LIGHTHOUSE Self Service Ediscovery Software Owner’s Manual
- June 10, 2024
- LIGHTHOUSE
Table of Contents
SELF-SERVICE EDISCOVERY SOFTWARE
A Buyer’s Guide
Common Self-Service eDiscovery Software Trade-offs
Great review platform but complicated production process
Fantastic reporting capabilities but unintuitive user interface
Easy to upload data but outdated analytics tools
Intuitive design but no technology or workflow experts available when
questions arise
These types of trade-offs often feel inherent to self-service eDiscovery
software. This is partly due to the nature of eDiscovery itself. It is a legal
process that requires multiple technologies and services to perform
drastically different and overlapping functions. This makes it nearly
impossible for a pure eDiscovery technology provider to design the best
proprietary technology for each and every eDiscovery function. For example,
most technology providers don’t have the breadth of resources necessary to
develop the best analytics tools, the best production tools, the best review
platforms, and the best processing tools. Instead, they may have one or two
tools that perform exceptionally well, whereas other tools may be severely
lacking compared to industry-leading options.
Thus, trade-offs like these have become so common in the industry that
oftentimes, those responsible for purchasing new software feel as if there is
no other choice but to accept them. To make matters worse, the purchasing
process itself can also be grueling and overwhelming due to the multitude of
functions that need to be evaluated. For all these reasons, purchasers often
turn to cost as the primary decision-making factor when evaluating self-
service eDiscovery software. After all, cost is seemingly simple to compare
among potential technology providers, and presenting the cheapest option is an
easy to way justify a potential purchase to stakeholders.
Unfortunately, using cost as the primary decision-making factor when
purchasing eDiscovery software can leave end users (i.e., attorneys and legal
professionals) holding the short end of the stick – struggling to find
workarounds to close the gaps of the shortcomings of a platform. Make no
mistake, if an organization or law firm purchases eDiscovery software that has
significant functional gaps in a particular area, attorneys and legal
professionals will find a way to do their work despite those gaps – out of
necessity to serve their organization or clients. But creating workarounds or
manually performing work that could be easily automated comes at the expense
of attorneys’ and legal professionals’ own time (and sanity). That expense is
then passed down to a firm’s clients or to the organization itself. In this
way, purchasing the cheapest ediscovery software can drive up cost and become
much more expensive overall.
Rest assured though – there is a better way.
With a little research, some preparation, and the right strategy,
eDiscovery software purchasers can identify, evaluate, and purchase technology
that squarely fits the needs of their organization or law firm.
The remainder of this self-service eDiscovery buying guide will provide
purchase strategy and research tips that will help minimize the harmful trade-
offs in eDiscovery software that lead to inefficiency and rising expenses.
This guide also includes a capability matrix that will help purchasers compare
different eDiscovery software features.
Self-Service eDiscovery Purchasing Strategy Tips
Preparation is key
before you evaluate any ediscovery software, it is imperative to understand
what your firm or organi ation needs in terms of capabilities, features, and
services. nd that requires a little preparation. ven if your firm or organi
ation has
used the same ediscovery technology for years and you feel confident that you
know what’s needed, it is important to talk to all stakeholders about which
capabilities, functionality, and features are most important to them.
This preparation can be as simple as sitting down with the legal professionals
and lawyers who use the current software and asking them to describe what they
like and dislike about it. These conversations can be surprising and
enlightening, as the stakeholders may not have raised complaints about the
current technology in the past for a variety of reasons – for example, they
may have felt that complaining would be futile because the software was
already purchased and implemented. However, lawyers and legal professionals
may be more vocal about feedback regarding gaps and inefficiencies with their
current technology when presented with a clear opportunity to alleviate those
pain points with better-suited technology.
Also be prepared that some users within the same firm or organization may have
different (or even opposing) positions depending on how they use the software.
One group may want a review platform that is scaled down without a lot of
bells and whistles, while another group may want advanced filtering,
analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. Don’t be dismayed by
this juxtaposition – it is common, especially among groups that handle vastly
different matter types, and it can actually be a valuable consideration during
the evaluation process. For example, you may be able to satisfy both sets of
needs by looking for ediscovery software that can flex and scale from the
smallest matter to the largest, as well one that provides the ability to
create different templates for common use cases. Be sure to involve IT and
data security teams in these conversations, as well. eDiscovery software often
directly implicates those teams, so it is equally important, if not more so,
to understand what their requirements and pain points are during the
purchasing process.
Once you’ve gathered the feedback, use it to create a prioritized list of the
most important capabilities, functionalities, and attributes for all the
stakeholders within your firm or organization. This list will make it easier
to evaluate a potential technology.
