A Simplified Approach to Making the Managed Services Decision
To stay current in today's legal landscape, law firms have to find the best solution which fits their long-term business model.
October 24, 2017 at 08:00 AM
5 minute read
It has been more than 10 years since the Federal Rules have changed, but the overwhelming issue with many of today's law firms remains how to manage the enormous challenges of e-discovery and how to support their lawyers and clients. Some firms have figured this out with tremendous success, while others think they have. But the majority of firms who must litigate matters under the same set of rules and standards are still struggling. What they know for sure is to stay current in today's legal landscape, they have to find the best solution which fits their long-term business model.
When determining what is best for your firm and your clients, there are a number of factors you should consider on whether a managed services approach to e-discovery is the right one for your firm.
The first question you should ask yourself is, “What is our annual e-discovery spend?” Did you know that over 85 percent of firms cannot answer this question? (This concerns me.) To go about crafting a response, you first must break it down…
- If your accounting firm has a code for third-party e-discovery vendors, then you are well on your way. If it doesn't, you may want to consider codes for services such as court reporting, forensics, processing, hosting, document review and trial support.
- What is your internal spend on litigation support personnel including overtime, benefits, space and training?
- Identify your current technology spend if you have internal technology. Remember to include infrastructure costs, storage space and IT resource support.
This exercise may take a bit of time, but the results will be valuable. Whether or not your firm currently charges its client for any e-discovery services must also be considered along with the utilization and realization of those charges.
Once you've determined your e-discovery costs, your next consideration when thinking about managed services is whether or not you understand the needs of your attorneys and support staff along with the firm culture and its law practice. Many firms go down this road without initiating collaborative discussions with their attorneys, professional staff and clients.
These conversations drive incredible insights and results. You may uncover that some attorneys are not comfortable talking to their clients about e-discovery issues and the support of a managed services provider could be a tremendous asset. You also need to have a deep understanding of your clients' needs concerning data challenges and what position they take with e-discovery and their own document management practices.
The next determining factor for deciding on a managed services approach would be your internal resources. Gone are the days of loading software on a computer never to hear from the end user again. Today's litigation support technology is very sophisticated and needs the daily support of one or more of a law firm's IT professionals. Most often you will need an application and sequel database administrator's support. In most firms, IT personnel are not part of the litigation support department, and it is not high on the list of priorities when it comes to the demands on the overworked IT department. A managed services solution takes the burden off your IT personnel, which will reduce resources overdrive, streamline backup and maintenance routines and shrink overall storage and infrastructure expenditures.
If you currently have internal litigation support personnel that provide a value-added service, then this model is also a good option. However, the personnel must be well versed on the legal discovery process and technologically equipped to understand workflow and process. The reality is that these highly-paid positions have a high burnout and turnover rate in this industry, with the next firm or service provider willing to pay a little more out of desperation. If you do have internal staff that you can train, educate and retain, then that model can work very well, and having a long-term on-site person who understands the likes and dislikes of attorneys' work habits can be an invaluable proposition. But you might want to consider sticking to the core competencies in your firm, which is the practice of law.
Finally, what about risk management? Errors are inevitable in dealing with the complexities of data, security, culling/filtering, privacy and attorney-client privilege, to name just a few of the issues. Who is responsible for the quality control? Are the steps documented? Is the chain of custody maintained? Where do you want that risk to fall?
I often use the analogy that buying technology is like buying a car: As soon as you make the purchase and drive it off the lot, it depreciates. For litigation support technology, there are mounting up-front investment costs as well as ongoing annual maintenance costs to be considered. It's not as simple as choosing a better, faster software package in a few years. One must consider the initial investment in another technology and take into consideration the terabytes of data in the old system that attorneys will want transferred to the new system. These considerations can go on and on with mounting costs.
Choosing the best software to meet your attorneys' needs while remaining on budget is too often never a meetable goal. The right managed services model will provide options to fit your attorneys' needs and cost expectations with technology to support project management and workflow, early case assessment and document review. Managed services can offer your firm the innovation needed to leverage today's client demands while at the same time reducing overhead costs and minimizing risk.
Christa Iannone is a senior discovery consultant with The MCS Group (themcsgroup.com) where she counsels corporate law departments and law firms on how to apply a cost-effective solution to every day challenges in information governance, security and e-discovery.
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
© 2024 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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