When corporations are decreasing their spend on outside counsel, it’s time to take a good hard look at what big eDiscovery status quo might be holding you back.
Change is not easy, especially when you feel like the status quo works. Take legacy eDiscovery technology as an example. You own your legacy system, so there is very little operational overhead. You’re accustomed to the workflows and dashboards. It still works (mostly) and is certainly better than “before”. So why should you look for something else?
In today’s eDiscovery environment, hanging on to legacy technology is no longer treading water. It is going to cost you time, money and clients. In fact, it likely already has. Many corporations are decreasing their spend on outside counsel, selecting only those firms that are the most efficient and cost-effective at handling their legal matters. The firms they do retain are seeing more and more work flow their way–and out of the pockets of competitors–as corporate clients get savvier.
Service providers are seeing a similar trend. Law firms want cost predictability and more insight into the full eDiscovery process. The “black box” approach of legacy eDiscovery systems–when data is processed using keywords and there is no true insight or transparency into what is being skipped or discarded–is coming to a swift and definite end. How defensible is it really when judges and clients know the tools for transparent searching are readily available?
What are the key differences between most legacy eDiscovery technologies and the new, advanced platforms? Many legacy systems process data and batch documents for review with little-to-no rhyme or reason. The result is slow processing and inconsistent review and coding of documents. Something as simple as the ability to organize data in a meaningful way (think email threads or clusters of documents with similar content) can save reviewers hours, if not days, of effort. In fact, today’s platforms that lead teams directly to the pertinent information can even eliminate the need for a team of reviewers altogether, saving time, infrastructure and money. How about robustly categorizing documents or running conceptual searches? Not possible with most legacy systems.
In short, visibility and insight are no longer trends, they’re non-negotiable. But what about the cost? There are technologies available today that can meet all types of budgets, and the efficiencies gained often means the upgrade pays for itself, and fast. While sticking with that known legacy system might feel like the most cost-effective choice, the cost of missed opportunities will become an ever-widening gap for firms and service providers alike.