Digital White Papers

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 45 these contract attorneys or use internal resources for these functions will be interesting to see with the anticipated legal slowdown. In terms of review application popularity, CaseMap and Relativity are the clear leaders for on-prem solutions followed by Ipro Eclipse and then Concordance and Summation holding similar market shares. On the other hand, we found that Relativity out shadows the competition as a hosted application, tripling second place, Everlaw. Looking Forward: Models and Recovery Rates Overall, the value proposition firms are communicating to clients in justifying e-Discovery cost recovery is the savings potential – this will only increase in this post-pandemic world. Many clients don't fully understand the power that review applications deliver and firms are reporting success with leveraging the justification that this technology allows attorneys to target and flag relevant documents while protecting privileged information significantly faster than the traditional paper-based review. In short, e-Discovery applications deliver an offsetting effect between processing and hosting spend and attorney review hours with the bonus of improved accuracy. That's positive news for clients, however, firms have no viable option outside of deploying applications to cull, search and organize ESI given the sheer volume of data involved. We're finding a growing trend amongst clients limiting the number of attorney document review hours, thereby forcing billable hour write- offs and necessitating a streamlined approach to review. Those who choose to absorb these costs are cutting into their income and big data's march forward will quickly lead to this becoming an unsustainable model. How much of an impact does it make? One firm we recently worked with was only charging for the billable hours of its litigation support staff. The net realization of these receivables no longer covered the cost of labor, software, and the infrastructure required to deliver service—a problem which was compounded by the exploding data storage requirements and client push-back on billable hours related to mundane tasks such as 'staging data' and 'processing.' Mattern recommended a new model where the billable hour would cover the fully burdened cost of labor with the introduction of a new unit-based model for data storage to cover the infrastructure and software costs. To ensure simplicity in client billings, all software and infrastructure were bundled into an associated per GB per month recovery plan for data storage under active review within the firm's repository database. The model was limited to one unit of recovery (data storage) and avoided the inclusion of processing, analytics, and software user fees to simplify the conversation. In addition, speaking points were developed for the attorneys on why the client benefited from this type of model – a market-leading solution at a below-market rate. After one year, the model Mattern assisted the firm with increased their recovery of costs by 35%. That's a big impact, and it's only the start. The three big opportunities we see for firms in this area in the immediate future are: • The ability to drive deeper discounts and improved pricing and terms with their service providers and to pass through these discounts to their clients either through a hard cost pass through model or a decrease in their soft cost pricing. Recently, while working with one of our clients, we were

• Cover