I do not normally make reference to individual companies appearing in surveys or rankings, partly because lists themselves are not particularly exciting, and partly for fear of omitting someone whom I should mention.
I make an exception for QuisLex’s double appearance in the New York Law Journal’s 2015 Reader Rankings because managed document review and legal process outsourcing (the two categories in which QuixLex appears) are areas which are often overlooked when lawyers and companies consider how best to get their eDiscovery / eDisclosure work done.
The NYLJ Reader Rankings differ from most other such competitions precisely because they are reader rankings – the votes of those who actually use the services in question. The cautious herd mentality of lawyers makes them wary of things which are not in common use, and it is important to realise that there are a lot of end users out there who rely on managed review and LPO.
Farrell McManus of the NYLJ is quoted as saying this:
It is hard to ignore the continued recognition of LPOs in the Top Managed Document Review Providers Reader Rankings the last several years,” said Farrell McManus, Associate Publisher at the New York Law Journal. “It signifies that the leading LPOs are an increasingly important part of the legal community.
Andrew Goodman, Associate VP of Litigation Services at QuisLex said of QuisLex’s two awards:
It shows that companies such as QuisLex have been successful in combining the subject matter knowledge of motivated permanent employees with cross-functional process expertise to reduce both risk and cost for their clients.
QuisLex has been around since 2004 and was a pioneer in the offshore legal services industry. It employs more than 1,000 lawyers, process experts, statisticians and linguists. The point here is that providers at the high end of the market, as QuisLex is, are not just ad hoc teams of reviewers but are staffed by experienced permanent staff providing a range of skills which few law firms can match.
The UK eDisclosure Practice Direction 31B expressly requires a focus on the “tools and techniques” to be used for giving disclosure. “Techniques” is a wider term than “technology” and signifies that parties to litigation must consider all available approaches to managing eDisclosure / eDiscovery at proportionate cost. Those required to budget for eDiscovery, in any jurisdiction, need to consider outsourcing and managed review alongside other ways of getting the job done.