In-House Targets External Spend in Push for E-Discovery Efficiency
The 3rd annual Study of Effective Legal Spend Management found that legal departments are looking to bring more e-discovery processes in-house and are eyeing document review and data collection as prime areas to elicit savings from.
May 14, 2019 at 06:28 PM
3 minute read
Most legal departments are looking to slash external e-discovery spending and bring such operations in-house, according to the 3rd annual Study of Effective Legal Spend Management conducted by the Blickstein Group and Exterro Inc. The study surveyed legal directors, in-house attorneys and e-discovery and legal operations professional at 69 small to large U.S. organizations across a variety of industries, including technology, financial service, manufacturing and energy.
The study found that a majority of responding organizations, 57%, budgeted $1 million or less on e-discovery in 2019. On the high end, 8% budgeted over $5 million. For one-third of companies, this year's budget remained flat from last year, compared to the 30% that said it deceased and 39% for whom it increased.
Law firms accounted for 23% of overall e-discovery spend, while 33% was directed to third-party service providers. Around half of all organizations spent less than $500,000 on that outside e-discovery spend, while 20% spent over $5 million.
While budget realities differed among the respondents, a wide majority, 72%, agreed that reducing external e-discovery spend was a major initiative for their legal departments in 2019. Over half, 57%, said this was driven by overall cost initiatives in-house, while a quarter cited executive or in-house counsel demands.
Tim Rollins, content marketing manager at Exterro, said that cutting external spend ties into legal departments' desire to move more e-discovery operations in-house to elicit greater efficiencies. “Organizations gain all the benefits of transparency and direct budget management. You see what is working well and what isn't. You have the ability to measure, manage and optimize the process.”
To be sure, slightly over 60% of respondents said bringing more e-discovery work in-house was a “highly effective” way to manage their e-discovery spend. A similar amount of respondents also said the same of having litigation executive oversight and utilizing e-discovery technology.
Respondent ranked document-review technology as the most effective tool at controlling e-discovery spend followed by early case assessment and data collection and processing platforms.
Unsurprisingly, respondents also ranked document review and data collection as the two top areas where they were looking to reduce e-discovery spend.
“Collection is a logical target for savings because the costs of hosting [and] retaining essentially duplicate data are purely lost costs,” Rollins said. “If you can do a better job targeting data for collection using early case assessment, you can collect less and drive down costs. Alternatively, if you can lock data down and preserve it in place without collecting it, you can effectively minimize those costs.”
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
- 1Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
- 2Walter Taggart, Villanova Law Professor, Dies at 81
- 3$2.7M Verdict for Whistleblower Exposes Employer to $300M Claim
- 4Phila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
- 5Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
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