Digital White Papers

ILTA WHITE PAPER: JUNE 2014 WWW.ILTANET.ORG 31 the messages could be ingested into a high-end platform such as Symantec eDiscovery Platform (powered by Clearwell) or Nuix, where messages and documents that are clearly non-responsive could be culled out by email domains, date ranges, etc. Once this step was done, the culled data (anywhere from 15 to 45 percent of the original corpus) could be exported off the hosted system and then ingested into a firm's in-house system (Summation Pro, Relativity, etc.) for a more detailed review. In a similar hybrid approach, an entire review could be done in a hosted environment, up until the point where documents must be produced to the opposing party. The small subset of data that is to be produced could be exported off the hosted system and then delivered to the firm. That data set would be put into an in-house tool for the production set to be finalized for delivery (production numbers assigned, stamps or endorsements applied, etc.). This subset would also be used by the firm to prepare for hearings, depositions and trial. As another example, suppose that out of a large collection of email messages, all you need is a simple privilege search based on attorney and law firm names. But you need it done quickly. It would take too long to send the .PST files through a traditional processing tool and work with the load file. Instead, you could upload the files to a cloud-based platform such as Nextpoint or Logikcull. These services quickly and easily process .PST files and host them in an easy-to-use online database that can be accessed from any computer or tablet via the Internet. The privilege review could be completed in a few hours without any in-house tools being used. You could also think of a hybrid approach as reinforcement for litigation support when it's needed. If a firm uses internal platforms such as Lexis Concordance or Thomson Reuters Case Logistix, then most matters at the firm will start there with the initial set of collected documents. As the case grows (as cases usually do) and it becomes more of a burden on the firm to support internally, the matter could be moved to a hosted environment that offers the same platform. The Concordance matter could move to a hosted Concordance FYI environment, and the Case Logistix matter could move to Thomson's Managed Discovery Services. Lawyers and paralegals would already be familiar with the interface, and the matter could be scaled up as much as necessary without burdening the firm for more servers and storage space. DECIDING ON A HYBRID APPROACH When deciding whether a hybrid approach is appropriate for your firm, spend time understanding the firm's litigation support history. How many times in the past have litigation matters become too large or too complex to handle in-house? What were the major frustrations in those matters? Was the firm's software too slow? You should also consider how many hours IT professionals and paralegals devoted to the support of those matters. Part of the decision must come from the business side of the firm. If the firm is interested in taking on more complex litigation matters, there will need to be an investment in tools for high-end data analysis, predictive coding, visual timelines, etc. Embracing a hybrid approach allows a firm to stay competitive in the market without outlaying significant sums of cash. A hybrid approach to litigation support is not the answer for every firm, but it should not be dismissed just because it sounds complicated or extraneous. The landscape of litigation is changing, and so is the technology for it. Changing times call for changing perspectives, and a hybrid approach to litigation support could be the best change a firm can make. A HYBRID APPROACH TO LITIGATION SUPPORT

• Cover