Sourcing Strategies

Most firms will not use internal technicians to collect the actual data. Instead, they provide expert guidance through the identification and collection process. For these firms, responsibility begins when the processed or unprocessed paper and electronic discovery arrives at the firm. Some firms perform all services internally. This may be based upon the belief that support staff can devote more of their time and a greater sense of ownership to individual cases than an outside vendor. It may also be a control issue. At the other end of the spectrum, firms that traditionally outsource all processing still recognize the importance of investing in their internal capabilities.

In-house Not for Everyone

Many firms believe that they need some level of expertise to handle small collections and special circumstances. However, determining when to outsource based upon the quantity of materials may not be the best approach when pertaining to electronic discovery. Buying software and hiring a technician will not allow the firm to handle every potential technical snag and scenario, no matter how small the quantity of data. Vendors, by contrast, have hopefully experienced most issues and are ready with software tools and a rapid resolution. A vendor allows the firm access to a large amount of expertise, tools and capacity for a relatively low investment. Ultimately, the firm must decide on core competencies. Processing e-discovery is not a responsibility to undertake lightly. Most firms are using ESI tools to extend to electronic discovery the same courtesy afforded paper ' a quick analysis for the attorneys.

In a new case, or during the discovery stage of the case lifecycle, one of the earliest and most common requests by the legal team is for an accounting of the content, quantity and character of e-discovery. For as long as there has been paper discovery, paralegals have taken a first look, perhaps even prepping it, prior to vendor involvement. When a CD arrives on the attorney's desk, they want the equivalent. A litigation support department can provide that analysis, as long as there is time. Unlike paper, 'prepping' may alter the data, unless the technician uses the right tools. Further, every extra service means more time on each project and less concurrent projects, or matters, a technician can support. This is an additional issue firms now face.

Capacity and throughput are serious issues for every business. For good vendors, processing an additional hard drive of data or 100 boxes of paper is not a substantial issue. For the law firm with a limited number of scanners, printers, ESI processing servers and staff, capacity is a serious issue. Not all firms can or will invest in additional capacity when a large case looms eminent or clients deliver an 11th hour surprise of ESI. Existing case deadlines may simply require outside support. As such, overflow partners are important for all firms. In fact, many vendors outsource work to each other as well.

Vendors, as stated, can provide the firm with access to a significant level of expertise, range of software and capacity for a relatively low price and turnaround time. A good vendor can also help the firm and legal team understand their options. In the final analysis, one of the vendor's greatest values lies in its expert advice on potential courses of action and consequences. While some firms look to these outside experts, the attitude of 'us and them' still looms. Still, they can present new options unknown or untried by the firm.

Which Software to Use

Discovery outsourcing strategies neither begin with collection nor end with production services. There are strategies around which discovery management software to use. Discussions showed that firms use hosted solutions, aside from legal considerations, as a way to try new platforms or augment existing technologies without requiring investment by the partners. Law firms are businesses. The act of incorporating new technicians and technologies to existing firm and case operations represents a serious initiative which may not happen quickly enough for a current case.

Since the introduction of e-discovery, the range of software products available to litigators has dramatically expanded. This is mainly due to the wide range of fields (metadata), quantity of materials (TBs of data) and monies involved. Electronically stored information provides enough structured data for software to offer wonderful functionality such as message threading, correlations, graphic mapping, special searches and other 'bells and whistles.' Attorneys want to know if these tools will help them finish review and find key documents more quickly. Outsourcing a hosted solution can provide trial teams, on a case-by-case basis, with access to these special services without committi'g the entire firm. Litigation support wants to make sure that team actions will not negatively impact support for all other matters ' and the department as a whole.

Cases today can be won or lost by the goods and services, outsourced or performed internally. A successful technology strategy is one that hinders neither existing operations nor the flow of work for the legal team. If discussions with law firms across the country have revealed anything, it is that every firm needs a combination of internal e-discovery capabilities as well as outside partners. Firms should make the litigation support department more technical, if only to ensure support staff can fully appreciate and critique all aspects of the litigation goods and services. They may also help when dealing with client technical staff.

Last month, we identified select law firm issues that can significantly impact the cost and speed of the entire case lifecycle. In addition, we offered some viable solutions to these problems. In Part Two, we cover some of the concerns related to outsourcing versus in-house handling of certain litigation goods and services and how firms are operating.

