5 tips for creating an in-house e-discovery team
The benefits both outweigh and greatly reduce the costs
July 30, 2012 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
The reasons for having an internal e-discovery team are long and varied, but experts agree that it is a giant cost-saver.
To that end, Dykema Gossett Partner and e-discovery practice head Dante Stella offers the following suggestions for organizations seeking to create their own in-house e-discovery teams:
1. Have realistic expectations on what a program might do and the potential cost savings. Not every discovery contingency can be foreseen by an in-house program, and modern case law increasingly requires trial counsel to supervise discovery efforts by clients.
2. When you construct your in-house team, choose a team leader with interest and inclination—someone who is willing to make the significant time investment in staying on top of both academic and real-world developments. This person also should be able to play well both with outside counsel and with IT personnel critical to preserving and collecting data. We often see senior paralegals performing this leading role.
3. When it comes to technology, think in terms of stages, and build step-by-step based on cost-effectiveness and results. Start with software (or even training) that helps you construct and track litigation holds. Then, if your company's size and litigation profile can justify it, think about a system that helps you index, search and export data. A third step might be some form of early case assessment. You don't have to do everything at once.
4. You almost always have a better chance of getting a budget for something if there is a non-legal business case for it. One example is an email archiving system that cuts everyday storage costs for IT and supports your records policy, but also allows the legal department to hold and perform sophisticated searches.
5. Even if the only thing you ultimately achieve with an in-house program is to develop a way to effectively identify and preserve data needed for litigation, you're still better off for having done it.
The reasons for having an internal e-discovery team are long and varied, but experts agree that it is a giant cost-saver.
To that end,
1. Have realistic expectations on what a program might do and the potential cost savings. Not every discovery contingency can be foreseen by an in-house program, and modern case law increasingly requires trial counsel to supervise discovery efforts by clients.
2. When you construct your in-house team, choose a team leader with interest and inclination—someone who is willing to make the significant time investment in staying on top of both academic and real-world developments. This person also should be able to play well both with outside counsel and with IT personnel critical to preserving and collecting data. We often see senior paralegals performing this leading role.
3. When it comes to technology, think in terms of stages, and build step-by-step based on cost-effectiveness and results. Start with software (or even training) that helps you construct and track litigation holds. Then, if your company's size and litigation profile can justify it, think about a system that helps you index, search and export data. A third step might be some form of early case assessment. You don't have to do everything at once.
4. You almost always have a better chance of getting a budget for something if there is a non-legal business case for it. One example is an email archiving system that cuts everyday storage costs for IT and supports your records policy, but also allows the legal department to hold and perform sophisticated searches.
5. Even if the only thing you ultimately achieve with an in-house program is to develop a way to effectively identify and preserve data needed for litigation, you're still better off for having done it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readInside Track: AI Is Sure to Fray Big Law's Devotion to Billable Hour
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250