A number of judicial decisions, including those issued in the Qualcomm v. Broadcom litigation, raise questions about the appropriate roles and responsibilities of inhouse and outside counsel, and their ethical obligations to their clients and the court, in the conduct of electronic discovery. Other cases, including the Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe discovery decision, raise issues about how to protect privilege in the face of ever-expanding quantities of data and accelerated timelines in which to produce it. This whitepaper addresses the potential conflicts, real or perceived, between ethical obligations to collaborate with opposing parties and counsel on electronic discovery matters, as contemplated by the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and The Sedona Conference, and a lawyer’s obligation to provide effective and zealous representation of his or her clients. In the current economic environment, when every law firm and corporate legal department is trying to cut costs, lawyers face special challenges in the conduct of efficient electronic discovery while meeting their ethical obligations.