ABA Report: E-Discovery Requests Are Up Among Law Firms
While almost all lawyers are receiving and sending e-discovery requests, the technology and processes they use to handle these requests will vary greatly depending on firm size.
January 03, 2019 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
The American Bar Association 2018 “Legal Technology Survey Report” released last month found law firms of all sizes are receiving and sending more e-discovery requests compared to the past few years.
For the litigation technology and e-discovery report, 68 percent of respondents said they received an e-discovery request on behalf of their client, compared to 64 percent in 2017 and 2016, and 62 percent in 2015. On average, respondents received 42 e-discovery requests on behalf of their clients, the ABA reported.
The ABA surveyed over 3,000 lawyer participants for the litigation technology and e-discovery report, including solo practitioners; lawyers at boutiques that house two to nine attorneys; attorneys at midsize firms, which the ABA defined as law firms that employ 10 to 99 attorneys; and lawyers at firms with over 100 attorneys.
Overall, e-discovery requests were above 60 percent in 2018, regardless of a law firm's size. The ABA reported an increase from 2017's 49 percent to 2018's 63 percent among solos, while requests fell 5 percent to 73 percent overall for boutiques. Meanwhile, midsize firms reported e-discovery requests shot up 10 percent to 75 percent total, and 100-plus attorney firms went unchanged from 2017 at 64 percent.
Lawyers who practiced primarily in litigation (93 percent), employment/labor (91 percent) and personal injury (89 percent) were most likely to report that they'd received e-discovery requests on behalf of their clients.
Thirty-five percent of respondents also said they never make e-discovery requests, a decrease from 2017's 42 percent.
What's more, 23 percent of attorneys said they make e-discovery requests on behalf of their clients three to 11 times a year, a 5 percent increase from 2017. Attorneys practicing litigation (92 percent), personal injury and employment labor (89 percent each) and criminal law (86 percent) are most likely to send e-discovery requests, according to the study.
Still, the report also found that only 45 percent of cases involved e-discovery or ESI in 2018, a decrease from 51 percent in 2017.
However, only boutiques and midsize firms noted a decrease in cases involving ESI or e-discovery. Law firms with 100 or more attorneys reported the most significant increase in ESI or e-discovery materials in 2018 with 76 percent from 2017's 69 percent, while solo practitioners also reported an increase, but by only 1 percent.
When e-discovery is needed, some lawyers outsource that work. Of those that do, 35 percent use a litigation support bureau, or e-discovery consultant, followed closely by computer forensics specialists. Lawyers within the U.S. are being used 15 percent of the time for e-discovery, a stagnant number from 2017 but a 7 percent decrease from 2015.
When lawyers in firms do perform e-discovery, the ABA found 28 percent prefer “simple review solution(s),” while 25 percent want “all-in-one-solutions.” Eighty percent of respondents who processed ESI said they used keyword searching in the review, while 36 percent said they used concept searching and 12 percent said they used predictive coding.
Firms with 100 or more lawyers were more likely to use predictive coding (21 percent), followed by 12 percent of midsize firms, 10 percent of boutiques and only 3 percent of solos. Of those that did use predictive coding, 73 percent said they used it for data culling, while 67 percent used it for document prioritization. Around half, 53 percent, said predictive coding was used for checking the work of a review team.
The ABA also noted respondents used predictive coding when factors such as the amount of documents and a short time frame/deadline could benefit from software. However, 63 percent of respondents said the size of the case didn't warrant predictive coding.
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
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
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