Along with a group of more senior lawyers and a director of operations in various WilmerHale offices, the firm employs 60 document review lawyers in Dayton.
New York-based Steven Berrent, managing director of WilmerHale Discovery Solutions, said the firm brought advanced technology from Recommind in-house to increase the efficiency in which the firm managed matters and to save clients money.
The firm still uses vendors, as some clients have strong relationships with vendors, Berrent said. But clients have the option to use the technology the firm has invested in and become familiar with, he said. WilmerHale Discovery Solutions only works on matters in which the law firm is engaged as counsel.
"We're not looking to drum up business just for Discovery Solutions," Berrent said.
Because of the increased volume of data in the discovery space, the distance between the merits counsel who uses that data at trial and the discovery of those facts has grown. In the paper days, Berrent said, the person who looked at all of the documents was the same one who ultimately took depositions, wrote briefs and went to trial.
"A commoditized view of document review removes the people most interested in the facts from the discovery of those facts," Berrent said.
While the firm realizes things can't go back to the paper days, Berrent said senior attorneys can leverage technology to become more familiar with the facts. Berrent said bringing work in-house is a financial and time investment that is admittedly hard to do.
"No one will criticize for just pushing it all out," Berrent said. "The problem or question for us is, at some point you have to have an understanding of the facts. We'd rather be more involved with that."
Underlying any conversation about e-discovery is the concern over growing costs for clients. But law firms and vendors are not charities and there are billions of dollars at stake in this space. Read Friday's installment of Discovery Dollars in The Legal to see who can get a piece of the estimated $5 billion pie.
Gina Passarella can be contacted at 215-557-2494 or at gpassarella@alm.com. Follow her on Twitter @GPassarellaTLI.
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