Evaluate ediscovery providers as well as software
While it may seem easier to solely focus on evaluating and comparing software
capabilities, it is equally important to understand the differences between
the types of eDiscovery providers out there, as that can impact the type of
software they develop and/or provide.
Most pure software technology providers will offer their own proprietary
eDiscovery technology, as well as the initial training to use it. hale this
can be a benefit in terms of simplicity, it may also amplify the trade-offs
discussed above if the provider won’t pull in competing technology that
performs better than their proprietary technology. Also be aware that pure
software technology providers may not provide technology or service support
beyond the initial trainings – meaning if there is a problem with a
production, or an attorney has a question about processing and hosting, there
will be little in the way of outside resources to help solve those problems.
On the other hand, eDiscovery service providers offer eDiscovery technology
(either their own or a blend of commercial and proprietary technology), as
well as a variety of other expert eDiscovery services (for example,
information governance and cloud services, forensic and collection services,
and review services). The additional services will vary by provider – some
offer a full suite of services, some offer only a few. Either way, these
additional services may seem overwhelming or unnecessary to an organization or
law firm that is simply looking to purchase self-service software.
Before jettisoning this category of providers, however, keep in mind that
having those experts on staff can be a sign that the provider is attuned to
ensuring that their self-service software offers a holistic eDiscovery
solution. For example, providers that offer expert advice on cloud
collaboration tools and collection services for those tools will
likely understand the challenges that may arise when loading and processing
data from those sources, so they will be prepared with solutions for those
challenges. Service providers also generally offer more flexibility with
assistance and support when needed because they have the staff on hand to do
so, and they may also provide seamless full-service support and burst
resources if necessary. Service providers don’t require you to use these
services, but they can be a lifesaver if and when you need them.
Back to the basics
No matter what capabilities and features are most important to stakeholders or
what type of eDiscovery provider you prefer to work with, there are certain
elements of the evaluation process that will be critical and non-negotiable.
Two of those basic elements are reliable data security and predictable
pricing.
Reliable Data Security: Keeping your data secure should be any eDiscovery
provider’s number-one concern. Thus, any provider should be able to
demonstrate a robust data security plan as well as boast industry security
certifications, including ISO, SOC, and HIPAA. You can research a provider’s
security infrastructure, any past data breaches, and how data is stored and
protected simply by asking sales representatives for this basic information
and following up on any concerns. Nothing is more important than keeping your
(or your client’s) data safe, and any eDiscovery provider that you select
should be able to demonstrate that priority to you in concrete terms.
Predictable Pricing: One of the biggest perks of self-service eDiscovery is
more predictable pricing and cost control.
Self-service eDiscovery providers should offer cost proposals and pricing
structures that fit the unique needs of your organization or law firm. From
pay-as-you-go models to a subscription-based approach, self-service eDiscovery
pricing should be transparent and predictable, allowing law firms to pass that
predictability on to clients and organizations to better budget for their
legal spend.
eDiscovery Software Evaluation Capability Matrix
Once you have a firm grasp on the features and capabilities that are most
important to your stakeholders and understand the differences between provider
types, it’s time to compare software and providers.
Below we have created a sample capability matrix. By selecting the
capabilities and features from the matrix that are most important to
stakeholders and then plotting which potential eDiscovery software best meets
those requirements, you will be able to select eDiscovery software that fits
the needs of your organization or law firm, while minimizing the common trade-
offs that cause inefficiency and waste.
Capability Category | Stakeholder Need/Pain Point | Explanation |
---|---|---|
Software Availability and Access | Fully accessible by web browser, 24-7, from | |
any location | Unfortunately, eDiscovery matters are often “round the clock” |
jobs. This capability will likely be a priority for most stakeholders.
Matter Setup| Users can quickly ingest/process data, create a new matter, and
begin reviewing within minutes or hours| This capability will be important to
stakeholders who are frequently tasked with opening eDiscovery matters and are
frustrated with an inefficient process (or with waiting for vendors to upload
data and set up databases).
Data Processing| Robust ingestion reporting capabilities| This will be
particularly important to law firms and organizations that are looking for
more insight into their data. Robust processing reporting capabilities allow
users to see exceptions to processing, as well as easily access those
documents for further inspection. Reporting can also tell stakeholders how
much data was processed, where it came from, which custodians’ data was
processed, etc. – all of which can help identify trends across matters or
within a single matter.
Data Processing| Fast processing speeds| Processing speed will be important to
most organizations and law firms, but especially important to those who expect
to process multiple matters or large volumes of data.
