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
© 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
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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