Editor's note: This is the second installment of a four-part series examiningthe ways in which firms are managing e-discovery work and whether there is profit to be had in such endeavors.
Concordance and Summation are two words familiar through the halls of nearly every large law firm in the country. The early versions of the programs were the most commonly used platforms for managing electronic data for trial.
Even firms that have insourced the entire e-discovery process still use early versions of Concordance and Summation for small matters. But the growing number of matters are far from small when it comes to the amount of electronic data in even the simplest of cases.
The question then becomes, should firms invest in newer, more modern software and the infrastructure to run them internally or should they outsource larger e-discovery projects to vendors that have the staffing and latest technology?
While many business decisions in the legal industry get implemented across firms like falling dominoes with one firm following what a competitor before it did, such is far from the case in e-discovery.
Models are varied and most firms are still undecided. The Legal spoke with a few firms across the spectrum about how they've approached the delivery of e-discovery services.
Leave it to the Experts
Ralph Losey is a partner in the Orlando office of labor and employment boutique Jackson Lewis. He serves as the firm's national e-discovery counsel and chairman of its e-discovery practice group. For nine months he reviewed the firm's internal e-discovery service offerings and decided in June to outsource to Kroll Ontrack all nonlegal e-discovery work that the firm's litigation support department had been handling.
Kroll will now handle forensic investigations, collections, processing, hosting and advanced software that includes predictive coding when needed. Jackson Lewis will handle the legal work, including advising clients on litigation readiness, interviewing witnesses, handling court conferences, issuing document requests to opposing parties, conducting computer-assisted review, filing motions and handling trials.
Subscribe to The Legal Intelligencer
-
John Connor
Mr. Losey and Ms. Blair are both incorrect. First, relying upon one vendor for a national or international law firm is usually only efficacious for the bean counter from the home office who sourced the exclusive contract. Hamstringing your entire firm to work under one vendors practices and procedures is like fitting a round peg into a square hole and engenders many unhappy lawyers/support staff with an inevitable effect on their clients. At recent panels the consensus from law firms and corporate counsel is that the best approach is to have at least two approved vendors the firm has vetted from which individual lawyers or practice groups can choose. In contrast to Mr. Losey's opinion this actually produces the highest cost savings as firms compete against each other PLUS must maintain high quality in order to retain business. In a single vendor model the only incentive for quality is when the contract is up for renewal. Firms like Paul Hastings have confirmed this practice by cancelling their exclusive arrangement with Kroll in favor of multiple approved vendors.
Second, Law firm insourcing/horizontal integration may seem profitable in the short term but client pressure plus defensibility will inevitably change this practice. Law firms have gone through the same cycle when photocopying was introduced and again when document scanning to CD became prevalent. Because e-discovery is currently more technical, law firms view this as an acceptable compliment to their practice. Clients will eventually ask them whether they are in the practice of providing legal service or litigation support services instead. Further, most firms that tried bringing e-discovery in house have since abandoned this practice and begun outsourcing again. Morgan, WilmerHale, Foley and the few others to stubbornly retain this profit center idea will likely change in the future.
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments