Outsourced e-discovery services are considered a part of the practising law these days.
However, the question is always open for debate whether e-discovery services should be handled in-house or should it be outsourced.
There has not been a yielding answer provided to this question, as it exclusively depends upon the law firms’ needs and resources available in hand.
Organizations today, no matter large or small, have more data to store and manage than ever before.
What’s more challenging is the fact that the data is saved in multiple forms and multiple places (like traditional file cabinets to email servers, Web, smartphones and/or other locations).
At the time of litigation, it becomes a daunting task of preserving, collecting and reviewing this data which is actually expensive.
Therefore, this is where outsourcing companies come into the picture.
They deliver an end-to-end electronic discovery strategy, from compliance to technology implementation.
Legal professionals employed with these outsourced agencies are abreast of ever-changing case laws and technology and provide efficient and economical solutions-advising to data management issues before litigation and after that can help in E-discovery cost control after litigation.
When discussing in-housing and outsourcing options, one believes that there is a loss to consider.
High on the list is the perspective of the organization like nature, size, jurisdiction, risk tolerance, nature and volume of data relating to litigation or investigations, availability and talent of manpower, and the capacity of the firm is adapting to evolving technology, knowledge and expertise.
Looking at the motivational factors, let us consider whether e-discovery should be in-sourced or outsourced:
1. Costs:
Any firms or organizations that are considering the option of in-sourcing or outsourcing e-discovery, the answer would most probably be dependant on the assessment of how much money will be saved or made by either in-sourcing or outsourcing the same, and most probably, at what cost?
2. Burden:
E-discovery, being a process and not a technology, the only way to reduce the burden of e-discovery is to have a clear, pre-defined process with policies and procedures in a set state. The only positive outcome of acquiring any technology would be the ability to train the resources who in turn will be able to document and improve the process and effectively reduce the burden.
3. Risks:
Delays or loss of control over confidential information might be the two of the numerous risks associated with outsourcing e-discovery tasks. And these, in turn, cause the firm to have the process in-sourced. But technological advancement has helped in mitigating these risks too.
4. Capacity:
The problem with most of the firms is that they do not have the inherent capacity to handle e-discovery tasks internally. Most of the firms would still be in the transitional phase of moving from the world of paper to the electronic world. Hence, in order to insource the e-discovery process, firms should have the capacity to adjust to the requirements from a human and technological perspective.
5. Technology:
Advancement in technology is one area which sees a lot of trial and error mode of a work process. Same goes for e-discovery technology, each targeting a different part of the process. This creates loads of challenges for organizations who end up requiring many technologies and thus find themselves, in the immediate future with outdated and unsupported solutions.
Therefore, approaching outsourcing in the correct manner, especially e-discovery process will provide not just cost-saving efficiency but also safeguard risk mitigation thus making available new and advanced technology for clients.