I
L
T
A
W
H
I
T
E
P
A
P
E
R
|
L
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
P
R
A
C
T
I
C
E
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
6
2 0 1 8 L I T I G A T I O N A N D P R A C T I C E S U P P O R T S U R V E Y R E S U L T S
2018 Survey Participant Demographics
Total Numbers Answered Skipped
Attorneys 116 65
Litigation Attorneys 116 65
Organizations 116 65
Size of Organization Response % Responses
1 - 50 8 9
51 - 200 22 26
201 - 1000 50 58
1000 or more 20 23
THANK YOU!
We understand the pressure our members are
under, and it marvels us that our respondents so
willingly offer their time to ILTA surveys. This is
our third annual Litigation and Practice Support
Technolo survey — an offshoot from our annual
Technolo Survey.
We give a special salute to our survey project team:
• Antonio Avant
• Chandra Foreman
• Cindy MacBean
• Eric Pulsipher
• Joan Washburn
• Michael Quartararo
• Richard Brooman
• Vicki Spillane
Thanks to all who contributed their time and
ener, both behind the scenes and among our
membership.
5
WWW.ILTANET.ORG | ILTA WHITE PAPER
LITIGATION AND PRACTICE SUPPORT
ILTA's 2017 Litigation and Practice Support Technology Survey Results
Keeping up with the latest tools and trends in the
litigation and practice support industry can be overwhelming.
This survey aims to provide you with insight on what your
peers and other organizations are doing to meet litigation
demands. From hot topics in training/education, industry-
recognized certifications, to in-house discovery services, this
survey includes valuable metrics to benefit you and your team.
These are just a few examples of the information
provided in this survey. Read on for much more.
» In the rapidly evolving world of litigation and practice
support, few things remain constant. The survey shows
that participating organizations are continuing to use the
hourly model as the primary pricing method. Productions,
processing and presentation/trial support remain the
most frequent services performed in-house. Whereas,
frequent services outsourced are computer forensics, data
collection, and scanning.
» Organizations are continuing to improve efficiencies
due to time and budget constraints which is reflected by
the increased reported use of advanced analytics. Email
threading, near duplicate identification, and concept
searching are the top contenders. We are also seeing
a slight uptick in users leveraging machine learning
technology for early case assessment and to expedite and/
or prioritize review.
ILTA
ILTA's 2017
Litigation and
Practice Support
Technology Survey
Results
THANK YOU!
We understand the pressure our
members are under, and it marvels
us that our respondents so willingly
offer their time to ILTA surveys. This
is our second annual Litigation and
Practice Support Technology survey
— an offshoot from our annual
Technology Survey.
We give a special salute to our
survey project team: Chris Haley of
Troutman Sanders; Cindy MacBean,
of Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald;
Matthew Clark, of Hogan Lovells;
and Michael Quartararo of Stroock
& Stroock & Lavan LLP.
Thanks to all who contributed
their time and energy, both
behind the scenes and among our
membership.
8
WWW.ILTANET.ORG | ILTA WHITE PAPER
LITIGATION AND PRACTICE SUPPORT
ILTA's 2016 Litigation and Practice Support Technology Survey Results
By what name is your litigation/practice support department,
group, team or employee known or identified?
What department does litigation/practice support group
report to at your organization?
Does your firm have a litigation/practice support department,
group, team or employee?
If you have more than one office, is your litigation/practice
support technology and staff centralized or decentralized?
Yes,
75%
No
7%
Considered
part of IT
17%
Other 2%
Decentralized
11%
Fully
centralized
39%
Mostly or
partially
centralized
19%
Not applicable
30%
2%
4%
15%
13%
27%
41%
1%
2%
15%
16%
27%
40%
0% 25% 50%
Electronic Discovery
Practice Group
Not Anwered
Other
Executive Director
(or other firm
admin officer)
Litigation Practice
Group
CIO/Information
Technology
2016
2015
7%
4%
6%
7%
11%
18%
51%
2%
2%
3%
4%
13%
24%
52%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Not Anwered
Legal Technology
Litigation Technology
Electronic Discovery
Practice Support
Other
Litigation Support
2016
2015
view last year's survey results »
view last year's survey results »