EDiscovery

Most legal teams most value trust and pricing options when it comes to choosing to an e-discovery vendor, according the “E-Discovery Unfiltered: A Survey of Current Trends and Candid Perspectives” report conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors. The report consisted of interviews with 27 professionals in legal businesses, including eight corporate counsel, 11 in-house personnel and eight law firm partners.

According to the survey, how in-house legal departments budgeted for e-discovery varied widely, with an almost equal number saying their budgets increased, decreased or stayed the same over the past year. Ari Kaplan, principal at Ari Kaplan Advisors, noted this was indicative of some organizations having spent the “past few years building up their infrastructure and their teams” and now being able to leverage cost savings.

“For others, they recognize that their peers are enjoying those efficiencies and are making the investments” after them, he added.

The situation was markedly different with law firm respondents, most of whom saw their e-discovery budgets increase over the past year. Kaplan said this was likely due to firms making investments in technology and processes to support their clients' needs and win new business.

While budgets varied, most law firms and in-house respondents noted they were at least somewhat price sensitive to e-discovery services and would consider e-discovery subscription pricing options to lower their annual spend. All 11 in-house legal personnel and a majority of corporate counsel also said they liked having multiple pricing options for e-discovery services, though law firm respondents were split on that choice.

Kaplan tied support for a subscription model to the desire to increase the level of price predictability around e-discovery services. But, he added, “The challenge is that organizations need to have a sufficient amount of e-discovery work to make this type of subscription model worthwhile.”

He also explained diverging attitudes from law firms and corporate legal departments towards multiple pricing points as a function of their unique situations. While law firms are likely to handle multiple different matters on an ongoing basis, legal departments' e-discovery work can vary greatly in size and complexity year over year, making them more amenable to multiple pricing options, he said.

When it came down to selecting an e-discovery provider for a project, the survey that found that it was most often in-house client who had the final say. However, both outside counsel and their clients were on the same page about wanting an e-discovery provider who could be a long-term partner as opposed to solely a transactional vendor.

When asked about the specific qualities firms and legal departments hope to see in their e-discovery providers, Kaplan cited both responsiveness and trust as key elements. He added the ideal vendor is “someone who is going to proactively think about the matters and offer specific tailored solutions” that fit their clients' unique business needs.

Interestingly, the survey also suggested that vendors and outside counsel continue to play an important role in e-discovery given that almost half of in-house respondents were outsourcing their e-discovery processes, a finding that pushes back against the idea that insourcing is becoming more prominent.

“I've been studying the insourcing component for years now, and it's like a pendulum swinging back and forth,” Kaplan said. He explained that the level of insourcing “tends to be dictated by the size of the matter and the sophistication of the organizations. Very few organizations will handle very large, significant matters on their own, and many organizations will try to address small compartmentalized matters themselves.”