Christa: Electronic discovery, or e-discovery, has always required some digital forensic skills as litigators prepare to present electronic data at trial. However, as technology evolves, likewise, the skills needed to identify, collect and analyze the data that’s most relevant to a case.
Joining us to talk about that today on the Forensic Focus Podcast is Kyle Campbell, Vice-President of Litigation Support at Frontline Managed Services and a longtime e-discovery expert. I’m your podcast host, Christa Miller. Welcome, Kyle.
Kyle: Thank you, Christa. Appreciate you having me on.
Christa: Yeah, it’s a pleasure to have you. So, I’m going to start with, I’ve worked adjacent to e-discovery for about the last decade and it seems like although the same fundamental issues haven’t changed much; you know, we’re still talking about intellectual property, trade secret theft, harassment, various forms of employee misconduct disputes, and so on, the technology environment has changed a lot in that time.
So, going through the articles that you’ve written extensively about these issues, one of your articles referred to these changes as the “volume, velocity, and variety” of data. So, bearing in mind time and monetary costs, how do digital forensics teams supporting e-discovery now ensure a thorough but proportional investigation?
Kyle: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, you know, in my 20-something years in the industry I’ve had much the same experience you had, you know, the issues seem to stay fairly static but there’s a lot just, you know, the changes and the details and the ephemera around those issues have just changed dynamically.
But one of the biggest changes I think I personally have experienced is just been kind of the breakdown of the divide between digital forensics and e-discovery work and the tasks in which the professionals that do that specialize in those disciplines perform.
You know, when I started in the industry, it was very much siloed operations and even when I came to the company that I was at that was acquired by Frontline, the company I was at before was called Logic Force, there was almost no interaction between the forensics and the e-discovery teams except almost literally to “throw data over the wall,” as it were, to one another.
So, you know, over time that has really broken down, and I think in a good way. And when I really first got started any discovery work, a supervisor that I had at a law firm that I was working for, sent me to a digital forensics training course in Dallas, Texas, and was conducted by a gentleman named Jason Park, who is still a pretty widely recognized expert in the digital forensics field and I think a fantastic resource.
And really, the goal of attending the training was to get that understanding about what digital forensics entailed so I could be conversant about it. Not only to the provider, the forensics investigators with whom we’d work on a semi-regular basis, but also with the clients and the cases with whom I work.
So, you know, as I’ve grown in the industry, I’ve really adopted and maintained that mentality, especially here with my team at Frontline, and I think it’s imperative that professionals in both disciplines have at least that baseline understanding of what one another’s roles are, what they’re kind of, where the divisions of labor lie.
And I think the biggest thing that digital forensics professionals, they really do to support their e-discovery colleagues include understanding that fundamental need to forensically preserve data in a sound fashion and in a repeatable defensible fashion, because if that cornerstone doesn’t exist and, you know, in the onset of any case, then everything downstream gets affected or can be affected and is at risk.
So then secondly, I think that the the biggest hand, and especially from a collaboration standpoint is for both groups, digital forensic investigators and e-discovery professionals, to establish budgetary guidelines with the case team so that we’re not suggesting solutions to these data issues that are just going to completely blow proportionality out of the water and make sure that they’re adhering to those guidelines that have kind of become more and more codified within the American legal court system at the very least.
And then, you know, next is to being aware of what the ultimate endgame is with respect to the case discovery obligation. So instance, expert, just kind of understanding what that end goal is, and then kind of work backwards from that so that when they start to really get to the meat of what they’re recommending, that those recommendations are not only sound from a best practices perspective, but also are going to meet that ultimate goal of the case team in dealing with the data.
And then from there, just being able to educate the case team as to what those options are, be able to speak to them in a plain language and in a fashion so that it doesn’t necessarily overwhelm the case team with, you know, the nuances of data and stuff.
A lot of them are kind of like, you know, the end consumer of the sausage from the sausage factory. They don’t care how it got into the casing and what went into all that, they just know that they like that sausage at the end of the day.
And then finally, just strong documentation, just document, document, document, everything along the way. Not only what you are doing from a, you know, task-by-task perspective and preservation and so on, but really documenting the decisions that everyone arrives at throughout the course of those discussions and through that educational process.
So that that preserved data that they’ve been tasked with acquiring not only has been done in that defensible fashion, but is also going to meet the needs of the e-discovery team downstream, and then ultimately the case team at the end of the day, so that they can properly present that evidence throughout the course of the litigation.
