Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/25416
the bottom line: costs skyrocket as e-discovery drags on, or if early stages are mishandled. An IT professional’s time is stretched thin and they may not be available to assist attorneys with tricky data transfers between Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) tools. CONNECTING EDRM TOOLS Most corporate legal and IT teams use a variety of software tools to complete the EDRM process. Whether they are housed behind corporate firewalls, hosted or provided as a service in the cloud, teams value an open integration approach to legal and e-discovery project management. They require software that connects all the different tools — from HR and asset management systems to collections and review tools. It is now a well-accepted best practice for law firms and corporations to ensure that any software they purchase will interface with existing technology and be flexible enough to “talk” to any future software. It is essential for practice support managers to have the skills and tools necessary to move through the EDRM efficiently. Part of this involves making the smart, up-front decision to: • Enable cost savings • Ensure user adoption • Deliver competitive advantages to law firm clients • Enable budget management and cost control for e-discovery projects that are managed in-house There may be a lot of buzz about market consolidation of technology in the e-discovery space, but legal teams won’t be swapping out the tools they already have for a one- size-fits-all platform anytime soon. In the past few years, the e-discovery software market has been quickly consolidating with a number of mergers and acquisitions. Last November, Greg Buckles, of the eDiscovery Journal, provided an excellent list of major acquisitions. Many industry experts expect this trend to continue and the number one takeaway from anticipated outcomes has been the importance of interoperability. Will newly consolidated vendors be able to provide end-to-end solutions for bringing e-discovery and risk mitigation in-house? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Brian Hill, of Forrester Research, writes that, “While integrated vendor advances can provide concrete benefits and help rationalize application infrastructure, no single vendor can address the full range of enterprise legal risk mitigation needs.” In fact, Cathleen Pedersen, Director of Document Review Services at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, recently mentioned that she has been seeing a trend where legal departments adopt several different endpoint applications to tackle risk mitigation, litigation preparedness and each stage of the EDRM as they bring efforts in-house. Using several solutions only intensifies the need for interoperability. Brett Burney, Principal of Burney Consultants, said in a recent Exterro, Inc. webcast, “You can’t look at any of the EDRM www.iltanet.org Litigation and Practice Support 45