In the first blog post of this series, we focused on auditing your current eDiscovery environment as the essential first step in transforming litigation support into a profit center. Now it’s time to get going.
Once you understand your firm’s current state and capabilities, the next step is to build a model that can adapt to fit your needs as they evolve. In my experience, this is a hybrid approach.
Avoid the eDiscovery Infrastructure Trap
Many firms struggle to find the sweet spot. They build for the largest case they think they want to handle, but then feel like they are using a sledgehammer to drive a nail on the vast majority of the matters they have in-house. They invest heavily in licenses and infrastructure that sit idle for smaller matters, or they find themselves overwhelmed when a complex case drops and the internal team simply can’t keep up.
A hybrid model solves this.
With a core in-house team that knows your firm, your attorneys, and your workflows (and a trusted external partner who can scale on demand), you get the best of both worlds. More importantly, you protect margins and manage risk while maintaining consistent delivery.
In practice, this often means handling smaller, predictable matters internally – like early case assessment (ECA), standard turnarounds, limited-scope reviews, and straightforward productions – where your team can move quickly and recover costs efficiently. More complex matters involving large data volumes, compressed timelines, advanced analytics, or managed review are intentionally routed to a partner with a deeper bench and purpose-built infrastructure. This isn’t a failure of the internal team. It’s simply a smarter strategy.
Your Vendor as an Extension of Your Team
Your vendor isn’t just a data dump. The right partner becomes a true extension of your litigation team. They don’t just manage tasks; they bring infrastructure, expertise, and repeatable processes that allow your internal group to stay focused on strategy, client communication, and high-value decision-making.
With the right partner in place, you can confidently offload heavy lifts like data processing, eDiscovery hosting, managed document review, analytics, and complex productions. Just as importantly, your partner acts as a pressure-release valve during workload spikes, protecting your internal team from burnout while ensuring deadlines and quality standards are met.
These partners can also deploy sophisticated technologies with confidence, including active learning and Technology Assisted Review (TAR), without requiring deep technical staffing on your
end. They bring operational depth that allows your department to punch well above its weight, especially in high-stakes matters.
Expanding Your Team Without Expanding Headcount
This approach isn’t about finding a vendor who can “do the work.” That’s table stakes. What matters is consistency and ownership.
When you identify the right partner, their project managers (PMs) get to know your firm, your attorneys, your workflows, and your preferences. That familiarity reduces ramp-up time on each matter and eliminates assumptions. It also creates accountability because when the same project management team owns your matters over time, issues are resolved faster, trust compounds, and execution becomes predictable.
You want a vendor who:
- Provides a single, knowledgeable project manager for continuity
- Offers flexible and transparent pricing models that don’t box you in to minimums or price bursts.
- Understands your preferred workflows and escalation paths
- Brings a toolbox of platforms and helps choose the right one for each matter
Red flags? Requests disappearing into generic support inboxes, frequent PM turnover, or pressure to force every case into a one-size-fits-all platform regardless of budget or complexity.
Platform Strategy: Don’t Get Locked In
Here’s a common trap: assuming the biggest, most expensive review platform is always the right answer. It isn’t.
When I led litigation support at a large law firm, our strategy was simple: maintain access to multiple trusted platforms. That allowed us to place each matter in the environment best suited for its data volume, timeline, budget, and client expectations.
Not every client needs every bell and whistle. Platform choice is both a strategic and a margin decision. When every matter is forced into the same high-cost environment, firms lose the ability to right-size costs – and clients notice.
Vendor flexibility in technology, pricing, and workflows restores control. It allows you to deliver quality work within tight parameters while preserving profitability and avoiding vendor lock-in.
Scalable by Design
A true hybrid model is scalable by design. It allows your firm to flex up or down without overcommitting to fixed infrastructure or headcount. You never have to turn away work due to capacity constraints, and you only pay for what you actually use.
At the same time, internal leadership retains control over case strategy and client communications while the partner executes behind the scenes. This intentional division of labor also supports cleaner, more defensible cost recovery conversations, since work is scoped appropriately from the start.
The result is a lean, nimble, and profitable litigation support function capable of handling complex matters without blowing the budget.
Final Thoughts
A well-designed hybrid model separates reactive firms from those that treat litigation support as a true profit center. It preserves control, protects people, manages risk, and enables growth without inflating fixed costs.
If you’re evaluating whether your current model is truly setting your team — and your clients — up for success, I’m happy to talk through what a thoughtful hybrid approach could look like in practice.
In Part 3, we’ll talk about pricing: how to build a structure that protects margins, supports cost recovery, and gives clients budget predictability without sacrificing service.