Data Processing| Robust processing capabilities| Like processing speed, robust
processing capabilities will likely be important to most stakeholders, given
the variety of data that most organizations and law firms collect today for
typical eDiscovery matters. However, this will be especially important to
firms or organizations that routinely handle data emanating from a variety of
data sources, such as cloud-based tools or chat messaging systems.
Capability Category| Stakeholder Need/Pain Point| Explanation
---|---|---
Data Hosting| Users can easily move data back-and- forth between processing
workspaces to review database without losing work product| This is a common
pain point for many stakeholders – many self-service eDiscovery platforms
don’t offer the ability to move data out of the review platform and back into
a processing workspace without losing work product. This means that if there’s
a pause in the matter, the organization must still pay to keep the data hosted
in the review database – even when there’s no active review.
Data Hosting| Tools to help lower hosted data costs| This will be important to
organizations or firms that host large volumes of data or multiple matters.
One way to reduce hosting cost is to limit the amount of native files hosted
in the review database to only those files that are necessary to see in native
form (i.e., PowerPoint decks, Excel spreadsheets, or Word documents).
Accordingly, some eDiscovery providers offer tools to seamlessly manage and
move native files out of the review database.
Review Database| Intuitive, user-friendly, and familiar review database
interface| This will be important to most end users. A review database must be
intuitive enough for legal staff and counsel to easily learn and use. Some
eDiscovery technology providers have created their own proprietary review
platforms to mitigate what they see as “flaws” in market-leading review
technology. This can be a double-edged sword, as the more familiar review
tools on the market today are generally leading the market for a reason – they
are easier to work with and are familiar to most attorneys and legal
professionals. Other eDiscovery providers host their own versions of market-
leading review platforms to provide the best of both worlds: they can close
feature gaps and enhance their client experience while still providing
attorneys with a well-known, intuitive platform to work within.
Capability Category| Stakeholder Need/Pain Point| Explanation
---|---|---
Review Database| Administrators can easily create permission levels for
different types of users within the review database| This will be important to
organizations/firms with a variety of different types of users. It gives
administrators the ability to restrict certain functions and actions by user
profile, for example, so a contract attorney cannot create batches or remove
documents from the database.
Review Database| In-house administrators have full rights to create batches,
reassign batches, etc.| Some providers retain control of the ediscovery reins
as far as creating and assigning batches. If independently leveraging the
software is important to stakeholders, this capability will be critical.
Review Database| Users can create customized review and administrator layouts
for typical cases handled by the firm or organization| This will be especially
important to organizations or law firms that use ediscovery software to handle
a variety of matters and want to increase efficiency when setting up a matter.
Any time saved by eliminating the need to manually recreate a coding palette
and reviewer settings with each new matter is money in the organization’s
pocket, or that can be passed on to the underlying client in the case of a law
firm.
Review Database| Client feedback is used to close gaps on review database
technology| This will be important to users of both proprietary and commercial
review database technology. No review database will be without limitation, but
a forward-thinking eDiscovery provider is able to take client feedback on
industry tools and create custom solutions that close gaps and relieve client
pain points. These providers will have staff on hand whose jobs rest on
evaluating technology for gaps and creating processes to close those gaps for
a better end-user experience. They will also have a process in place to
receive client feedback, including the ability to articulate clear examples of
creating solutions for clients.
Capability Category| Stakeholder Need/Pain Point| Explanation
---|---|---
Data Reduction and Analytics Tools| Tools and services to drive data
reduction| This will be particularly important to any law firm or organization
that deals with large eDiscovery volumes or wants to create more efficiency
across multiple smaller matters. Dealing with large volumes of data can be
costly, complicated, and time consuming if your eDiscovery software does not
provide analytics, machine learning, and AI-backed tools. Some providers may
also offer expert advice on data reduction strategies, such as early case
assessment, TAR workflows, and search term analysis, which can drastically
reduce eDiscovery costs by avoiding manual review.
Data Reduction and Analytics Tools| AI and analytics tools and services to
increase review efficiency| Like above, this will also be important to any law
firm or organization that deals with large eDiscovery volumes or wants to
create more efficiency across multiple matters. AI and analytics tools can
drastically reduce the need for human review and drive down costs.
When evaluating provider offerings, be aware that some tools can only analyze the text of a document while others are enhanced by AI and natural language processing (NLP) technology so that they can
understand context and sentiment. This means the analysis provided by these tools is much more in-depth and accurate than text-only based tools, which adds to their efficiency capabilities. If you’re unsure of the
benefits of a tool, ask for more information about it.
Reporting| Robust reporting capabilities that are easily accessible and
exportable, as well as intuitive| This will be important to most law firms and
organizations. Having access to custom and easily exportable reporting related
to ingestion, processing errors, analytics tool results, and production
statistics is a simple way to control costs and identify trends and patterns
across multiple matters.
