to one party and repository unless otherwise directed.
Procedures for Joint Repositories
We regularly undertake matters for joint defense groups and sometimes for opposing parties. In each case, clients look to us for repository technology and seek to reduce discovery costs by sharing in the repository expenses.
For policies regarding joint repository engagements, please see the Catalyst Policies and Procedures for Joint Repositories.
Additional Information
If you have any questions regarding Catalyst’s Policy on Conflicts of Interest or our procedures surrounding conflicts of interest, please discuss them with your Catalyst representative.