Help us decide which lawyer would be the ultimate eDiscovery partner! Voting for the Elite 8 is now closed, but Final Four voting is open here until 5 p.m. ET on Wednesday, March 31. Follow us on social media to make sure you’re in the loop, and don’t forget to use the #LawyerMarchMadness hashtag to argue the case for your favorite!
Voting for Round 2 of March Madness is now closed. Follow us on social media and we’ll keep you in the loop about when new rounds of voting go live!
Voting for Round 1 in #LawyerMarchMadness is now closed. Click here to vote in Round 2. Follow us on social media to make sure you never miss an update!
It’s that time of year again: March Madness! Voting for Round 1 is open until Monday, March 22, at 12 p.m. eastern. Familiarize yourself with the field of contestants and start rallying your friends to vote for your favorite. Be sure to tag your social media posts as #LawyerMarchMadness so you can argue the case for your favorites with other voters. Click here to vote!
Want a reminder every time a new round of voting starts? Send us your contact info and we’ll make sure you stay in the loop on all things #LawyerMarchMadness related.
By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.
March 2021 marks one year since… well… March 2020. A year ago, the world was disrupted by COVID-19 and many of us had to rethink how we work. We had to come up with creative ways for work and life to coexist. Here at Contact, we have a good mix of people who have adjusted to Work-From-Home life over the last year as well as many who have worked remotely for years. Here are some of our tips on how to make the most of working from home and maintain your sanity all at the same time.
Zack Schanz, Director of Project Management
“Focus on the benefits of a lack of commuting and not the negatives of feeling cooped up. Try to physically separate your work area from the rest of your life to the best of your ability so you can spend time working when you want/need to and get away from work at other times.”
James Whitehead, Associate Director of Digital Forensics
“We setup a lunch counter in our basement bar. We make sure to actually take a short walk around the house to the lunch counter once a week.”
Krista Mayer, Senior Director of Business Development
“Prioritize your work day and give yourself time to decompress- go for a walk, talk to a friend or coworker.”
Scott Keeble, Director of eDiscovery Operations
“Get a stand up desk and a Sonos speaker!”
Safira, Accounting & HR Manager
“Keep your work space zen-like. Have a good playlist, coffee, and diffuse lavender at all times.”
Justin, eDiscovery Data Engineer
“Working from home all day makes me feel cooped up. I like to go out and hit the gym or grab a bite to eat after my work day!”
Anne, Digital Brand Specialist
“Make time to eat well, exercise, and sleep. It’s easy to feel like you don’t have time for breaks when there’s a lot of work to do, but you can’t live off of iced coffee and protein bars. Believe me, I’ve tried.”
Sam, Senior Project Manager
“I have been working from home for 5 years now, so as a pro… here are a few tips.
- Set a routine (I walk my dog in the morning, stretch a little, and try to have my coffee before I get online.)
- Try to avoid working from the couch! It’s bad for your neck and back.
- Set up a workstation to help you get in the zone! It’s hard to do that from your couch or bed. You also need to get out of the zone and take mental breaks even if your workstation is 10 feet away, close that door!
- Change our of your pajamas! I’m not saying change into a suit, but I change out of my pajamas into another pair of sweats and it helps!
- Take a scheduled 10-15 minute walk outside (weather permitted). Usually I take my dog on a walk to grab my afternoon coffee! (physical exercise and supporting local businesses all in one!)”
Mike, Associate Director of Project Management
“Set boundaries and try to follow a routine. Personal time should be considered a requirement not a luxury.”
Sean, Lead Software Architect
“Make time to call friends and family and for mental and physical activities other than arm curls from beer mugs, wine goblets, and shot glasses. e.g. weight training, running, board games, reading non-technical material, and just doing nothing for a while, etc.; however, I am still doing arm curls, I need to practice more of what I suggest.”
Tyler, eDiscovery Data Engineer
“Be sure to take a couple of minutes here and there to stand up and move around, it’s easy to feel cramped.”
