For law firms, eDiscovery service providers can be lifesavers or overwhelming sales people. Regardless, we often rely on eDiscovery vendors for their technology expertise, their proprietary products as well as their project management. It is important to acknowledge and consider how vendors are evolving and developing the eDiscovery industry/market as well as how they are impacting your practice.
Vendors are driving the technology conversation. In recent years, the publicity surrounding predictive coding has given the market a skewed impression of practice in law firms as only small numbers ventured to explore TAR. Reasonably, new products with advanced analytics are heavily marketed in a space where potential profits are huge and current solutions struggle to keep up with “big data” and an expanding universe of devices. Few attorneys are technology experts so, it is natural that we rely on vendors for the support that they were designed to provide. However, it is critical that attorneys are technology-competent and can assess vendors to assure that the facts behind the “hype” provide an appropriate solution.
An interesting (or challenging) effect of vendor marketing is that our clients are also in the marketplace and may be customers themselves. I have encountered a number of vendors who have stronger relationships with a service provider than they do with the firm. In the same way that technology levels the playing field in broader society, technology and tech vendors create a certain level of transparency regarding managing eDiscovery between clients and firms. On a basic level, because vendors are selling into corporate America as well, our clients may have an understanding of cost and technology that competes with the case team or firm.
The old saying that, “knowledge is power” is true. However, this new client/counsel dynamic increases the importance that lawyers embrace their technical side for a number of reasons;
- In an era of cost-consciousness, vendor costs may call into question the traditional firm mark-up/billable hour.
- Secondly, clients may have an understanding of the technology itself and what is possible with newer strategies and that may conflict with the firm’s approach or recommendations for a specific matter.
- Thirdly, and most basically, in 2013, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct were updated to include ‘knowledge of relevant technology’ in the description of competence in Rule 1.1.
The democratization of technology through vendors puts a greater responsibility on the firm/attorney to understand technology and be prepared to persuasively explain why a certain product/analytic/workflow will or will not work for a certain matter. Vendors are connectors and lawyers now find themselves in “love” triangles and it is our responsibility to assure that the triangulated relationship is properly balanced. As attorneys, it remains our duty to assure that technology is meeting the client’s needs, managing liability and protecting against further risk. Although vendorization has the potential to create conflict, we are best served by using these relationships and the technology to encourage cooperation in our pursuit of common goals.
Comments