Christa: That’s really interesting, cause I think that as I’ve been doing some research on biasability and digital forensics, it seems like documenting those decisions helps to mitigate some of the challenges that have been identified in some of the literature about that.
Kyle: Absolutely. Absolutely. And, you know, we have situations where cases come back years after we’ve done the bulk of our work. For instance, we had a criminal matter in which someone who was convicted of the crimes in which they were accused started up an appeal process from prison and has gone back and found that he felt as though he wasn’t properly represented by the counsel that engaged us to help him.
And so we’ve had to go back to that documentation, some the reports that we’ve generated, and provide what we feel is appropriate — in working through our counsel as well at this stage — what we feel is appropriate because if I understand correctly, his former attorneys were even sanctioned at some point, not for that matter necessarily, but for other matters. And so he felt as though that was some basis for him to appeal.
So, that documentation that we established early on in that case and carried throughout the life cycle of that case has been a model for us to be able to go back and answer these questions and provide the input necessary to either facilitate or to at least shore up the work that we did to case team arrive at their final outcome.
Christa: I’m going to switch gears a little bit. As we’ve been talking about the overlap between digital forensics and e-discovery specifically, I know your employer Frontline also offers a range of managed services to law firms, including administrative, financial and IT, in addition to litigation support.
And I’m wondering, in addition to the overlap between digital forensics and e-discovery, are you also seeing overlap between those skills for incident response? And I’m thinking of ransomware attacks on law firms or sort of similar potential for data breaches.
Kyle: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, at Frontline we do provide this breadth of services to our law rooms and we often kind of cross over our service lines to touch base with our colleagues in different departments to get an idea of, you know, not only what they would recommend in certain situations, or sometimes engaged in helping those law firm clients properly preserve their data.
I was just contacted by a client yesterday, as a matter of fact, the general counsel of a law firm, who one of their clients, one of their long-term clients has an employee who’s been indicted or has been subpoenaed on a federal matter. And they suspect that there’s potential risk for the overall organization to be indicted.
So we’re working with a lot of our internal teams, or excuse me, our IT resources that support that firm specifically to do proper collection of data from their document management systems and so on.
So, I think the common thread that really exists throughout all of these kind of, you know, interconnected disciplines within the IT realm is, you know, managing data in a cost-effective manner. And in such a fashion that it decreases risks for exposure to bad actors. And that maintains the integrity of those data sources.
So that that data can be leveraged in a myriad ways down downstream from its creation point, whether that’s for just, you know, basic knowledge management or, you know, budgeting or even potentially being used as evidence in a matter, or in response to subpoenas in this situation.
You know, I’m really a big fan of one of the core tenets of complexity science, which is really that interconnectivity of complex systems and how they’re just tender roles that kind of force what seem to be maybe on the outside as completely separate systems or disciplines that they do truly have some interconnectivity.
And then I think that really holds true within the IT realms as well. And so there are absolutely aspects of the disciplines that cross over.
You know, another example that we handled a few years back was an executive of a company for one of our law firm clients. He left that company, went to work for a competitor and took with him a bunch of IP, or intellectual property.
And so, acting upon an emotion to compel by the court in which the employer had sued that former employee, we were tasked with preserving that employee’s phone, the drive from his laptop, a USB-connected hard drive, and his personal webmail account to try to find incidence, you know, items that he had collected or that he had taken with him that we knew belonged to him.
So we relied on file hash signatures to identify, you know, just one to one matches, you know, on those various devices that we preserved. But further, we also had some aspects of e-discovery needs involved there because what he had done is not only had he just wholesale, you know, used some of that IP, he also copied and pasted pieces that were necessary or that he felt were more helpful for him at his current organization.
So we had to use some near-duplicate analysis with some of our e-discovery tools to be able to find these segments that he had copied and pasted into new documentation and IP at his new organization.
So there’s absolutely crossover. And when it comes to incident response and in all these types of situations, there are at least, you know, tools or knowledge and experience that could be relied on on both sides of that situation from the forensics and the e-discovery side of things.
Christa: So underpinning some of these, or most of this conversation is that the biggest changes in enterprise data in, in data in general, information technology in the last decade, one of them has been the shift to cloud storage and as well, everyday life, and society’s becoming more digitized.
So against this backdrop, I guess, what additional technology shifts do you see on the horizon affecting these issues with collection and documentation, and what do you anticipate the future will be for data sources and volumes?
Kyle: Absolutely. I mean, I’m going to kind of show my vintage here a little bit. And I remember a time in which law firms were absolutely, “No way, no, how are we going to put our data in the cloud? We have to control it. Our clients demand it.” and so on, so forth, but that’s drastically changed now to where clients value the security that a cloud solution can offer.
