Corporate legal departments are taking greater ownership of the e-discovery process, a trend that will likely continue to fuel the wave of mergers and consolidations in the market. 

These days, corporate lawyers are looking to reduce the scope of the data they send to outside counsel for review, but such work can't be accomplished without the right tools. Legal departments, however, are favoring more "end-to-end" and integrated solutions that interconnects the various applications their employees are already utilizing.

Mike Hamilton, director of marketing at Exterro, indicated that providers are moving towards a platform approach in an effort to service companies who want to bring more functions in-house.

"You see a lot of consolidation within the provider market right now, and it's because everyone is trying to build up a platform-type approach with a comprehensive set of tools," Hamilton said. "Because that is a demand that is growing."

To be sure, the trend towards consolidation is already evident within the e-discovery marketplace. Just recently, Legility announced that it had acquired e-discovery provider iControlESI in August, while in July KLDiscovery brought both Compiled and Strategic Legal Solutions into the fold.

The drive towards towards consolidation coincides with what Hamilton deemed a "slow" market shift that widens the spotlight beyond tools built for the review portion of the e-discovery spectrum. And it's no coincidence that the review process itself has also typically been the domain of law firms.

In an effort to cut the cost of legal bills, Hamilton said corporate lawyers are attempting to whittle down their data as much as possible before sending it off to law firms for review. That need is helping to fuel the development of products geared towards streamlining tasks such as data mapping or production.

Last week, for example, Prism Litigation Technology released Evidence Optix, a workflow solution that identifies a matter's most relevant data custodians and sources.

"We're seeing a lot of the process move to the lefthand side of the EDRM," Hamilton said.

However, this doesn't mean e-discovery providers will no longer be thinking about law firms. Wendy King, senior managing director of the technology segment in the e-discovery practice at FTI Consulting, echoed some of Hamilton's sentiments with regards to the shift towards solutions that narrow down the amount of data that enters the review process.

However, she believes it's the conversations that providers are having about e-discovery, rather than the audience they are trying to serve, that has changed.

Privacy regulations like the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the forthcoming California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) have played a significant role in the evolution of that dialogue.

"We do need to be able to help legal counsel understand the most efficient way of dealing with data that is growing in its protection, whether it's from GDPR, CCPA or whatever other states are looking at regulations as well," King said.

But exactly how this might change corporate legal's working relationship with law firms and e-discovery providers remains to be seen.

King indicated it's possible that providers could wind up having more conversations with corporate legal departments as they continue to bring more of the e-discovery process in-house.

Still, while she believes that while legal departments are taking on a greater role in determining the providers that will be used for their e-discovery matters, law firms will still remain a part of the larger discussion.

"When you really look at it, it's a partnership, right? Between the providers, the law firms and the corporations when you're dealing with e-discovery," King said.