Anthony, Lead eDiscovery Data Engineer
“Buy a stand up desk and get dressed for work like you’re going into a professional setting. Nothing kills motivation like a pair of sweatpants.”
Scott, Chief Operating Officer
“Find a place away from your kids. Stay away from the kitchen. Take breaks.”
Dave, Chief Executive Officer
“Find your space and use it for work. Don’t try to operate at the kitchen table or have fun time in your office. By commuting ‘to work’ inside your house my family and I are able to achieve a sense of “work normal” that you never realized you actually miss.”
Ashleigh, Director of Business Development
“Plan out your week. Set up a schedule and take breaks.”
Shayna, Director of Business Development
“My coping mechanisms? Pants with elastic waistbands and gardening.”
Rich, Chief Business Officer
“Get ready like you’re leaving the house, have a schedule, and know when you’re done for the day.”
Necessity is the mother of invention. Thus, the legal technology market is full of great inventions. There’s so many that it can be intimidating, especially when everyone seems to be making the same claims that sound too good to be true.
There’s great legal tech coming from all corners of the market. Some solutions come from established names, others from up-and-coming players within the eDiscovery space. None of it does everything for everyone, but much of it can do something for someone. At Contact, we use all sorts of different platforms depending on what a given project calls for: Relativity, Nuix, Cellebrite, OpenText, CloudNine, ReadySuite, Magnet, and Metaspike, just to name a few.
As more great tech bursts onto the scene, many imagine a future where automation has significantly lessened dependence on service providers if not eliminated them altogether. It’s great that tech is empowering people with less-specialized skillsets to do more than they could before. However, those that do have more specialized skillsets in legal technology are still a necessary part of the equation.
More Capabilities Require More Knowledge
Technological advancements usually mean that tech can now do more things than it could before. However, increased functionality can be a blessing and a curse. Oftentimes, as the list of things that tech can do gets longer, it becomes harder and harder for the average user to navigate extensive menus and solve the specific problem at hand.
For that reason, the widely prevalent and seemingly logical notion that better tech = less need for human help is actually not true. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of true. The more technology can do for us, the more it requires advanced knowledge of its capabilities. The more it can do, the further true visionaries can push it. It’s the same way that almost anyone can hop in a canoe and row around a small pond, but if you want to get on a cruise ship and travel the world, you’re going to need a staff of people who has sailed before and already knows the ropes.
People Understand What Great Legal Tech Can Do
The “increased functionality” that tech companies brag about doesn’t count for much if end users don’t even know it’s there. It counts for negative points if it’s cluttering an interface and making it harder to do tasks that were quite simple back when there were five options on a menu instead of 100.
One potential workaround is to simply live without those other 95 options in favor of a simpler, streamlined, but less advanced platform. Essentially, pick the canoe in a small pond instead of the cruise ship. For some organizations, that may very well be the best option. For many more, there will come a day when they need one of those other 95 options.
Legal tech specialists who work with these advanced platforms day in and day out understand the full gamut of what they can do. They can make these platforms conform to your needs. What’s more efficient, teaching every single attorney and paralegal every capability, or letting an expert evaluate your matter and coach your team on the 1-2 functions that will be most useful?
Investing in great technology means all those extra tools are still in your toolbox when you need them. Having great people means you can actually make sense of all the whozits and whatsits galore and put them to use while ignoring the ones that don’t make sense for the matter at hand.
Both the law and technology are constantly changing. People can change with them.
Rushing to a new platform in an effort to eliminate human service providers may very well work in the short term. But what happens when states pass new laws or suddenly a platform that worked great six months ago is obsolete? Even the best technologists can still only adapt to changes in the law so fast. Trust us, we like to hire the best technologists so we know better than anyone.
Meanwhile, there are always new solutions coming out from various legal tech companies. Some of it comes from real advancements, some of it is repackaging existing technology to varying degrees. Innovation is great, but “new” doesn’t automatically equate to “innovation.”
