When my partners and I founded Proteus, we made a promise to ourselves that we would take our decades of combined litigation experience and use it to serve our clients with honesty, flexibility, and integrity.

In my role at Proteus, I have the privilege of working directly with legal teams navigating the eDiscovery phase of the litigation process – a process that is also navigating increasingly complex regulatory environments. Each year brings new technologies, fresh compliance pressures, and shifting expectations from regulators and opposing counsel alike. 

After 26 years in eDiscovery, I’ve come to appreciate the evolving complexity and nuance of our work. From paper productions to chat data, the tools and platforms we rely on have transformed dramatically. Yet one thing has remained constant: mastery matters.

When I tell people I teach eDiscovery at IUPUI’s School of Informatics, they either nod politely or immediately check their phones. Fair. It’s not exactly cocktail party material. But here's the thing: if you're practicing law in 2025 and not keeping up with how technology is reshaping the courtroom and the discovery process, you’re doing your clients – and yourself – a disservice.

eDiscovery is a complex and sometimes complicated field, but one thing remains constant: the demand for skilled professionals who can guide lawyers and legal teams through the intricate challenges of the process. These individuals ensure compliance with legal obligations while delivering exceptional results. 

Law firms are increasingly recognizing the value of building in-house eDiscovery intelligence. By creating internal teams or departments capable of processing and culling data, running searches, and producing documents, law firms can build a profit center and improve cost-recovery efforts while creating fast turn-times for case teams.

When preparing the often vast amounts of ESI for litigation, utilizing technology can be essential. And legal teams have two options for support: in-house or outsourcing to a vendor partner. Oftentimes, when technology is needed, the only real answer is with outsourcing as most law firms and companies don’t have internal eDiscovery resources. 

eDiscovery costs represent a substantial portion of litigation and investigation case budgets, often compounded by the unpredictable nature of data volumes and the varying pricing models offered by software and service providers. We recognize the need for clarity in this complex landscape, which is why we recently created an infographic aimed at breaking down the myriad costs associated with eDiscovery. 

Corporate legal teams often face significant financial challenges, particularly when preparing for litigation. One of the most pressing issues is the concept of “sunk costs” associated with eDiscovery. 

“We’re not trying to replace anybody,” Jon Mattingly told the Indiana Lawyer back in 2015. At the time, he and three other litigators had recently left an AmLaw 100 firm to launch two ventures: an Indianapolis-based litigation boutique and an eDiscovery services company. “We’re coming in and... handling some very complex issues in terms of eDiscovery. We’re a partner for the client and their law firm managing the case.”