Expansion of E-Discovery and Cloud Tech is Redefining the Legal Tech Market
The 2018 E-discovery Unfiltered Survey found a growing acceptance of cloud technologies and broader e-discovery deployment at law firms and legal departments.
May 09, 2018 at 09:48 AM
3 minute read
The legal technology market is being defined by an expansion of cloud services and e-discovery, according to the 2018 E-discovery Unfiltered Survey of 31 professionals in legal businesses, conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors.
Almost all respondents said there was a growing acceptance and use of cloud services at their company or law firm, not just as the basis for software-as-a-service (SaaS) legal technology platforms but also as a storage option for corporate, e-discovery, and transactional data.
Of the respondents, eight were in-house attorneys, 14 were in-house legal personnel, such as head of legal services and lead e-discovery engineer, and nine were from law firms. All respondents were responsible for e-discovery decision-making at their office.
Ari Kaplan, principal at Ari Kaplan Advisors, noted that while lower hosting and storage cost remains a significant reason many are using the cloud, there are several other factors in play as well. Given the widespread use of programs like Office 365, he said, “companies have been using the cloud for many years now” and are becoming more comfortable with the technology.
What's more, “companies are also becoming increasingly comfortable with the security in the cloud as cloud providers become better known and organizations recognize that providers can typically match or exceed any cybersecurity protection that they can offer internally.”
Still, most respondents said their corporation or law firm lagged in deploying cloud or hybrid solutions in-house. Yet, Kaplan believes it is only a matter of time before cloud becomes pervasive in legal, noting that many legal professionals are reevaluating their technology because of client demands and upcoming data security regulations such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Beyond bringing in more cloud services, most corporations and law firms were also leveraging e-discovery outside their litigation needs. According to the survey, 62 percent of respondents in legal departments said regulatory disclosures qualify as electronic discovery, meaning they deploy e-discovery tools to meet regulatory needs.
What's more, 71 percent of in-house respondents said they engaged in data discovery beyond regulatory matters or litigation, while all law firm respondents said the same as well. Kaplan noted that beyond traditional uses, e-discovery is likely also deployed for due diligence, internal investigations, contract review, and data governance tasks.
How legal uses e-discovery tools is also evolving. A majority of respondents, for instance, noted that technology assisted review (TAR) has become an expectation when performing e-discovery.
For Kaplan, this is a sign that the technology is now effective enough to become a necessity in document review. “The technology has gotten so much better in the last few years, and as a result there is a greater confidence in TAR,” he explained.
He added that TAR is also likely demanded these days because law firm and corporations are more aware of the technology. TAR is “increasingly becoming embedded in any e-discovery tool, and there is an expectation that organization will apply some level of technology to a data set to eliminate completely irrelevant or unnecessary data.”
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
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