Litigation Support Software: Own or Lease on Demand

Think back just 6 or 7 years to the approaching end of the millennium. If the woes of Y2K planning held the primary focus for IT leaders and litigation support professionals alike, the lofty promises about how to become an 'instant ASP' and 'deliver applications, with unmatched levels of security, speed, and availability, in a fully managed and integrated environment' ran a close second.

Although it took a bit longer than the optimists originally forecast, the 'buzz' from the 1990s ' the promise of more affordable, more accessible, on-demand software delivery (paying others to host, maintain, and upgrade applications under an umbrella of guaranteed uptime) continues to gain market acceptance, now under a new name, 'Software as a Service' (SaaS).

Market Leader Support

Although many ASP pioneers disappeared due to a lack of acceptance from mainstream customers, market leaders such as Salesforce.com, Microsoft and Siebel Systems Inc., have subsequently proven that users can, in fact, receive better support, lower prices and more customizable offerings in a SaaS environment. SaaS now enjoys credibility and wider adoption, particularly with critical litigation-support services required by law firms and corporate law departments.

As an initial matter, technology infrastructure costs (eg, bandwidth, storage, and CPUs) have declined in recent years, making the upfront investment required to offer software as a service is actually now quite reasonable. Also, forward-thinking software architects increasingly now develop native Web-based applications (those anticipated at the start to be offered as a service and engineered to accommodate those requirements), or in the alternative, have retooled existing applications to render them 'Web-friendly.' From a technical perspective, the advent of XML and Web services has also made it easier for companies to integrate hosted applications and data into their legacy systems. Lastly, more than a decade of exposure to the Web has made law firm and corporate managers, as well as critical IT decision makers, more comfortable with the idea of hosted applications.

Why Saas?

A closer look at the pros and cons of adopting this strategy informs the process. But one must also evaluate why law firms and corporate legal departments might consider SaaS over a direct installation:

• Cost considerations. Increased firm pressures to reduce fixed costs for hardware and IT, as well as support staff, can make a 'pay as you go' SaaS approach more palatable. This approach is especially cost-effective for those focused on immediate tactical decision making.
• Ease of entry. Allows firms, law departments and others to sample a given litigation technology or related service with minimized risk and cost. Firms need not invest extensively to ramp-up internal skills or scramble for the sustained resources typically needed to implement enterprise applications.
• Eases resource constraints. Especially attractive to smaller and mid-size firms that may not have available IT resources to administer litigation applications, but also for larger firms that have made the strategic decision to not manage increasingly complex technical infrastructures as a core competency.
• Timely. Ideal for last-minute requirements where there is little time to design, acquire, or install new applications.
• Technology upgrades. Due to a streamlined deployment method, new features and enhancements can typically be deployed faster in SaaS environments.
• Focus. Outsourcing litigation technologies enables firm and law departments to focus on what they do best ' practice law ' rather than hosting and supporting software applications.
• Comprehensive technical support. Providing true 24/7/365 technical support is an increasing requirement of the SaaS business model, but not generally so with litigation-software developers.
• Cost-sharing collaboration. In the case of multi-party or multi-firm litigation (eg, joint-defense group), relying on a SaaS approach can facilitate cost allocation and recovery.

Why Buy?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, a majority of law firms still choose instead to purchase litigation software and support it themselves. Reasons for selecting this approach include:

• Strategic decision-making. Many firms, and especially government agencies, purchase litigation technology as part of a larger strategic planning and sourcing process. As part of that framework, they have likely set specific goals and objectives as they relate to litigation support technology infrastructure (often articulated via a request-for-proposal (RFP)) and detailed software, service and support requirements.
• Control and accountability. In many cases, the decision boils down to a perception that owning the technology allows users to control environments (including implementations, rollouts, user training, upgrades, etc.) and make the entire process more transparent. The stronger a firm's internal IT presence (and the more defined and focused its corresponding technology processes), the more likely the firm is to buy and manage application.
• Legislative restrictions. Increasingly, in the case of government matters, restrictions may prevent the storage or transfer of data outside a specified jurisdiction, thus reducing the likelihood of a SaaS option (or at a minimum restricting its location to the one in question).
• Practice Support as a profit center. Law firms in particular may also wish to leverage their capabilities as a value-add for clients and recognize appropriate revenue related to providing litigation or practice support to clients.

Not Mutually Exclusive

A third approach to consider is a hybrid variant. If, for example, one selects a litigation technology platform that supports both a direct and subscription model, users can 'test the waters' by outsourcing first, and then subsequently install applications directly, with the ability to easily migrate case data and work product. In some cases, switching between SaaS and the direct install represents a strategic decision for firms to make depending on the texture of their firm's litigation and collaboration requirements.

Based on recent trends and developments in the SaaS arena, many firms and law departments are re-evaluating their 'lease vs. buy' technology decisions. While the decisions to opt for either approach typically depend on time constraints and technical support capabilities, several 'best practices' have evolved to help companies make the right decision for them. Typically, if the firm has deep technical acumen and takes the time to research and make a long-term strategic investment in their litigation support technology, they often choose to buy and host the technology themselves. Otherwise, when time constraints don't allow that level of preparation, the firm will often take the outsourced approach.