That’s a lot of what Frontline is doing right now, is modernizing the law firm back office operation and technological footprint to go from on-prem storage to cloud storage. And so a lot of the changes that I think, I’m not going to fancy myself as a, you know, big brain man, you know, like real forward-thinking technologist, I like to live a little more in the now and, you know, a few years down the line, but, you know, like 20, 30 years, that’s probably a bit beyond reach.
But what I would say is that I think we’re going to continue to see an increase in complexity and then that interconnectivity of data sources. You know, a great example is a lot of the forensic acquisition softwares that are out there now have some of those data enrichment capabilities in which after you image a device, a mobile device, for instance, and are able to acquire, you know, the tokens for the users’ social media accounts with a single click of a button, you can suddenly not only pull down the data you harvested from the physical device, but now you can also pull in the data from their social media accounts, their other applications they’ve got running on the phone.
So again, that’s just that increased interconnectivity of the data, I think, is only going to compound as time goes on in different applications that develop. Devices really continue to be those hubs through which we operate many aspects of our lives, both business and personal, and, you know, all understanding the ways in which people conduct their lives in this fashion, it’s going to continue to make it more crucial when it comes to preserving and analyzing and potentially producing that relevant data and that litigation.
You know, beyond that, you know, just the increasing, you know, from the American stateside, you know, we already know that a lot of international countries have very strong data privacy legislation and policies in place.
And I think the American government entities are finally catching up to that. I always see more and more states that are passing data privacy legislation, and so I think that that’s going to continue to be a factor that we contend with. And I think it may reach a point at which there will be more broad federal guidelines establishing data privacy rights for individuals and consumers out there.
You know, there are several basic tenets of data security coupled with appropriate scoping and strict adherence e-discovery protocols that exist in mitigating those privacy violation risks. Encryption at rest and transits, role-based access controls for all users, so on and so forth, all those things are going to be issues that continue to create challenges and we’ll have to rely on our software partners.
And then managing our case team’s expectations to really be able to overcome those challenges and do that in that defensible fashion. So, from there, I think, you know, something else we’ll see are just that continued evolution of devices and technology and the technology needed to forensically preserve them; existing blockchain technology and quantum computing, those two things that then in and of themselves scare the crap out of me from an discovery perspective.
But, you know, just the general explosion of applications already have a lot of the forensic acquisition companies out there, software companies and hardware providers out there just in a constant state of catch-up, trying to figure out what’s next and how their tools can, again, properly preserve that data.
I kind of fear that at some point that the pace may outstrip some of the capabilities from a development standpoint of a lot of the forensic providers or the technology providers that are out there, or at the very least, continue to drive up the costs in such a fashion that it makes it almost cost-prohibitive for a smaller organization or even independent practitioners to be able to afford those tools and technologies that are out there. We probably see that to a great extent already.
And I will also, you know, kind of further just riffing on that idea, it’s going come to a point where the only organizations or people that are going to be able to develop the tools that are necessary to properly acquire or download or whatever, however you want to term it, to properly preserve that data, are the only the application developers who built the app in the first place going to be the only ones that are going to be capable of properly acquiring that stuff?
And to that end, are they going to have an appetite to do so? Is that going to be a defensible stance when it comes to authenticating that evidence that the manufacturer of the software is the only one that could do that? So those are all things that I kind of just can concern myself with as far as that application development is concerned.
And then finally, you know, I think we’re going to continue to see the evolution of case law. I mean, on a daily basis, we see new precedents and decisions that are set in the courts that involve e-discovery and involve forensic preservation and aspects of cases. Courts have obviously been a little slower to recognize and set precedents for that.
Christa: I was just thinking that. Yeah.
Kyle: Yeah, to really, you know, understand and embrace these technological changes. But I think that the pace of which the applications and the data complexity changes just compounds those issues with the courts. And so, I don’t see that slowing down anytime soon.
And I think it’s just incumbent upon us as professionals and those trusted partners on who,m law firms and corporate clients are relying to stay abreast of the issues, stay abreast of these decisions that are being made and really understand the way in which they can affect those day-to-day cases that we work on and we’re engaged to support.
Christa: Yeah. I know you’ve written about this, I think; the need for e-discovery and digital forensics professionals to adapt to all of these changes and these shifts by specifically developing skills in information governance, data privacy and data security. You talked a little bit about that. Could you explain a little bit more about why these skills will be so important to a future in e-discovery?
