Despite Lower Costs, E-Discovery Reluctance Remains Among Small Law
Cloud-based solutions are making it easier for small firms to fold e-discovery into their practices, but some old fears could be holding them back from exploring those possibilities.
April 15, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
It's a new age for small firms and e-discovery—sort of. Cloud-based solutions like Microsoft Office 365 are helping to defray some of the costs of expensive servers or full-time e-discovery personnel in-house. The drawbridge is down and the gate unlocked.
But are some firms are still reluctant to walk through the door? Eric Mandel, a consultant with the e-discovery solutions provider Driven, thinks many of the challenges that existed 10 years ago in getting lawyers to embrace e-discovery continue to persist today.
“I don't think that they've caught on. I think that many of them are still in the ostrich phase,” said Mandel.
People might have begun sticking their heads in the sand a few years ago, when the servers, equipment licenses and other hardware necessary to build a functional data infrastructure system presented a significant expense. Worse still could have been the ongoing payroll cost of the people with the expertise needed to make any of that worthwhile.
Brian Schrader, president and CEO of the e-discovery and digital forensics firm BIA, pointed out that the infrequency with which some small firms fielded cases that required know-how into things like technology assisted review might not have justified the salary of a full-time e-discovery person.
“You might have someone who understands the technology, but unless you're kind of involved in it on a regular basis and keeping abreast of the rapid changes in that kind of technology, it's even hard for somebody to do it on a part-time basis,” said Schrader.
But that is changing. The cloud is making it easier to engage outside vendors for e-discovery services. Aaron Vick, chief strategy officer with the cloud-based legal services provider Cicayda, has noticed an uptick in the number of small firms that approach his company for e-discovery related services, which includes everything from production to assisted review analytics.
He expects to see more interest in the future due in large part to the deluge of electronic information originating from almost every corner of the modern world. Lawyers don't want to make a costly discovery oversight that can cost them during a trial or settlement negotiation, and locating or making sense of all that data can require some specialized insight.
“I think the trend these days is that even small cases tend to have, not a substantial amount of data, but a nuance because of the rise of social media and mobile devices and different communications that did not exist a decade ago,” Vick said.
Ellis & Winters, a boutique firm based in North Carolina, services many clients with recurring e-discovery needs and issues. Alex Hagan, head of the firms litigation group, said that social media is something that they have to consider when doing e-discovery.
“I can't even begin to keep up. That's why I think it's important to have others who are more embedded in the technology that can tell us 'OK this is where we need to be looking, this is what we need to be considering,'” said Hagan.
In addition to working with outside vendors when needed, the firm has also elected to maintain its own in-house e-discovery resources. Hagan declined to go into details on those resources, but said that e-discovery is an area that the firm has been building on for a while.
The benefit of having taken those steps — of not having their head in the sand— is the knowledge they've accumulated over time allows the firm to more accurately predict for clients how much a given e-discovery project will amount to in dollars. It's about providing clients with cost effectiveness as much as control.
“It's like everything else. Good judgement comes from experience. Once you have some experiences under your belt and know what works and what doesn't work and what was effective and what was needed then you're able to forecast that better to the client,” Hagan said.
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
- 1Delaware Supreme Court Names Civil Litigator to Serve as New Chief Disciplinary Counsel
- 2Inside Track: Why Relentless Self-Promoters Need Not Apply for GC Posts
- 3Fresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
- 4Ex-Kline & Specter Associate Drops Lawsuit Against the Firm
- 5Am Law 100 Lateral Partner Hiring Rose in 2024: Report
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