Think back just 6 or 7 years to the approaching end of the millennium. If the woes of Y2K planning held the primary focus for IT leaders and litigation support professionals alike, the lofty promises about how to become an 'instant ASP' and 'deliver applications, with unmatched levels of security, speed, and availability, in a fully managed and integrated environment' ran a close second.

Although it took a bit longer than the optimists originally forecast, the 'buzz' from the 1990s ' the promise of more affordable, more accessible, on-demand software delivery (paying others to host, maintain, and upgrade applications under an umbrella of guaranteed uptime) continues to gain market acceptance, now under a new name, 'Software as a Service' (SaaS).

Market Leader Support

Although many ASP pioneers disappeared due to a lack of acceptance from mainstream customers, market leaders such as Salesforce.com, Microsoft and Siebel Systems Inc., have subsequently proven that users can, in fact, receive better support, lower prices and more customizable offerings in a SaaS environment. SaaS now enjoys credibility and wider adoption, particularly with critical litigation-support services required by law firms and corporate law departments.

As an initial matter, technology infrastructure costs (eg, bandwidth, storage, and CPUs) have declined in recent years, making the upfront investment required to offer software as a service is actually now quite reasonable. Also, forward-thinking software architects increasingly now develop native Web-based applications (those anticipated at the start to be offered as a service and engineered to accommodate those requirements), or in the alternative, have retooled existing applications to render them 'Web-friendly.' From a technical perspective, the advent of XML and Web services has also made it easier for companies to integrate hosted applications and data into their legacy systems. Lastly, more than a decade of exposure to the Web has made law firm and corporate managers, as well as critical IT decision makers, more comfortable with the idea of hosted applications.

Why Saas?

A closer look at the pros and cons of adopting this strategy informs the process. But one must also evaluate why law firms and corporate legal departments might consider SaaS over a direct installation:

• Cost considerations. Increased firm pressures to reduce fixed costs for hardware and IT, as well as support staff, can make a 'pay as you go' SaaS approach more palatable. This approach is especially cost-effective for those focused on immediate tactical decision making.
• Ease of entry. Allows firms, law departments and others to sample a given litigation technology or related service with minimized risk and cost. Firms need not invest extensively to ramp-up internal skills or scramble for the sustained resources typically needed to implement enterprise applications.
• Eases resource constraints. Especially attractive to smaller and mid-size firms that may not have available IT resources to administer litigation applications, but also for larger firms that have made the strategic decision to not manage increasingly complex technical infrastructures as a core competency.
• Timely. Ideal for last-minute requirements where there is little time to design, acquire, or install new applications.
• Technology upgrades. Due to a streamlined deployment method, new features and enhancements can typically be deployed faster in SaaS environments.
• Focus. Outsourcing litigation technologies enables firm and law departments to focus on what they do best ' practice law ' rather than hosting and supporting software applications.
• Comprehensive technical support. Providing true 24/7/365 technical support is an increasing requirement of the SaaS business model, but not generally so with litigation-software developers.
• Cost-sharing collaboration. In the case of multi-party or multi-firm litigation (eg, joint-defense group), relying on a SaaS approach can facilitate cost allocation and recovery.

Why Buy?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, a majority of law firms still choose instead to purchase litigation software and support it themselves. Reasons for selecting this approach include:

• Strategic decision-making. Many firms, and especially government agencies, purchase litigation technology as part of a larger strategic planning and sourcing process. As part of that framework, they have likely set specific goals and objectives as they relate to litigation support technology infrastructure (often articulated via a request-for-proposal (RFP)) and detailed software, service and support requirements.
• Control and accountability. In many cases, the decision boils down to a perception that owning the technology allows users to control environments (including implementations, rollouts, user training, upgrades, etc.) and make the entire process more transparent. The stronger a firm's internal IT presence (and the more defined and focused its corresponding technology processes), the more likely the firm is to buy and manage application.
• Legislative restrictions. Increasingly, in the case of government matters, restrictions may prevent the storage or transfer of data outside a specified jurisdiction, thus reducing the likelihood of a SaaS option (or at a minimum restricting its location to the one in question).
• Practice Support as a profit center. Law firms in particular may also wish to leverage their capabilities as a value-add for clients and recognize appropriate revenue related to providing litigation or practice support to clients.

Not Mutually Exclusive

A third approach to consider is a hybrid variant. If, for example, one selects a litigation technology platform that supports both a direct and subscription model, users can 'test the waters' by outsourcing first, and then subsequently install applications directly, with the ability to easily migrate case data and work product. In some cases, switching between SaaS and the direct install represents a strategic decision for firms to make depending on the texture of their firm's litigation and collaboration requirements.

Based on recent trends and developments in the SaaS arena, many firms and law departments are re-evaluating their 'lease vs. buy' technology decisions. While the decisions to opt for either approach typically depend on time constraints and technical support capabilities, several 'best practices' have evolved to help companies make the right decision for them. Typically, if the firm has deep technical acumen and takes the time to research and make a long-term strategic investment in their litigation support technology, they often choose to buy and host the technology themselves. Otherwise, when time constraints don't allow that level of preparation, the firm will often take the outsourced approach.