With a desire to increase the understanding of those considering engaging with eDiscovery vendors, provided is a simple subjective analysis of the operational center of gravity for approximately 130 providers.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the information governance arena, the following short list of enablers highlights companies and firms that may be useful in the consideration of information governance products and services.
Good vendors share what they know they see. Great vendors share what they may not see so you can make informed decisions as to risk and exposure.
Weekly Update Sabbatical from ComplexDiscovery Beginning in late 2006 I began regularly compiling news updates around the discipline of eDiscovery and sharing them with others. These updates originated as internal competitive updates for companies that I worked with and expanded over the years to include external updates of legal technology areas ranging from the cloud […]
Designed to provide a salient starting point for individuals seeking information related to the field of eDiscovery, this abridged overview of eDiscovery resources provides readers with a non-comprehensive listing of key industry informational resources.
Balancing the business drivers of cost, time, and complexity in the conduct of electronic discovery continues to be one of the greatest challenges faced by electronic discovery practitioners today.
Provided as a non-comprehensive overview of over 100 key and publicly announced eDiscovery related mergers, acquisitions and investments since 2001, the following listing highlights key industry activities through the lens of announcement date, acquired company, acquiring or investing company and acquisition amount (if known).
Beginning in early 2012 the topic of Technology-Assisted Review moved from expert-led explanations to mainstream mentions in legal community articles, opinions, surveys and reports. Provided for your research, review and consideration are a compilation of key headlines and links from online sources on the topic of Technology-Assisted Review from February, 2012, until now.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the legal management arena, the following “20+ Vendor” list provides a short listing that may be useful in the consideration of legal management vendors.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the electronic discovery arena, the following “100+ Provider” list provides a short listing that may be useful in the consideration of electronic discovery providers.
eDiscovery is rife with risk. Multiple parties, multiple jurisdictions, multiple ESI formats, multiple technologies and multiple vendors are all elements that can contribute to potential risk in an eDiscovery matter. With the prevalence of risk in eDiscovery, it is important that eDiscovery decision makers fully consider vendor viability during the vendor selection process.
The Basic eDiscovery Offering Framework is designed to help eDiscovery professionals cohesively consider how to share and compare service and product information as it relates to the conduct of eDiscovery regardless of the steps, model or best practices used by practitioners.
Comparing and contrasting eDiscovery providers is a daunting task when one considers the multiple stages of eDiscovery, the many providers of eDiscovery offerings, and the fact that most provider comparisons today are based on solely on stage (EDRM¹) or feature/function capabilities.
Even with the current maturation of electronic discovery solutions (i.e. technology is far from mature), there are still many situations where pure customer service makes the difference between an organization’s ability to meet or not meet client needs. With that being said, truly subjective client service requirements may be very difficult to specify. In fact beyond service level agreements, timeline requirements, project management processes, and work product specifications, many vendors are at a loss when seeking to address the implied but all too real needs of the client.