Where does your firm fall on the spectrum of possible support models for eDiscovery? Did you choose to bring it all in-house with a robust technology solution that feeds the needs of your large attorney roster? Did you choose a full Managed Service that would eliminate the technology overhead and support headache? Or did you select a hybrid solution that possibly includes outsourcing your technology infrastructure while still maintaining control over the information and platform elements?
Whatever your decision, it has to have been made at some point in recent years—because there’s simply no alternative for law firms when it comes to the need for a fast, secure, flexible and comprehensive way to search for information in support of your ongoing stream of cases—large or small.
Yet, there’s a growing trend of increased data sizes and security needs that is beginning to introduce complexities that some firms are finding hard to handle. What might have started as a clear-cut technology decision a few years ago is potentially now a much more complex ongoing strategy and evaluation that requires more time and attention than anticipated by firm leadership at the outset.
There are clear advantages to how a firm should address their eDiscovery needs, whether through an in-house model with everything close at hand, or through a managed service model that brings the benefits of offloading daily maintenance decisions and overhead. The wrong model can translate to reduced flexibility, functionality, or security—hindering a firm’s ability to respond to client needs—and ultimately compete in the market.
There is no single right answer for all firms. Each environment, pace, scope, scale, growth trend, etc. in a firm demands different elements and stands to benefit in different ways based on the model. So it’s not a decision to be taken lightly—or if in place, a change to be considered quickly. We routinely work with law firms to assess their needs and adopt or migrate to the best strategy to meet those needs. In past posts, we’ve shared many of the benefits that we see helping law firms from each different model—in-house, outsourced, hybrid, etc.
Top Benefits of an In-House Model
- Control over standardized tools and workflow
- Supports multiple clients with consistent workflow 100% aligned with the firm’s desired approach
- Contributes to long-term cost savings from ongoing use of existing infrastructure
Top Benefits of a Managed Service Model
- Technical maintenance and management of infrastructure are offloaded to the 3rd party
- Software feature/functionality can be delivered automatically without in-house development
- Data security and backup can be integrated into the solution
Top Benefits of a Hybrid Model
- Firms can offload tedious, cumbersome, time-consuming technical maintenance
- Leverage IT expertise that does not have to be staffed in-house
- Maintain control over data and software, ensuring 100% alignment with firm needs
In Stephen Cole’s recent post, “Selling the Value of Litigation Support”, he speaks to the difference found in eDiscovery In-House Models vs. Managed Service Models.
Whether your firm has solved this with an in-house solution, or with a third party provider, you need a solution that safeguards your client materials and effectively promotes manageable data sizes for attorney review. With eDiscovery processes and costs increasingly visible to law firm clients, it’s important to make sure that your firm has the right strategy for your unique needs.
As stated earlier, Mattern and Associates routinely works with law firms to evaluate their current middle and back office operations and implement cost-saving and efficiency-improvement changes that deliver results over the short- and long-term. If your firm is interested in learning more about how a different model can offer benefits and cost savings in this important area, please contact us to schedule a quick discussion. If you would like to learn how we help law firms in this area, please click the button below.