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
© 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
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