There are still some firms which are reluctant to embrace the financial and operational benefits of legal outsourcing. These firms may have anecdotal evidence of an outsourcing engagement gone ‘wrong’ or executed incorrectly. Anecdotes should not be dismissed and every firm considering outsourcing needs to carefully weigh the needs of their firm culture to the demands of a rapidly changing marketplace.
By Stephen Cole
Firms are increasingly making the move to a managed services environment for e-discovery.
According to a 2015 Mattern & Associates Managed E-Discovery and Litigation Support Survey, 28 percent of respondents indicated that their firm had entered into some form of managed services arrangement concerning their litigation support offering.
In recent months, we’ve seen debate whether it would be better for firms to move or keep their e-discovery services in-house. Those who advocate for in-house e-discovery argue that it provides for greater control and oversight. As Geoffrey Vance of Perkins Coie has argued, an in-house model allows law firms to leverage technology “to monitor progress and decision-making such that mistakes are caught,
2016 is in full swing and we will soon be conducting the 2016 Mattern & Associates Cost Recovery Survey. We’ve been conducting this bi-annual survey since 2004 and, during that time, it has become an industry resource for tracking the cost recovery practices of law firms across size and geography.
As we try to predict what the 2016 survey will reveal,
Expect managed services models to become a more prevalent fixture in the litigation support landscape.
Stephen Cole, Legaltech News
Managed services around litigation support (and more specifically e-discovery) has garnered enormous buzz in the industry in the past couple of years. From national to regional providers,