We can’t undervalue the human element because humans need to be the ones who decide what changes are actually necessary. Humans need to be the ones who balance healthy caution with innovation. Humans can become aware of legal changes as they happen and start adapting discovery strategies when technology hasn’t caught up yet.
Great legal tech solves problems. Great people prevent them.
New technology is usually designed to solve a problem that already exists. It is not designed to solve problems that might potentially exist one day in the future if not mitigated now. Humans on the other hand can imagine various scenarios where things could go wrong in order to ensure that they don’t go wrong. They can not only find ways to give attorneys what they need right now, but help attorneys make improvements so future matters run more smoothly.
It’s easy to imagine a world where AI can scan a pile of documents and find relevant information for a particular litigation or investigation. Heck, we don’t even have to imagine it, it’s here! However, it’s a lot harder to imagine a world where AI can scan a document, see a loophole that others might potentially exploit, and close that loophole years before anyone gets the chance to litigate it. It’s equally hard to imagine a world where AI tells you how much easier the next litigation will be if you make some tweaks to current information governance policies.
Technology can be a beautiful thing. When done right, it empowers attorneys to do their jobs better without having to rely on a massive team of support staff. In the future, attorneys will be more independent thanks to solutions that are being developed now. It’s not an if, it’s a when. The important thing is forming long-lasting relationships with the right kinds of experts who are there to advise and support when you need them, but don’t view your independence as a threat.
If you’ve been on more than a few legal technology websites, you’ve likely come across the term “Managed Services.” Everyone seems to offer them, and they usually come with enticing, yet vague claims about “simplifying discovery” and “end-to-end solutions.”
That’s all well and good, but how do you decide if your organization is the right candidate for a Managed Services approach towards eDiscovery? Will Managed Services actually help you run your business or law firm more efficiently, or will it result in paying for things you don’t need or already have? Those are the questions we’re here to answer.
What are eDiscovery Managed Services?
“Managed Services” is an industry term that refers to a comprehensive eDiscovery solution provided for a flat rate. The “services” in question can vary depending on the client’s needs, but the goal remains the same: make discovery more streamlined and predictable without compromising outcomes. Oftentimes, the services are some combination of data hosting, processing, project management, forensics, and eDiscovery. The exact services and price you pay depend on the deal you negotiate with your specific provider.
Who Needs Managed Services?
The typical Managed Services client usually comes from a field where complex investigations and litigation are fairly common, such as corporate law, financial law, and intellectual property. If you’re only involved with cases of this scale once in a blue moon, a pay-as-you-go model might make more sense. However, if such matters are business as usual for you, Managed Services is worth considering.
Another major factor to think about is your internal discovery capabilities. If you’re already able to handle the vast majority of your discovery internally, Managed Services might result in overspending. However, few organizations are able to achieve the same economy of scale that legal service providers do. It’s quite common for the optimal discovery program to be some mix of internal and external workflows. Sometimes, that means doing most of your discovery internally and calling in reinforcements if and when you need them. However, it could also mean a Managed Services plan where you pay for data hosting and access to advanced review software, but still rely on your internal team to manage projects.
Reasons Why Organizations Switch to Managed Services
Lower Legal Technology Costs
One all-too-common issue we run into with clients is that they hire a multitude of vendors yet end up with the same results that fewer vendors could have accomplished for less money. Almost any legal service provider will offer you better pricing the more services you buy from them. It’s like the difference between buying a meal combo from one restaurant vs. buying your burger, fries, and drink from three separate places.
In addition to lower prices from bundling services together, limiting how many vendors you work with usually lets you make more use of what you are paying for. Hours spent briefing newcomers about a matter are just as billable as the hours that a longstanding partner spends actually solving problems. Even if you have a few trusted vendors who know your team fairly well, it can still be inefficient if they’re working with you for a month, then not talking to you for six months, then coming back again. A Managed Services model means your team and your service provider stay in regular contact, and when workloads suddenly grow, you don’t have to spend a lot of time (and money!) helping vendors play catch up.
