Legal Departments Leaving Light On for E-Discovery Providers Willing to Renegotiate
In the COVID-19 economy, in-house legal departments will likely continue to insource many of their e-discovery needs since the same staff can often be used to perform other vital office functions. However, some departments may use this as an opportunity to try and negotiate lower prices with outside e-discovery providers.
May 14, 2020 at 03:59 PM
3 minute read
Corporate legal departments may be using downtime enforced by COVID-19-related shutdowns to reevaluate their approach to e-discovery. Those discussions are likely to revolve around whether it's more cost-effective to handle e-discovery-related tasks such as collections or processing in-house, or attempt to renegotiate contracts with vendors weathering the same injured economy.
Before the outbreak of COVID-19, the answer would probably have been more straightforward. Recent trends suggest that legal departments were taking more control over the e-discovery process by moving those functions in-house to increase long-term savings. Last October, Exterro's 2019 In-House Legal Benchmark Report showed that 50% of respondents had a formal or informal e-discovery team. But could potential COVID-19-related layoffs or financial hardships make it harder for legal departments to maintain that trend?
Brett Burney of Burney Consultants doesn't foresee companies reversing course on in-house e-discovery operations anytime soon. "Honestly, I expect the trend to continue. I think it will continue to be insourcing. I think this is just a little bit of a blip on the radar and I at least haven't seen that this is forcing anybody to make a different decision," Burney said.
A big part of that may have to do with the employees typically responsible for performing e-discovery-related functions inside corporate legal departments. According to Burney, the burden of those chores tends to fall on paralegals and company information technology professionals, who often serve a multitude of other important support roles within an organization or legal department in addition to their e-discovery workload.
However, some organizations may also be treating COVID-19′s sluggish effect on litigation as a window to reevaluate their approach to e-discovery, which is difficult to do when business-related legal needs are in full swing. Burney has heard from clients who see a chance to reconnect with outside providers at a more favorable price point.
"At this point in time, they see it as an opportunity to maybe take advantage of getting those service providers and talking them down [and] striking a bargain on those services," Burney said.
It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Some e-discovery providers have already felt the impact of COVID-19 on the world market. DISCO, for example, confirmed to Law.com in April that it had made an undisclosed number of cuts to its workforce in an effort to offset the effects of an economic downturn. But just how far even the most nervous e-discovery providers may be willing to bend in negotiations with corporate legal departments remains a question mark.
Mary Mack, CEO and chief legal technologist at EDRM, has not heard of any providers signing off on lower fees just yet, but she has seen some flexibility emerge around payment terms. For example, an e-discovery vendor may agree to significantly extend the number of days a client has to pay an invoice for a piece of software or other services before it is declared past due and begins accruing interest.
Still, Mack doesn't think that bargaining around lower fees is completely out of the question moving forward as e-discovery providers look to preserve their own ongoing business and cash flow.
"If you are a provider, whether you are a law firm or a platform or an alternative legal services provider, at this point it wouldn't be client-centered not to look at what you arranged to do in the best of times and make some adjustments," Mack 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
- 1Troutman Pepper, Claiming Ex-Associate's Firing Was Performance Related, Seeks Summary Judgment in Discrimination Suit
- 2Law Firm Fails to Get Punitive Damages From Ex-Client
- 3Over 700 Residents Near 2023 Derailment Sue Norfolk for More Damages
- 4Decision of the Day: Judge Sanctions Attorney for 'Frivolously' Claiming All Nine Personal Injury Categories in Motor Vehicle Case
- 5Second Judge Blocks Trump Federal Funding Freeze
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