Recently, we’ve seen a few pieces about the various reasons law firms bring litigation support in house (insource), including e-discovery processes, or outsource all litigation support to third-party vendors or co-counsel. These articles got us talking about our own choice to bring much of this work in house. The primary drivers behind insourcing for us were cost and control. We also believe that doing so has helped us provide our clients with a higher level of service that is tailored to fit their specific needs and goals for the litigation. Although we frequently outsource certain projects to vendors, insourcing the bulk of our e-discovery processes puts us in the best position to intimately understand our clients’ infrastructure.
This has been a years-long process that continues through today. And as ESI continues to evolve, we continue to evaluate potential new investments in programs and the use of vendors or other arrangements for outsourcing certain tasks. We have developed great relationships with vendors in town and we rely on them at different points in the litigation process, outsourcing work to them depending on workflow and the individual circumstances of the case or project. There is no question that certain projects require outside expert help.
In this series of blog posts, we’ll explore some of the thinking behind our decision to insource, the programs we use to accomplish our goals, and some of the scenarios where we find it is best to outsource. We welcome your comments on how you manage litigation support in your cases, and in particular e-discovery, whether you’re doing it all in house or hiring outside counsel or vendors to do that work for you.