Statements of functions and benefits and descriptions of litigation support services obviously form the backbone of the marketing material of any company engaged in the handling of electronic documents. It is difficult, however, to convey in the abstract any sense of what is actually involved for the benefit of those who have not been confronted with a case which requires urgent action. What we need are case studies, examples of real life projects which put flesh on the bones, as it were, of the process involved when litigation or a regulatory investigation must be handled promptly.
Legal Inc has done just that with a case study involving its use of Clearwell on a large and urgent project. The article is called Clearwell and Legal Inc: cutting complex projects down to size.
This was clearly a case which could not have been handled in any other way than Legal Inc describe it. The processes and stages, however, are applicable in cases much smaller and much less urgent than the one described. It is implicit in the use of the word “proportionality” that the process scales down to more ordinary cases, and it would be good to see more case studies which illustrate this. There are obvious implications of client confidentiality and, perhaps, one will only ever hear about the ones which went well from the perspective of all involved, including the client.
Meanwhile, I commend Legal Inc’s description as a good indicator of the software and services which are available on demand.
The enemy here is the bland assertion to the effect that electronic disclosure is too expensive. You only know that if you seek an estimate and are in a position to weigh the benefits and costs of services like this against any other way of managing the potential sources of disclosure. That applies in cases very much smaller than the one described in the Legal Inc article.