Oftentimes, a company’s legal spending is seen as a necessary evil, but it can also help you get an edge over your competition. In the case of a law firm, it’s easier to win new clients if you’re not passing exorbitant discovery costs on to this client. Oftentimes, firms with a Managed Services plan can price themselves lower than they would have otherwise without it affecting their bottom line.
For in-house legal teams, a Managed Services model can be the difference between winning a lawsuit, and paying out settlements just because “discovery is too expensive.” Managed Services can help you mitigate matters early for relatively low costs since you’re already paying for the help. On the other hand, a pay-as-you-go model might result in neglecting matters until they’re mission critical simply because you don’t have the internal capabilities to be proactive. If you only seek outside help when litigation is on the horizon, that vendor can exploit your lack of options and costs can spin out of control.
Consolidating vendors usually means minimizing risk. Every time you rope a new vendor into your network, you’re increasing the number of people who could inadvertently mishandle sensitive information. A good rule of thumb for any business or law firm is to keep information on a need-to-know basis. Organizations who are using a single provider for the bulk of their legal services are almost always going to have a shorter list of “need-to-know” people than an organization who’s sending data to new vendors every other month.
If you pay for Netflix, you’ve likely watched at least one movie that you wouldn’t have cared enough to see in theaters or rent on its own. Likewise, many Managed Services models bundle the services you know you need with services you never would’ve thought to buy separately, but are still nice to have.
For example, many clients reach out to legal technology companies because they need help hosting data. They may do this after an investigation is already underway, and it becomes clear that the volume of data is too large to handle internally. However, if they had already been paying for Managed Services the whole time, they could’ve also had help with automating legal holds and preserving that data before the investigation, all at no additional cost.
Ultimately, Managed Services isn’t for everyone. Whether or not it’s right for you can depend on a number of variables such as the size of your organization, frequency of litigation, internal capabilities, and need for scalability.
Still have questions? We’re happy to help!
Reach out today to find out if Managed Services is right for your organization.
(If it isn’t, we’ll design a custom solution that is.)
Part of why the Contact team is so good at what we do is because we’re passionate about what we do. eDiscovery has its challenges, but our team can’t help falling in love with solving them. We surveyed our team to see what they loved most about their jobs. Here’s what they said!
- “Working from Home!” — Julie, Senior Project Manager
- “Whether that’s troubleshooting an issue or putting the pieces together for a project, I love when it feels like we’re solving a puzzle.” — Zack, Director of Project Management
- “I love the tough problems that need solving.” — James, Associate Director of Digital Forensics
- “I love the challenge of new situations on a daily basis and the problem solving that comes with that. It is also nice to be in a niche industry.” — Josh, Director of Business Development
- “Helping attorneys manage cases that make a global impact.” — Krista, Senior Director of Business Development
- “Solving the unique challenges that come every day. I love working with structured data!” — Scott, Director of eDiscovery Operations
- “eDiscovery was foreign to me before I joined Contact. Just getting to know about the products/services offered is really interesting to me.” — Safira, Accounting & HR Manager
- “The freedom to accomplish the same task in a variety of different approaches!” — Justin, eDiscovery Data Engineer
- “There’s so many things that go into a legal case that I never thought about before I had this job. We hear about complex litigation all the time in the news, movies, and tv and it’s fascinating to see what goes on behind the curtain.” — Anne, Digital Brand Specialist
- “There’s lots of opportunity for innovation” — Sam, Senior Project Manager
- “The complex problems with data. It’s like a puzzle.” Mike, Associate Director of Project Management
- “The variety of information, and data processing challenges.” — Sean, Lead Software Architect
- “Being surrounded by knowledgeable people and having multiple ways to tackle scenarios and get the same results.” — Ty, eDiscovery Data Engineer
- “Being involved in a constantly evolving industry.” — Anthony, Lead eDiscovery Data Engineer
- “The chaos. Weirdly enough a regular job just seems boring.” — Scott, Chief Operating Officer
- “Feeling like you can make a difference and bring stability to an inherently challenging and stressful process.” — Dave, Chief Executive Officer
- “The constant change and high stakes.” —Rich, Chief Business Officer
- “Helping clients solve complex problems.” — Ashleigh, Director of Business Development
- “Helping solve the things that keep friends of mine in the legal community up at night.” — Shayna, Director of Business Development
On January 6, supporters of then-President Donald Trump breached the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. As authorities look into who is responsible and what kinds of repercussions perpetrators should face, they’ll have over 140,000 pieces of digital media to aid their efforts. Throughout the Capitol Breach investigations, officials will be reliant on something much of the world knows nothing about: eDiscovery.