Capability Category| Stakeholder Need/Pain Point| Explanation
---|---|---
Reporting| Reporting is tied to the review database, so that it is easy to
access the documents in question| Like the capability above, this feature will
also benefit almost every law firm or organization. Some technology providers
have created simple reporting structures with links to the documents within
the review database. This means that when a processing report identifies 15
documents that were processed with exceptions, users can click on the link
within the report and will immediately access a workspace
within the review database to view those 15 documents. When applied across multiple matters by multiple users, this added efficiency leads to increased cost savings.
Training and Technical Assistance| Free eDiscovery software training| This
will be a must-have for any law firm or organization that is onboarding new
eDiscovery software.
Training and Technical Assistance| Robust 24-7 access to technical assistance|
This will be a must-have for most law firms and organizations. It’s important
to understand before purchasing any ediscovery software what type of technical
assistance is available and when it is available to attorneys and staff. This
information will not only factor into purchasing decisions, but will also help
in resource planning after a purchase.
Scalability| Technology can handle your firm or organization’s data volume at
all stages of ediscovery, including processing, review, and production| This
will be important to firms or organizations that even occasionally handle
large data volumes. Do some research on the highest volumes of data hosted by
your firm or organization within the last five years, then compare potential
eDiscovery providers’ data capabilities. This way, you can ensure that any
potential provider can handle your largest matters.
Capability Category| Stakeholder Need/Pain Point| Explanation
---|---|---
Scalability| Software can scale down to provide a simple, intuitive interface
to handle
small matters, without in-depth training
| This will be important to firms or organizations where attorneys or legal
staff routinely handle smaller matters and want a similarly scaled-down
platform to work in. Some providers offer the ability to create review
templates for small matters that streamline the view, and also help create
efficiency across multiple small matters.
Scalability| Ability to scale/flex and seamlessly transition between self-
service and full-service, with options for a la cart client support| This will
be particularly important to organizations or law firms that use outside
managed services to handle larger or more complicated litigation or
investigations. Many ediscovery service providers offer the ability to pull in
experienced client support teams to help with any aspect of the ediscovery
process, from collections and ECA, to TAR and review, or all of the above.
While some providers offer these capabilities as completely discrete services,
others provide the ability to flex between self-service and full-service
without the time, expense, or potential work-product loss of transferring data
to another review database.
Technology roadmap| Roadmap is designed to address future market trends| This
will be particularly important to any law firm or organization that plans to
keep pace with the evolution of technology in-house (for example, by adopting
new cloud-based collaboration tools as they become available, adopting BYO
device policies for employees, etc.). If a provider is not forward thinking,
your organization or firm may find itself being forced to use outdated
technology that’s not able to handle new challenges with security or process
and review emerging data sources.
Conclusion
The process of evaluating and buying self-service eDiscovery software may be
time consuming and grueling. But don’t let that process intimidate you into
simply opting for the cheapest available software. Basing your buying decision
on upfront cost alone can lead to purchasing self-service eDiscovery software
that is a bad fit for your organization or law firm, with gaps in technology
that create inefficiency and lead to frustrated attorneys and legal
professionals. In turn, this inefficiency and frustration results in higher
costs overall for organizations and clients.
By utilizing this buying guide, you will be better prepared to easily identify
the self-service eDiscovery solution that is the best fit for your
organization or firm – one that minimizes harmful technology trade-offs and
creates long-term efficiency and lower overall eDiscovery costs.
bout Lighthouse
For 25 years, Lighthouse has provided innovative software and services to
manage the increasingly complex landscape of enterprise data for compliance
and legal teams. Lighthouse leads by developing proprietary technology that
integrates with industry-leading third-party software, automating workflows,
and creating an easy-to-use, end-to-end platform. Lighthouse also delivers
unique proprietary applications and advisory services that are highly valuable
for large, complex matters, and a new SaaS platform designed for in-house
teams. Whether reacting to incidents like litigation or governmental
investigations, or designing programs to proactively minimize the potential
for future incidents, Lighthouse partners with multinational industry leaders,
top global law firms, and the world’s leading software provider as a channel
partner.
Contact us to find out what Lighthouse can do for your business. (206)
223–9690
lighthouseglobal.com
info@lighthouseglobal.com
© Lighthouse. All rights reserved. Lighthouse is a registered trademark of
Lighthouse Document Technologies.
SELF-SERVICE EDISCOVERY SOFTWARE: A BUYER’S GUIDE
Documents / Resources
|
LIGHTHOUSE Self Service Ediscovery
Software
[pdf] Owner's Manual
Self Service Ediscovery Software, Ediscovery Software, Software
---|---