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
© 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
- 1Understanding the HEMS Standard in Trusts
- 2Mergers Are About People, Not Paperwork: Here’s Why
- 3Wachtell Partner Leaves to Chair Latham's Liability Management Practice
- 4Morris Nichols Partners to Be Involved With PLI Program
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Cultivating a Culture of Mutual Trust Is Essential,' Says Gina Piazza of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
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