To summarize conversations with multiple firms, the general opinion appears to be that every firm, regardless of size, should have both an internal e-discovery toolbox coupled with external partners for reasons that include risk management, capacity and the ability to try new case software or augment existing systems without impacting firm or department budget.

Risk management from the litigation support perspective is a critical starting place when determining which types of technical work the firm should perform (e.g., collections, forensics, processing and productions). Simply opening and printing a document can change the 'last opened' and 'last printed' metadata fields ' potentially critical elements for a case timeline.

Most firms will not use internal technicians to collect the actual data. Instead, they provide expert guidance through the identification and collection process. For these firms, responsibility begins when the processed or unprocessed paper and electronic discovery arrives at the firm. Some firms perform all services internally. This may be based upon the belief that support staff can devote more of their time and a greater sense of ownership to individual cases than an outside vendor. It may also be a control issue. At the other end of the spectrum, firms that traditionally outsource all processing still recognize the importance of investing in their internal capabilities.

In-house Not for Everyone

Many firms believe that they need some level of expertise to handle small collections and special circumstances. However, determining when to outsource based upon the quantity of materials may not be the best approach when pertaining to electronic discovery. Buying software and hiring a technician will not allow the firm to handle every potential technical snag and scenario, no matter how small the quantity of data. Vendors, by contrast, have hopefully experienced most issues and are ready with software tools and a rapid resolution. A vendor allows the firm access to a large amount of expertise, tools and capacity for a relatively low investment. Ultimately, the firm must decide on core competencies. Processing e-discovery is not a responsibility to undertake lightly. Most firms are using ESI tools to extend to electronic discovery the same courtesy afforded paper ' a quick analysis for the attorneys.

In a new case, or during the discovery stage of the case lifecycle, one of the earliest and most common requests by the legal team is for an accounting of the content, quantity and character of e-discovery. For as long as there has been paper discovery, paralegals have taken a first look, perhaps even prepping it, prior to vendor involvement. When a CD arrives on the attorney's desk, they want the equivalent. A litigation support department can provide that analysis, as long as there is time. Unlike paper, 'prepping' may alter the data, unless the technician uses the right tools. Further, every extra service means more time on each project and less concurrent projects, or matters, a technician can support. This is an additional issue firms now face.

Capacity and throughput are serious issues for every business. For good vendors, processing an additional hard drive of data or 100 boxes of paper is not a substantial issue. For the law firm with a limited number of scanners, printers, ESI processing servers and staff, capacity is a serious issue. Not all firms can or will invest in additional capacity when a large case looms eminent or clients deliver an 11th hour surprise of ESI. Existing case deadlines may simply require outside support. As such, overflow partners are important for all firms. In fact, many vendors outsource work to each other as well.

Vendors, as stated, can provide the firm with access to a significant level of expertise, range of software and capacity for a relatively low price and turnaround time. A good vendor can also help the firm and legal team understand their options. In the final analysis, one of the vendor's greatest values lies in its expert advice on potential courses of action and consequences. While some firms look to these outside experts, the attitude of 'us and them' still looms. Still, they can present new options unknown or untried by the firm.

Which Software to Use

Discovery outsourcing strategies neither begin with collection nor end with production services. There are strategies around which discovery management software to use. Discussions showed that firms use hosted solutions, aside from legal considerations, as a way to try new platforms or augment existing technologies without requiring investment by the partners. Law firms are businesses. The act of incorporating new technicians and technologies to existing firm and case operations represents a serious initiative which may not happen quickly enough for a current case.

Since the introduction of e-discovery, the range of software products available to litigators has dramatically expanded. This is mainly due to the wide range of fields (metadata), quantity of materials (TBs of data) and monies involved. Electronically stored information provides enough structured data for software to offer wonderful functionality such as message threading, correlations, graphic mapping, special searches and other 'bells and whistles.' Attorneys want to know if these tools will help them finish review and find key documents more quickly. Outsourcing a hosted solution can provide trial teams, on a case-by-case basis, with access to these special services without committi'g the entire firm. Litigation support wants to make sure that team actions will not negatively impact support for all other matters ' and the department as a whole.

Cases today can be won or lost by the goods and services, outsourced or performed internally. A successful technology strategy is one that hinders neither existing operations nor the flow of work for the legal team. If discussions with law firms across the country have revealed anything, it is that every firm needs a combination of internal e-discovery capabilities as well as outside partners. Firms should make the litigation support department more technical, if only to ensure support staff can fully appreciate and critique all aspects of the litigation goods and services. They may also help when dealing with client technical staff.