Extract from interview with Pete Feinberg publish by eDiscovery Daily Blog
We have to think about the eDiscovery technology market in subsectors or subcomponents. Consider that eDiscovery is a very different game for a 175 custodian, six-year collection out of systems that originate in Japan or Belgium than it is for a mid-sized law firm that generally focuses on employment law with one or two local custodians over a six month period. These are very different things.
Those who aren’t serial litigants, and are focusing on more small-scale matters don’t always necessarily want to put those matters into Relativity. They don’t want to have to go through an elongated processing step. They just have a PST from somebody in the organization and they just want to look at those documents and apply a couple of tags. So, on the one hand, you’re seeing automation from folks like Everlaw or CloudNine that allow for the “automation” of just dragging a PST folder into a web app and the files unpack automatically and the metadata is created, with simple point-click-go tagging. That need exists and I think there’s a model now (and I’ve heard it a couple of times this week alone) where attorneys have said “I like self-service”. Up to a point. In cases where that’s a preferred flow leveraging automation, the attorney may have a need to graduate to Relativity or some other more mature platform with project managers who will provide value and guidance and best practices – but there is a cost to that.
I believe that there is a long-term trend in the market toward self-service. That means that providers must and will continue to refine their user experiences and software in a way they were not three to five years ago. I think it’s a responsibility of technology creators and innovators to meet the market where it is and to bring it forward and I think automation is a big, big part of that.