Many firms stay with eDiscovery products or adopt the same software as the opposing party, solely because they believe other products ‘don’t talk to each other’. This couldn’t be further from the truth as all the leading electronic discovery products now talk to each other with data being able to be migrated from one system to the other.
Some firms are being left behind by their choice of eDiscovery software, or their reliance on legacy products that no longer suit their requirements. Often the firm may have made a considerable investment in their eDiscovery product, so there is reluctance to move away from the software. For many the eDiscovery practices are being driven by the capabilities of their software, instead of finding the right tools to suit their requirements.
Opportunity to re-evaluate options
It is becoming important to have the flexibility to evaluate the options available that may be suited to meet the requirements. The annual software licenses of many in-house products provide the opportunity for organisations to re-evaluate their options on an annual basis.
Many organisations are now looking at the options to move away from their legacy in-house eDiscovery tools. The ones that are not are at least going to market and evaluating the options that are available – options that continue to evolve. There are now more options available that can significantly assist lawyers in approaching discovery more efficiently and cost effectively.
The disbursement charging model is particularly appealing to most firms, as there are internal costs for the firm – most costs will be disbursed to a client on a matter by matter basis. In addition there is no ongoing strain on internal resources to manage and support the software.
High Court discovery rules are software neutral
The New Zealand High Court discovery rules are software neutral with any software product able to comply and exchange their documents with other parties in a usable format.
In saying that using the right eDiscovery software will be a significant competitive advantage for most firms. The choice of software (which can be complicated) can level the playing field for firms that do not have the software or resources in-house. With any software it is always beneficial to seek independent advice about the benefits and limitations of the solution.
To alleviate any concerns with changing eDiscovery products, providers have developed services to simplify this process, especially when migrating legacy data and cases.
e.law specialising in converting between different review platforms
Australian digital evidence firm e.law is one firm that provides its customers with the ability to convert data from legacy systems. The conversion service doesn’t just migrate the basic data that may be exchanged with other parties upon discovery, but also all the other important case data like notes, transcripts, redactions, highlights and chronologies.
e.law have built a conversion tool that migrates data from legacy products. The products that e.law commonly convert data between are Relativity, Ringtail and Summation, Delium and Concordance. More information about the e.law service can be found here
EDT migrates data for Summation clients
Earlier this year EDT launched a migration service for Summation clients in New Zealand. This followed the successful uptake of a similar offering in the US where EDT offered migration and analysis services to facilitate the transition from legacy litigation support products such as Summation or Concordance.
No one size fits all approach
There is no one size fits all approach when it comes to eDiscovery, however firms can be rest assured that the leading eDiscovery software products now talk to each other – with providers around that can simplify this process, allowing for a more seamless integration.