eDiscovery is the art and science of sorting through digital data to find the relevant pieces needed to build a legal case. 5-10 years ago, much of this data came in the form of emails and their attachments. However, many of the arrests relating to the Capitol riots cite digital evidence uploaded to social media sites.
One Connecticut man was charged because of a YouTube video. Two Massachusetts citizens were arrested because of photos on Twitter. A New Mexico County Commissioner was connected to the riots in part because of videos he posted on a “Cowboys for Trump” Facebook page. A man from Texas was arrested in part due to his posts on Parler. One such post allegedly included a threat to return to Washington, D.C. on January 19 armed and ready for insurrection: “We will come in numbers that no standing army or police agency can match,” the post allegedly states.
That shift away from email-exclusive discovery strategies was already happening, but the Capitol riots may expedite it. Investigators are still sorting through digital data, and we likely haven’t seen the last of arrests related to this incident. Many cases will hinge on whether or not eDiscovery professionals can connect individuals to the scene and whether or not there’s digital evidence that reveals offenders’ true intentions. Either way, the Capitol breach investigations shed a light on what kind of technology is available and how law enforcement is using it. Depending on the outcomes of these cases, we may see social media-based data integrated into discovery on a much larger scale.
The Value of Geolocation
Ordinary people probably know that investigators can find incriminating things people have published on the internet. However, they might be surprised to learn just how easy it is to figure out which electronic devices were actually at the Capitol on the day of the attack. Geolocation, or more specifically “geofencing” involves drawing a virtual boundary around a specific location, and then using technology such as GPS or Bluetooth to find devices within that boundary.
“Right now, law enforcement can pull social media information from a geolocation at will or with relatively few roadblocks,” says James Whitehead, Contact Discovery’s Associate Director of Digital Forensics. “Law enforcement agencies can capture wireless communications and pull packets off wires. This technology/capability is expanding among law enforcement departments at a rapid pace.”
This is important because many people have said hyperbolic things on the internet, and that in and of itself isn’t a crime. One of the challenges facing investigators is separating those who simply wrote inflammatory messages from those who acted on their intent. With geolocation, investigators can prove that someone who published violent threats online was actually at the Capitol at the time of the attack.
An offender’s sentence could also vary quite a bit if prosecutors can use social media posts to prove there was prior intent to attack the Capitol. That’s a very different scenario from someone who showed up for what they thought was a peaceful protest, got caught in the moment, and then showed remorse after the fact.
Social media companies are also aiding law enforcement in matching locations to other parts of a user’s profile.
“At one point Facebook had 100+ metadata fields for its site,” Whitehead says. “This includes user names, likes, names of the likers, time of the likes and/or shares, and then most if not everything is geolocated. Often these metadata records include associations to the authoring/viewing device’s unique identifiers including IP address, which further aids in geolocating.”
In the case of Twitter, investigators can collect tweets in a geolocated fence and by hashtag.
