Litigation is a relatively common occurrence in the construction industry. Whether it’s related to disputes, delays, or mishaps, legal battles are an evergreen concern. And one significant challenge associated with construction litigation is the volume of data involved – specifically, electronically stored data (ESI).

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. 

“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.”

In professional services, distinguishing yourself from the competition can be daunting. Whether you're in legal, accounting, consulting, or another field, where skills and knowledge are often replicable, differentiation is both crucial and challenging. Here’s a closer look at how to stand out in a crowded market.

Short message data is an increasingly important source of evidence in litigation and investigations because so much communication takes place through sources like SMS and MMS texts and platforms like WhatsApp, Slack, and Teams.

Nor should they. No individual can possess mastery over every function of a large, complex organization. Ideally, people with complementary skillsets and dispositions are recruited, developed, and provided sufficient leeway (in the form of decision making and funding) to contribute to the mission of the organization.

Legaltech (generally) and eDiscovery (specifically) marketing often fails because software and services vendors often try to “copy and paste” playbooks that worked in the B2B (business to business) space.

In B2B, revolution can be richly rewarded. The premise of most startup businesses is: the market has an unmet need; if we build the right product and get in front of the right people, we can make a lot of money. Disruption of the status quo is the entire point of the game.

Many small and mid-sized law firms approach to eDiscovery consists of cobbling together legacy tools instead of embracing cutting edge eDiscovery and legal technologies like RelativityOne.

This approach is understandable. Ten years ago, when many firms first tool a look at their eDiscovery practices, eDiscovery was a new and expensive concept. Attorneys could in most cases get by through creating PDFs or scanning documents, and judges and opposing counsel typically accepted it without compliant.

In January we published a tongue in cheek bingo card before Legalweek that poked fun of many of the words and phrases used by eDiscovery software and services providers, like “voluminous data” and “explosion of data.”

It was a silly thing, but it resonated because the terms are all ubiquitous.