Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked at the government? Regulatory Counsel, Government Information Specialist, Attorney-Advisor (this title is more competitive) start at GS 9 or 11 for entry level. Journeyman is usually a GS 13.

I’ve applied for many many government jobs over the years. I’ve only gotten one offer, at the BVA, which I declined about 14 years ago. I apply on average two federal jobs a week

Apply to BVA again and don’t listen to the trolls on the DCUM thread about it. It will allow you to be an 0905 attorney, give you decent pay and career prospects and if you are used to looking through documents, you will adapt.

I know someone who worked there and said it was as bad as people here describe, but got out before being asked to resign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked at the government? Regulatory Counsel, Government Information Specialist, Attorney-Advisor (this title is more competitive) start at GS 9 or 11 for entry level. Journeyman is usually a GS 13.

I’ve applied for many many government jobs over the years. I’ve only gotten one offer, at the BVA, which I declined about 14 years ago. I apply on average two federal jobs a week

Apply to BVA again and don’t listen to the trolls on the DCUM thread about it. It will allow you to be an 0905 attorney, give you decent pay and career prospects and if you are used to looking through documents, you will adapt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hire government information specialists (FOIA) and I think that would be great for both someone who does doc review and ediscovery. But you aren't going to get a government job with no FOIA experience. Get a job at a contracting agency and work as a contractor for a few years and then transition to a fed.

Which contracting agencies hire for FOIA?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked at the government? Regulatory Counsel, Government Information Specialist, Attorney-Advisor (this title is more competitive) start at GS 9 or 11 for entry level. Journeyman is usually a GS 13.

I’ve applied for many many government jobs over the years. I’ve only gotten one offer, at the BVA, which I declined about 14 years ago. I apply on average two federal jobs a week

Anonymous wrote:I hire government information specialists (FOIA) and I think that would be great for both someone who does doc review and ediscovery. But you aren't going to get a government job with no FOIA experience. Get a job at a contracting agency and work as a contractor for a few years and then transition to a fed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you say “real eDiscovery” and thumb your nose at others is just one of the many examples of how the legal profession is a caste system. Partners and associates view you the same way. That bothers you so you abuse those you believe are lower than you. You probably didn’t go to a very good law school, you probably didn’t do well even if you did go to a “top school”. You are part of the problem why the legal profession is so toxic and why the people are so miserable with lots of addiction problems.

Wow. You have one heck of a chip on your shoulder. Doc reviewers claiming they're an e-discovery professional would be like a chiropractor claiming to be a neurosurgeon. It's not 'toxic' to point out that they're not accurately representing themselves.

New poster here. The way I see it, e-discovery professionals are career doc reviewers. They may not be in the same immediate family, but they're definitely first cousins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you say “real eDiscovery” and thumb your nose at others is just one of the many examples of how the legal profession is a caste system. Partners and associates view you the same way. That bothers you so you abuse those you believe are lower than you. You probably didn’t go to a very good law school, you probably didn’t do well even if you did go to a “top school”. You are part of the problem why the legal profession is so toxic and why the people are so miserable with lots of addiction problems.

Wow. You have one heck of a chip on your shoulder. Doc reviewers claiming they're an e-discovery professional would be like a chiropractor claiming to be a neurosurgeon. It's not 'toxic' to point out that they're not accurately representing themselves.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you say “real eDiscovery” and thumb your nose at others is just one of the many examples of how the legal profession is a caste system. Partners and associates view you the same way. That bothers you so you abuse those you believe are lower than you. You probably didn’t go to a very good law school, you probably didn’t do well even if you did go to a “top school”. You are part of the problem why the legal profession is so toxic and why the people are so miserable with lots of addiction problems.

Anonymous wrote:Apply for contract attorney or law clerk positions with a contractor like CACI.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you say “real eDiscovery” and thumb your nose at others is just one of the many examples of how the legal profession is a caste system. Partners and associates view you the same way. That bothers you so you abuse those you believe are lower than you. You probably didn’t go to a very good law school, you probably didn’t do well even if you did go to a “top school”. You are part of the problem why the legal profession is so toxic and why the people are so miserable with lots of addiction problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of ediscovery job do you have? We can help you translate those skills into something else. But just saying “ediscovery” and I am “hopeless” shows an inability to think outside of the box. I’ve been in ediscovery for over a decade and I don’t feel hopeless at all. In fact, I love what I do.

I also work in real ediscovery, and I'm frankly a little annoyed that a bunch of contract attorneys/document reviewers are conflating what they do with what I do. What I do is challenging and fun and requires real motivation, intellectual curiosity, and an ability to solve problems. I also haven't made $40K since my second year out of college and currently get paid more than junior-level BigLaw associates. Contract reviewers, please don't run around telling people you work in "ediscovery" - you do not. Your job has just moved from reviewing boxes of paper to Relativity (or whatever online platform is used). If you can't administer Relativity, get data into it, set up batches and review queues for both linear and tech-assisted review, you're not in the game.

Honestly, OP, I can see why you've been stuck in document review for almost two decades. You seem to be looking for other people to provide solutions for you rather than actively participating in solving your own problem. It's really frustrating to see people ask good questions about your skills/experience, share theirs, and try to help you and have you give terse, unhelpful answers and accuse people of bullying you. This is your life and your career, and you need to be actively involved in the process!

Also, applying to government jobs is an art form. If you want to be successful there, it's a whole different process than applying for private industry jobs. You have to use keywords, address KSA points using the same language in the posting, and some other federal hiring oddities. If you want to do that, make sure you're looking at the online resources geared to maximizing your application package.

real ediscovery means you run metrics and fire peolle for not reviewing quick enough . I bet you sleep well at night with that lack of conscience

No, it does not. You clearly have no idea what e-discovery is. The closest I get to contract reviewers is setting up user IDs and permissions, batching documents, and creating metrics reporting for the supervisors to deal with. Sometimes, we help review supervisors with creating question logs and example document sets. And that's going to go down with advances in technology assisted review and predictive coding because the computer does a more reliable job at document coding than humans do. (They're not more accurate, that comes from the reviewer, but, once parameters are defined, the computers are far more consistent.)

Real ediscovery is consulting with clients and attorneys about where to find and how to get data based on the issues of the case and client's business, getting that data processed, indexed (search and analytics), and working with attorneys to figure out how to find what they're looking for the fastest and what tools will do that, figuring out how to deal with new data types, especially for production, drafting discovery agreements, and managing projects and budgets. Mobile and collaboration data is huge right now, and the traditional tools don't handle it well, so we're doing a lot of consulting work on that. I also work inside a law firm, so I manage about a million dollars with of contracts and pricing/cost recovery as well as several teams of timekeepers. I get to do some neat pro bono projects as well.

I sleep just fine at night. I'd also sleep just fine at night firing reviewers who were not performing well enough. I've designed and run those reports for those who make hiring decisions, and the people who get fired are the far outliers (reviewing 20 docs an hour when other reviewers are doing 75-100) and those whose QC rate is atrocious. Our clients are paying for that work, often by the hour. Are you saying that people who can't do a job well should be allowed to perform poorly with no consequences?

I’ve seen people like you get upper high rate accurate reviewers fired becayse you were told to find a reason to get rid of them because they were not going to be promoted to management .