“I could essentially drill down to the Capitol and then to hashtags of interest,” says Whitehead. “If I expanded my resources, I could cross-reference known individuals and pull all their tweets and anyone who shared or viewed them within a geofenced area.”
That combination of what people said online and their whereabouts at the time of the Capitol attacks gives investigators added insight. Suddenly they’re able to comprehend not only the “what” but the “who,” “where,” and “why” as well. Geolocation could also play an important role in providing alibis to those who published inflammatory statements, but were not physically present at the Capitol at the time of the attack.
Constructing Larger Narratives
Not only can law enforcement use social media data to pinpoint where suspects were the day of the attacks, they can also use it to show what kinds of things suspects were writing weeks before. This helps investigators tell a more complete story.
One suspect, Brendan Hunt, allegedly called for the murder of elected officials on an online video platform called BitChute. However, the charges against him also mention a Facebook post on or from approximately December 6, 2020, a whole month before the Capitol breach. According to the affidavit, this post called for “revenge on Democrats” and a “public execution” of Senator Chuck Schumer and Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“If you [Trump] don’t do it, the citizenry will,” says Hunt’s post.
Another case revolves around a Utah man named John Earle Sullivan. Sullivan handed over 50 minutes of video footage to authorities. He’s also uploaded large amounts of video content regarding the riots to YouTube under the name JaydenX. The criminal complaint against Sullivan claims his voice can be heard on the tape saying celebratory things like “We accomplished this s**t. We did this together.”
At the time of this writing, JaydenX’s YouTube channel not only features footage of the Capitol riots on January 6, but other MAGA, Proud Boys, and Black Lives Matter protests dating back to June 1, 2020. If you’re the defense, you might argue this YouTube account proves that Sullivan is just an independent video journalist, attending and recording any protest he thinks will be of interest regardless of the cause. If you’re the prosecution, you might use it to establish that Sullivan is a dangerous agent of chaos and has been for some time. Either way, it’s hard to imagine that legal teams will look at what’s likely hundreds of hours of political protest footage from the last six months and think that only the January 6 footage is relevant.
General Awareness of ESI in Law Enforcement
Perhaps most importantly of all, the riots have made the general public more aware of how digital data can be helpful to law enforcement. Sometimes, public ignorance can aid investigators. People incriminate themselves largely because they don’t know their messages can be found later. The events at the Capitol have created large scale awareness of the role that social media posts and other electronic messages can play in investigations.
That awareness is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it could drive bad actors to alternative platforms where they’re harder to find. On a more optimistic note, well-intentioned people are more likely to be on the lookout for digital evidence in their day-to-day lives. Heck, one Twitter user even mentioned using dating apps as a way of getting perpetrators to volunteer evidence against themselves:
Only time will tell how this case shakes up the world of eDiscovery. What won’t change is the critical role that legal technology plays in finding the truth.
Subscribe to the Contact Blog to receive more updates on all things eDiscovery.
Here at Contact Discovery, we talk a lot about the importance of preparing for the future. That oftentimes involves getting a better understanding of the past. The world of legal technology moves fast, so it’s easy to lose track of just how far we’ve come. However, past challenges can inform how we tackle present and future challenges. In some cases that involve older documents, we find ourselves working the past, present, and future all at once. It is in that spirit that we take this holiday season to reflect on our industry. Specifically, the Ghosts of Discovery Past, Present, and Future.
The Ghost of Discovery Past = Paper
Before eDiscovery, there was just Discovery, with a nifty little thing called “paper.” Companies kept paper records as far as the eye could see. Tens of thousands of documents scattered across various offices, filing cabinets, and even warehouses.
If there was litigation on the horizon, lawyers and their associates would have to manually go through these documents and hope they found information they could use to build a case. It required a lot of people, and it was much easier to miss metaphorical smoking guns if reviewers weren’t communicating effectively.
