Page 106 - 2019 - Leaders in Legal Business (q)
P. 106
agreements on key issues, particularly clawback agreements; Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) orders prevent
the waiver of the privilege in the pending matter as well as in all other federal or state proceedings.
Choosing the Appropriate Service Model
In many cases clients can realize significant savings by sharing the responsibility for e-
discovery with outside counsel and third-party service providers. In recent years, the e-discovery
service industry has developed three service models to choose from:
1. a firm-hosted model;
2. a fully outsourced mode; and
3. a hybrid model.
The right choice will depend on a variety of factors. In many instances, depending on the
client’s e-discovery capabilities, an approach that blends internal and external resources is most
effective. It may make sense to divide the responsibilities according to the discovery phase,
depending on the client’s sophistication and budget.
Some factors to consider in choosing a model include the following:
the client’s volume and type of litigation;
the client’s volume and types of data;
the skill sets of lawyers and other legal professionals on the client’s team of outside counsel;
the skills and resources of the client’s in-house legal and IT teams; and
the costs and risks associated with the client’s information.
Outsourcing all or part of the discovery process to third-party service providers benefits
clients and their counsel in many ways. First, discovery providers often have superior expertise,
including knowledge of best practices and cost-saving strategies. Second, service providers have
access to scalable resources, including trained legal reviewers; this means they can mobilize their
teams quickly and jump-start projects to meet tough deadlines. Third, service providers typically
have access to the latest e-discovery technology and tools. Finally, using a service provider can
often be more cost-effective than using outside counsel or in-house resources.
Establishing a relationship with a preferred provider of e-discovery services can lead to even
more lucrative benefits: Costs will become predictable, and more favorable rates can be negotiated
if discovery work is consolidated with a single provider. Moreover, sharing the load of discovery
with a trusted specialist allows external and internal counsel to focus on their core responsibilities:
handling substantive issues and developing legal strategy.
Finding the Right Strategic Partner
With the right investment of time and resources, counsel can find a strategic partner that
will complement its services and delivery model. The Sedona Conference®’s publication,
“Navigating the Vendor Proposal Process: Best Practices for the Selection of Electronic Discovery
91
the waiver of the privilege in the pending matter as well as in all other federal or state proceedings.
Choosing the Appropriate Service Model
In many cases clients can realize significant savings by sharing the responsibility for e-
discovery with outside counsel and third-party service providers. In recent years, the e-discovery
service industry has developed three service models to choose from:
1. a firm-hosted model;
2. a fully outsourced mode; and
3. a hybrid model.
The right choice will depend on a variety of factors. In many instances, depending on the
client’s e-discovery capabilities, an approach that blends internal and external resources is most
effective. It may make sense to divide the responsibilities according to the discovery phase,
depending on the client’s sophistication and budget.
Some factors to consider in choosing a model include the following:
the client’s volume and type of litigation;
the client’s volume and types of data;
the skill sets of lawyers and other legal professionals on the client’s team of outside counsel;
the skills and resources of the client’s in-house legal and IT teams; and
the costs and risks associated with the client’s information.
Outsourcing all or part of the discovery process to third-party service providers benefits
clients and their counsel in many ways. First, discovery providers often have superior expertise,
including knowledge of best practices and cost-saving strategies. Second, service providers have
access to scalable resources, including trained legal reviewers; this means they can mobilize their
teams quickly and jump-start projects to meet tough deadlines. Third, service providers typically
have access to the latest e-discovery technology and tools. Finally, using a service provider can
often be more cost-effective than using outside counsel or in-house resources.
Establishing a relationship with a preferred provider of e-discovery services can lead to even
more lucrative benefits: Costs will become predictable, and more favorable rates can be negotiated
if discovery work is consolidated with a single provider. Moreover, sharing the load of discovery
with a trusted specialist allows external and internal counsel to focus on their core responsibilities:
handling substantive issues and developing legal strategy.
Finding the Right Strategic Partner
With the right investment of time and resources, counsel can find a strategic partner that
will complement its services and delivery model. The Sedona Conference®’s publication,
“Navigating the Vendor Proposal Process: Best Practices for the Selection of Electronic Discovery
91
