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?
by Stephen Cole
An article we recently posted, “Selling the Value of Litigation Support” resonated with many law firms now grappling with the piece’s core question: “What is the best service delivery model for litigation support?”
While there is no consensus answer to this complicated question,
Last month, we conducted the live webinar, “Maximizing Cost Recovery for In-house Litigation Support/eDiscovery,” and received an overwhelming response—many have asked for an additional opportunity to join this conversation. We’re pleased to conduct a new, live broadcast on Wednesday, May 3rd at 12pm ET.
As demand growth continues to be flat,
Is your firm recovering costs or writing them off for your in-house litigation support/eDiscovery services?
During the distribution of the 2016 Mattern & Associates Cost Recovery Survey, a recurring question Mattern frequently received, was why firms are not able to effectively recover the costs for in-house litigation support/eDiscovery services?
These potentially billable hours were either never charged to a client/matter number or just charged to overhead.
Problem: This 250 attorney, AmLaw 200, Washington D.C.-based firm had specific areas in which it was struggling; in particular, they were finding it difficult to keep current with technology, flexing to meet demand, and recovering costs for the internal systems and storage related to litigation support services (e-Discovery).
The firm had many legacy databases on the firm’s infrastructure,