Kyle: Absolutely. So when it comes to, you know, one of the things I’m a strong proponent of, you know, again, at least having that conversant level of understanding around information governance for folks that are working in forensics and e-discovery.
And I think understanding that the need for corporations to create policies that are realistic, that meet their regulatory obligations, are applicable and that are policies that can be readily followed or automated. You have to understand how those affect your work downstream.
Because you may get into a situation, you know, happens all the time where we’re working with a corporate client of a law firm that’s engaged us, and we start to ask the questions, “Okay, what happened to this department employee’s mail data? What happened to their user share on your server, in your cloud environment?”
And the IT people with whom we’re trying to find out and scope this collection will say, “Well, we don’t have that anymore.” And the initial response is always one of panic when it comes to attorneys that I’ve worked with usually, “What do you mean they don’t have it?”
And if they’re able to pull out a set of policies and guidelines that they’ve established, that show that not only that they have the policies, but most importantly, that they follow those policies and that they have key controls to help automate those policies, to the extent possible, it becomes a kind of an unanswerable, I won’t say unanswerable, it becomes kind a moot point as far as to, you know, well, what happened? We need to get that person’s data.
You know, it’s very strongly established precedent in the courts that businesses have a right to operate in a way that’s cost effective. And so long as it again meets any regulatory obligations under which they’re under which they fall, they’ve got to be able to operate their business in a way that’s sound for them.
And so I think being able to answer those questions and understand, you know, for an e-discovery or forensics investigator or professional, to be able to understand those policies and be able to say, “Yeah, hey, look, you know, these are their controls.”
And be able to just kind of run those topics down with the IT professionals and with the executives of these corporate entities I think is a huge skillset for people to be able to take into those conversations and to bring value to those conversations with their case teams, and be able to prove that they were a worthy engagement and a worthy partner for those firms.
You know, as far as data privacy is concerned, again, we’ve talked about that, it’s already huge in European countries and more and more states are adopting guidelines. And I think, again, in understanding how data privacy can throw up hurdles or can cause a preservation process to have to take a few twists and turns in the road, in order to not only be as diligent with those preservations as they possibly can be, but also to understand that there are certain guidelines and laws that they have to follow in terms of utilizing that data downstream from the collection and making sure that again, the policies and the appropriate acknowledgements have been made by those employees whose data may be getting preserved in the course of a matter.
And all of that stuff is, you know, all the, i’s are dotted, t’s are crossed and so that when they’re preserving that they’re doing so in a matter that abides by those regulations and the policies.
And then finally, I think that the importance of these skills comes down to just being able to properly advise the attorneys with whom you’re working and by whom you’re engaged in those corporate entities, what the best practices are in these situations.
You know, I had a conversation with a gentleman who started up a pretty large law firm’s in-house e-discovery operation. And he said, “You know, in those situations where we do have to engage outside of providers, we don’t want a bunch of start button engineers. We don’t want just a data jockey that’s just going to take whatever we give them and bring no value to those conversations and bring no value to that service that they’re providing that support.”
And that’s what I really try to instill upon my folks and in other professionals with whom I engage in the industry; make sure you’re bringing value to those conversations, make sure you’re bringing insight so that, you know, you may not solve all the problems in a single conversation or single conversation two with the case team and with their corporate clients, but what you’re going to do is establish a trust level and establish yourself as an advisor with that firm and potentially with that corporate client through which you may get future work, future engagements and things.
And so, I think just in terms of maintaining the viability of your individual practice and your own career path, all of those things really help to establish that and engender that trust and that recognition as that entrusted advisor.
Christa: You’re kind of keying in on another question that I had about communication being so central to a digital forensics professional skill set. So, we’re talking about the complexity of technology, it’s becoming more abstract, certainly in addition to more complex. How can digital forensics analysts educate attorneys so that they in turn can educate judges toward making good case law? And what indications do you have whether this is actually working or not?
Kyle: Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, I think the best thing to do is really to go back to basics. I think technology professionals in general, and in my experience don’t like to directly interface with the wetware, they’re much more comfortable dealing with the hardware, right? And I’ve had to overcome that in my own career, as well.
And so I think the best approach I would recommend would really be to just dial it back to basics, work on that ability to really take those complex issues and boil them down to the brass tax and be able to speak in that plain language to not only, you know, provide guidance and be able to provide recommendations about how best to approach this, but really to be able to answer the challenges you face.