In the earliest days of eDiscovery, practitioners scanned these documents so reviewers could read them on computer screens. This meant that documents no longer took up as much physical space, and reviewers wouldn’t have to spend as much time on site or reviewing copies upon copies in law firm storage rooms. However, it still paled in comparison to platforms such as Relativity and others that are common in today’s Discovery landscape.
The Ghost of eDiscovery Present = Mobile Meets Global
While the past was largely about taking paper documents and converting them to electronic documents, today’s world is different. Now, most of our communication originates electronically. That came with new challenges. How do you find server space to store all those documents? How do you make sure the right people have access and the wrong people don’t? How do you take advantage of technology like email threading and data analytics without letting relevant documents go unnoticed?
For the most part, legal teams have figured out systems to combat those issues. However, there’s one innovation that’s still tripping up review teams: the mobile phone. While mobile phones have been with us for decades now, mobile chats supplanting email for professional communication is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Many professionals would’ve scoffed at the idea of texting a teammate about a work assignment even five years ago. Now, it’s quite common for co-workers to talk shop over text as well as exchange more personal messages they would never email. Many businesses also rely on collaboration platforms such Microsoft Teams, which has seen its userbase skyrocket in light of the pandemic.
This presents new challenges to legal teams. Not only are there technical challenges involved with more messages in a wider array of file formats, there’s also the change in user behavior. Personal and professional messages are more likely to comingle in a text chat than they are in an email thread. This raises privacy concerns and can increase the need for redactions.
Apps like WhatsApp has also made it easier to communicate across national borders. As more Americans start having more conversations with people abroad, there’s more regulations that lawyers have to tiptoe around to maintain defensibility. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, enacted in 2018, helps protect the privacy of people who have communicated with someone under a legal hold. Even if your business isn’t based in the EU, you need to be mindful of this if anyone stateside was communicating with someone in Europe.
When shopping around for legal technology partner in the present, look for teams that are GDPR compliant, even if you don’t necessarily do that much business abroad. Remember, as your business scales, your legal needs will as well, and it’s best to be prepared. Also avoid companies that are designing their discovery strategies exclusively around email communication. Some companies such as Contact offer software specifically designed for mobile data review. Even if your current technology doesn’t, at least ensure that your team isn’t neglecting these communications altogether.
Future = Artificial Intelligence and Decentralization
As technology becomes more and more advanced, sheer man power won’t be the prized commodity it once was. In the past, most businesses relied on big name law firms with recognizable brands. They knew that top attorneys flocked to these reputable firms in droves, so why go through the trouble of investigating other options? That was really the only to get an edge over opposing counsel anyway: good attorneys and lots of them.
More and more legal technology companies are starting to integrate artificial intelligence that can search and review documents faster than any human could. AI simulates an elite crew of top notch attorneys doing ALL your review, rather than a massive army of attorneys who bring varying levels of talent and experience to the equation. This technology is still in its infancy, but if used to its fullest potential, it will eliminate that need for sheer man power. Suddenly, one attorney will do review that might take 30 attorneys now.
As AI helps make review more user friendly, companies on both the service side and the technology side are helping corporate counsel internalize more of their discovery. In this new frontier, businesses don’t need their law firms to be a one-stop shop, but can instead seek out strategic relationships with more specialized partners.
“Smaller firms like Contact are winning victories in huge matters that never would’ve gone to a company our size 5-10 years ago,” says Rich Albright, CBO of Contact Discovery. “People are starting to figure out that a team of the right people with the right technology can adapt quicker than large companies can, and that leads to positive outcomes. They’re choosing quality over quantity and it’s paying off.”
As the legal technology market becomes more decentralized, you can expect to see smaller companies that specialize in different steps of the EDRM or different types of technology to gain market share. This model empowers businesses to only pay for what they can’t internalize and make sure they’re getting the absolute best version of it. The internet also makes it easier than ever for clients to seek these partners out for themselves rather than trusting a larger law firm to make all the tech decisions for them.
What challenges are you facing in the present? Where do you think the future of legal tech is going? Let us know in the comments!