Contract Attorneys, Technology

Working With, Not Against, Ediscovery

Maybe we could care about the client for a change...

By  
on

Ediscovery is a reality of modern litigation. We all send and receive too many emails and save a million copies of documents for that trend to change. And chances are that in a bid to stanch the flow of litigation costs a client will eventually request that ediscovery professionals (for staffing, predictive coding, or document review) be used. When presented with the opportunity to work with ediscovery vendors, some attorneys rise to the occasion. They are polite and courteous and willing to step outside when someone outside of their law firm has expertise with a particular issue.

This article is not for those attorneys.

This article is for the attorneys who bristle and get defensive at the mere mention of an ediscovery vendor. When a client decides it’s prudent to bring in contract attorneys to review documents (and the difference in hourly billable rates means it is almost always prudent to bring in contract attorneys) these folks will start scheming for ways to bring the review back to the firm, engaging in a one-for-one QC review and bringing even minor coding discrepancies (yes, I suppose a reasonable person might also agree that there should be 6 issue tags on that responsive document instead of the 5 the reviewer gave it) to the client’s attention in an obvious effort to discredit the outside reviewers.

Like any good Frenemy, there are a myriad of ways that these obstinate attorneys will try to undermine the vendors. Maybe they refuse to allow the vendors to actually utilize the expertise they are being paid to provide.

Vendor: So I see here you have “Hill” as one of the culling terms…

Outside Counsel: Yes, you see Bob Hill is a loan officer who handled the key transaction for about a week and a half in 2005.

V: I understand that, but as I am sure you are aware, one of client X’s main branches is located on Corporate Hill Drive.

OC:  . . .

V: That means a high percentage of Not Responsive documents are being pulled in by that term.

OC: . . .

V: Perhaps we can try some limiting terms around “Hill.” Maybe it should be near Robert or Rob or Bob or Bobby. Or maybe we can limit that term to documents from 2005.

OC: No.

Or perhaps it is the constant pithy remarks and incredulous reactions to standard questions. Those of us that work in discovery are used to being considered the very bottom of the legal field totem pole. But it still irks when you are being condescended to, so please do not slow down and talk to me like a third grader when it’s obvious from my title that I’ve graduated from law school. This does little to help the case we’re both working on, and only tries to spread the toxic environment too many law firms are synonymous with.

In short, they are too childish to work together to serve the needs of the mutual client.

Sponsored

So here’s the reality check — ediscovery specialists (in all their forms) are here to stay. The inefficiencies of the billable hour are highlighted when a firm is charging $300 an hour for someone 6 months out of law school to review 8,000 Out Of Office replies and savvy clients are simply refusing. Instead of taking it as some sort of personal affront, recognize the changing business model and focus on what skills and talents you bring to the table. Partnering with the ediscovery vendors ups the overall value for the client, so be willing to do so, and everyone wins.

Alex Rich is a T14 grad and Biglaw refugee who has worked as a contract attorney for the last 7 years… and counting. If you have a story about the underbelly of the legal world known as contract work, email Alex at alexrichesq@gmail.com and be sure to follow Alex on Twitter @AlexRichEsq

Sponsored

CRM Banner

Topics

, , , ,