Because you can have an established set of protocols, you can have a plan that everyone, you know, has agreed to and is abiding by, and then you’re going to encounter some sort of a hurdle. And to be able to properly enunciate what that hurdle is, and more importantly, be able to see and explain what the options are to get around that hurdle, I think really are going to serve people well as they pursue their career.
I can’t really see much, you know, again, just kind of dialing it back to basics, one of the things I felt was always good practice for me was describing to my friends and my family outside of industry, what I do for a living, and really just being able to practice using terms of art as far as the discipline is concerned, as far as my job was concerned, but not — you know, having to critically think through, “Okay, I can’t disclose this kind of a detail, but I can kind of just at least paint the picture.”
And I think that, honestly, that’s what a lot of case scenes with whom I’ve worked, and attorneys with whom I’ve worked in the past appreciate is being able to filter out all the really complex details, but still provide the information that’s critical for making those decisions to get through those challenges.
So I actually think, you know, the advent of collaboration, tech platforms like Zoom and Teams has been a huge benefit for technology professionals in that regard, and that we can still have a face-to-face conversation here, but we’re doing so over the portal that’s good, that’s facilitated by technology.
And so I think that it takes some of the edge off of that. And again, to me, in my experience, it seems like it allows people to be able to think through those challenges and those topics that they need to address and be able to present their sides and their explanations in a sound and concise fashion.
Aside from that, you know, as far as the courts are concerned and whether or not that education is working, I would say by and large, yes. I mean, I think the ubiquity of technology just in and of itself is forcing everyone in all walks of lives to understand at least to some extent how that stuff works.
And I think that as digital forensics has grown and e-discovery has grown as practices, lawyers, and then subsequently the courts and judges, really have had no choice but to really understand it.
And, you know, there have been things, you know, codified and like the attorneys’ code of ethics and things like that, that force them at least from an ethical obligation standpoint to understand technology to be able to properly advise their clients. And so that’s certainly been helpful.
And I think that I certainly see some of the decisions that are rendered, especially on the federal level, really do show some increased, nuanced understanding of how these data sources are maintained and how they can be acquired, and then further, how technology can be leveraged to really slice down these big data troves and get them to a point at which they’re manageable and more importantly, affordable proportional to the matters and the claims in a particular case.
So I think it’s getting there, certainly not at the pace of which technology is changing, that’s a whole other issue, but again, I think that just how much everyone’s business and personal lives are inundated with technology today really just forced everyone to at least come to some degree of understanding of how this stuff works and what it means for them and their particular careers.
Christa: You actually just touched on something that I wanted to ask which was, what technology is created in terms of volume, velocity, and variety, technology also helps professionals to manage. So how do you anticipate the tools will need to adapt and how will skill building help professionals in turn to shape and evaluate these tools?
Kyle: That’s a really great question. And I think that, you know, again, just taking a step back and trying to dial it back to basics as much as possible. Professionals have to be willing to do that on a daily basis and be able to critically think through what is happening.
And I say that, you know, this is borne of a lot of personal experience and it just gets so mired into just trying to drill through my brain, how something, you know, a challenge has occurred or a problem has arisen, and just go down those rabbit holes, and you’ve got to be able to extricate yourself from those rabbit holes a little bit, and take a look at that bigger picture, you know, ask yourself some questions:
Did I execute this preservation correctly? Did I follow the protocols that we have established? Were there problems in the protocols that we have established? So now we may need to kind of pivot and take care of. And how do we not only address this issue here, but how do we prevent encountering the issue going forward?
You know, from there, just be willing to research and learn about the experiences of other professionals. You know, Forensic Focus has been a tremendous resource I know for me personally, a lot of my colleagues professionally and personally, as well. One of the benefits of this explosion of data has been the explosion of information about that data and about those data sources.
And so being able to, you know, again, take your step back from, you know, drilling down that rabbit hole and saying, “Okay, where are some of the resources I can explore to find more information to reach out, get into my personal or professional network and try to leverage some of these people with whom I’ve made connections over time and get their experience and find out how they would’ve handled this situation?”
Again, I think you can do so, and I think what we just talked about a moment ago, being able to clearly speak about and describe the situation that you’re facing without getting into those details that may cause some issue or some inadvertent kind of disclosure details that are confidential, it really serves you well in being able to identify and find solutions to these issues.
And then finally, just being able to engage in open dialogue with your tech provider, your software or hardware providers, support teams. Again, I think egos sometimes cloud the picture as well in our industry and I think that people have this hesitancy to call tech support when there should be tech support. They’re the ones on whom a lot of people rely for these types of situations.
