ediscovery-review-costs

More lawyers are leveraging remote e-discovery solutions, with a few even developing proprietary software themselves. But highly sensitive and regulated data means remote tools won't completely replace in-person collection. 

To be sure, while COVID-19 quarantines make remote access a safer alternative for most, the pandemic isn't the catalyst for the transition to remote e-discovery. E-discovery lawyers note remote e-discovery was being leveraged by law firms years before as a cost-efficient alternative to in-person data collection. 

"I think for your average case, where you may not have that many [computers to collect data from], I do see remote kits and remote solutions being chosen by more clients than in the past mostly because of cost efficiency," said Seyfarth Shaw e-discovery and information governance partner Richard Lutkus.

Last week, Seyfarth Shaw jumped into the remote e-discovery tool market itself with the launch of Seyfarth Scout, which connects an employee's computer to Scout's server for e-discovery collection.

Seyfarth Scout was developed to provide a more logistical and cost-efficient workflow for clients and provide a faster turnaround for lawyers to analyze information and advise clients, Lutkus said. More law firms developing and leveraging remote e-discovery tools is part of the natural order marked by tech advancements and client demand, Lutkus explained.

"'I think it's a natural progression with how the industry is operating and cost pressure from the end client to access data that is efficient and cost saving. More people are getting attuned to that, and we don't always need a forensic image of an entire computer."

Still, not all law firms will be up for the challenge of developing their own remote e-discovery tech, Lutkus noted.

"I suspect some of the more technical firms will look at these. I think there's—fairly among the Am Law 200—a different approach to this and they will say, 'We are not going to do it' and outsource it every time," Lutkus said.  While others will white-label a third-party software and some firms will develop the tech in-house, he said.

However, while remote collection tools are useful for most matters, collecting data from many machines in a central location may still warrant sending people to manually perform that task, Lutkus noted.

Contractual and regulatory restraints may also rule out remote collection of data, added Crowell & Moring e-discovery and information management practice co-chairman John Davis. Likewise, sensitive data with national security implications makes remote data collection too risky. "Some things you'll have to wait to get the right people in the data environment that has approved access," Davis said.

Remote e-discovery tools are also running into challenges collecting data from phones and tablets, and many turn to Cellebrite for those matters, he added.

Despite some limitations, e-discovery lawyers still say the efficiencies of remote collection are worthwhile for most clients and matters. What's more, when appropriate, remotely collecting data can decrease a client's risk when an attorney can decide upfront what data will be collected, Davis added.

And to be sure, though such tools were leveraged well before COVID-19, remotely accessing data under shutdown restrictions and health concerns has been extremely convenient.

"In our current environment with everyone on lockdown, we have used it during that period because people are home and they aren't in the office. Frankly, they don't want someone to come into their home to collect information," said Connolly Gallagher partner Ryan Newell.

But after COVID-19 subsides, Newell doesn't see the usage of remote e-discovery waning. "Litigation is a rather global exercise, and if you can save costs and time by not traveling, I can see more firms and clients deciding to leverage this more remotely."