And so I think just being able to set that aside a little bit, and, you know, go to the people that manufacture these tools that we use and understand that, you know, because again, of the pace and the velocity in which these technologies change, that they’re not always going to be able to build the perfect solution in the previous release or in the next release and so on.
And so working with those providers, we have to do this a lot on the e-discovery side especially, being able to interface openly with those support technicians to be able to describe the problem that you’re facing and being able to escalate things up a chain so that your issues are addressed in a timely fashion so that you can then circle back and address the issue that you’re facing, I think is imperative, as well.
And then finally, kind of in that same vein, once you recognize you’ve got a challenge you’re having a difficulty overcoming being able to go back to your clients that have engaged you, whether it’s a case team or a corporate entity and manage their expectations.
Again, describe in that plain language what’s going on and, you know, give them realistic answers, cause the first thing that’s going to come up is, how long is this going to take to resolve? And being able to say “I don’t know” is fine, but you can’t just come right out and say “I don’t know” and have no explanation for it.
So being able to have had that conversation with support, being able to say, you know, “The timelines aren’t really clear right now, however, I’ve got A, B and C people, I’ve escalated this issue up to some of the lead developers that are our technology provider or our partners, they’re on it and they’re going to give the updates and here’s the cadence in which those updates are going to come,” so that you can in turn provide those updates in a timely fashion and the case components are all working.
Christa: So, final question, although it’s a little bit of a big one; I’m feeling as you’re talking like these are the kinds of skills and situations that might benefit from somewhat unconventional career pathways, but I do want to put the question to you: what do you see as some career pathways towards all of these skills or even developing brand new skills?
Kyle: So, to me, one of the most straightforward ways in which you can do that is again, just work collaboratively, both with the people, you know, if you’re a part of a company like Frontline, work with your colleagues, work with people that may be outside of your particular department, but understand what they’re doing and just understanding how their particular tasks can, you know, lead to a path downstream to what you’re working on.
I think that just that collaboration reaching out to your network, reaching out to your colleagues is a huge thing. And simply understanding how data passes through, you know, that post-preservation workflow within an organization can lead to a lot of insight for a digital forensics professional to understanding, you know, like, you know, how their preservation processes can affect people downstream from them.
And I think that just opens up your mind into doing that. But I think more specifically, you know, there are organizations like the International Association of Privacy Professionals or IAPP that offer a lot of training and resources and certifications at fairly reasonable costs to be able to, again, at least establish that baseline understanding, they’ve got materials that are available, I think I bought one of the privacy professional prep guides for like $75.
And now, after having read that and gearing myself up towards taking the CPPE certification. So I think that there are resources that are out there and you just have to be willing to invest in yourself a little bit in that regard.
Then there are e-discovery, data governance staffing agencies whose websites and principles are, you know, the folks in those companies are consistently generating content out there for consumption that is oftentimes free, especially for professionals already kind of in the industry.
One of them that comes to mind is True Staffing Partners. True has, you know, I’ve noticed in the last couple of years has really made a big push toward hiring, you know, like kind of looking for professionals already in the e-discovery or forensics world and working with them to leverage those skills, to take that next step into data governance and data privacy related roles within organizations.
And I believe they even offer some scholarship opportunities with, again, organizations like IAPP wherein a professional can mitigate some of those costs or absolve themselves to some of those costs in pursuing that training and those certifications that are needed to to take on those roles.
So there are definitely resources that are evolving out there. And I think that, you know, just by kind of leveraging your network, leveraging your LinkedIn network or your personal professional network to explore what some of those avenues are, I think can really lead you into those career paths if you’re looking to make a bit of a change.
Christa: That’s great information. Thank you so much for sharing that.
Kyle: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Christa: Well Kyle, thank you again for joining us on the Forensic Focus Podcast.
Kyle: Absolutely. No, I appreciate you having me and, you know, I’d like to just put it out there, if any listeners want to connect up with me, they can reach me at kcampbell at frontlinems dot com. Love to be a part of someone’s network, be able to provide some advice and whatnot, or to just, you know, sit down and share a virtual beer and commiserate about issues that we’ve all encountered. So no, I appreciate you having me, Christa. It’s been great and I really enjoyed the conversation.
Christa: Likewise, it’s been a really good conversation. Thank you again.
Kyle: Thank you.
Christa: Thanks also to our listeners, you’ll be able to find this recording and transcript along with more articles and information and forums at www.forensicfocus.com. Stay safe and well.