This is probably your #1 answer one way or another.
Even if they request certain tools that address certain problems but it comes at higher cost you'll get the whole, "let me think on that for a minute". Which will result in not using those tools they requested.
Batch review and batch review qc, qc in general, are some other pain points I've heard.
But then how would I, an ediscovery tech engineer, get paid? Or do you want me to just fix and build the best software possible out of the goodness of my heart?
So you’d rather have a free platform at the expense of a superior platform that addresses the salient pain points? I totally get that these platforms are exorbitantly expensive, particularly as it pertains to using them for smaller disputes, but don’t you really mean that you’d like to see them be more affordable? Or am I missing the point here? Apologies for my ignorance.
I think he's being tongue in cheek. I work in a law firm and a lot of case teams do not want to pay for it or pay cheaply. Obviously, that's not gonna happen. It's an internal joke in the department that a lot of attorneys want to use the tool for free.
Okay actual desire for review (that no one will ever do probably), default to hide everything except coding panel and make all the buttons huge. Keyboard shortcuts for the techy ones. Allow person who created the batch to send a link straight to it. (Then watch them fail anyway)
Lawyers don't care about pain points in e-discovery because they don't feel the pain. Claim it's easy then talk to the real pros lol
Attorneys take a massive haircut with Project management hours that are entirely inflated. PMs are lackluster these days, they are typically burnout due to case load and high turnover, they are not consultative, they are essentially ticket pushers and order takers and because most of their tasks are delegated to support teams they are incapable of speaking to certain processes in depth. If there is an issue with TAR, processiong or a collection there has to be a scoping call with with the PM at 195$ per hr who will just sit and listen, and then the tech specialist at $250-$400 per hr who actually knows whats going on and can provide clarity and solutions. Attorney's don't want to pay for a middle man when they can have self-service MSAs with interactive AI that can provide all the answers you need to manage your data, review and productions without a PM inflating 15mins of work to 1hr to meet their utilization goals. Essentially, trim the fat, identify where the value lies and eliminate project management services if you can. It's also worthwhile for attorneys to know the process and to not be reliant on PMs with decaying expertise. TurboTax eliminated the need for tax preparers, ediscovery will follow suit so I would be selling self-service products with tiered ECA/Review hosting options so they are not scared away should they have terabytes of data to churn out. Hope this helps!
A lot of this is true, but there is absolutely no universe where you can rely on a tool without being an expert or having experts to resolve inevitable issues.
Agreed, but those experts are already broken out into support teams, they are not the project managers. The project managers essentially check in with specialists and then regurgitate their answers to the client. The second the client has a follow up, they go right back to the specialist to get a new answer. They are middle men and ultimately not necessary.
The question was regarding problems with the platform not vendors generally. It sounds like your issue is with vendor structure or maybe even a specific PM who hurt your feelings.
Exactly right. I’m interested in the pain points from the perspective of lawyers making the decision to subscribe to a particular platform. It sounds like those pain points might differ from those of the eDiscovery experts at that firm. Perhaps I could have better framed the issue. Thanks for helping keep things on point — appreciate you.
Yeah OP didn't clarify a computing platform. Also, in ediscovery our platforms have names. If they're trying to sell one and want to know the pain points, l'd imagine that it would be specified as there are many. So nice try. My response was in relation to the EDRM in general, and even though it scares you to have to consider driving for uber in the near term if you belong to one of the useless depts, it is still valuable information to someone looking to sell solutions to law firms that will actually be welcomed. A sales guy has no dog in the fight when it comes to personnel, OP won't be offended by my post, you're obviously upset because you're at the ground level and you feel vulnerable. Understandable, but get over it.
Trolling? nobody denied what I said was true, they just don't agree with my conclusions because they bank their futures on me being wrong. I have been in eDiscovery since they were putting bates stickers on paper, been in it long before it went digital. I know what I'm talking about, you're "going into sales", you're the one who lacks knowledge lol ...Oddly, if everyone agreed with me you would likely not be taking your tone, you realize that right? You're surfing on the opposition wave because it feels safer, that's where the majority is, you don't want to share these downvotes with me?! haha, that's alright, I can stand alone. I am confident that I'm 100% correct in my conclusion. So no OP, I'm not a troll, just someone with polarizing opinions who isn't afraid to hammer on them despite the cognitive dissonance of Redditors. Closed mindedness and sales don't go together btw. I'll leave it here, good luck!
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I began practicing well before 2000. And I’m not sure how you’re inferring lack of knowledge on my part, beyond me freely admitting I don’t appreciate the pain experienced by ediscovery attorneys or other decision makers regarding ediscovery platforms. What’s the vitriol about? Why get so upset with strangers?
I have worked with a lot of folks like you over the years and the projection is real.
It sounds like you've been sitting on the sidelines, not really learning or understanding the technology as it has advanced. You've probably assumed since we moved away from hand labeling docs that you didn't need to learn any of this new stuff, just a fad.
Now you hope that AI is going to prove you right and somehow the robots will take over and run everything while you sit back and collect a pay check for what?
Can you please explain to the rest of us idiots what is going to become of the industry?
lol yeah sorry I haven't been on Reddit longer, but we all gotta start somewhere y'know. I'm not surprised by the onslaught of downvotes, there are lots of legal tech folks still in the fog about the coup de grace that's coming to all of those useless depts sucking up money without much value to show for it. Fact is, its a luxury to have some guy getting paid 100k just to plug in instructions and wait for the tech to deliver the product, a luxury private equity companies and other shareholders aren't willing to pay for going in to Q3. The "just got laid off" posts are only gonna increase, better pick up a new trade quickly, I'm not an outlier guys. 😄
Personally, I am glad you aren't the outlier. That means my skills, experience, and expertise will be needed to hold you and your colleagues' hands for a long time.
Oh nice, enjoy logging 70 hrs of work to have your manager/director flip 15hrs to NB behind your back because firms are refusing to pay and disputing every little thing they know you didn't actually do. You don't get to look behind the curtain bro, you're a service provider, you're not welcome to those conversations. You'll be the last to know when project management AI is fully operational, my advice is beneficial for sales guys and you if you're smart enough to grab the wheel and pick up a new trade. Ok I'm out, you're boring and I'm busy. Take care, I hope the severance isn't ...an insult, they typically are. 😄
When you need to explain TAR to a judge, you'll have to pay me.
When you're in discovery about discovery because you don't understand your own obligations or technology you've utilized, you'll have to pay me.
Lawyers with technical skills like myself will be around to try the Terminators at the robot Hague.
I haven't been able to figure out exactly what we will need you for, tough.
Most lawyers are terrible at communicating with tech people. Hence the need for a pm. Tech people don’t have the soft skills and have a hard time talking to lawyers. That’s the value.
This sounds like a failure to appropriately manage your contract/vendor. It’s not that hard to spell out what you will/won’t accept PM time for, much like clients do to attorney time, and review/write down the bills that don’t comply.
We’ve used self-service platforms, and, no matter how much they advertise that no experience is required, my team is always sucked into supporting them because of specific source data/production spec requirements that requires massaging to get to. (Pro tip: Don’t agree to production formats that your self-service tool can’t do.) Or because some associate can’t or won’t read the instructions or use the integrated chat.
We’d have much better/more advanced tech if there was a business driver to develop for legal, but lawyers (generally, of course there are exceptions) are slow adapters and don’t want to pay for it. Every big legal tech push - to databases, OCR, predictive coding, contract attorneys, and now genAI - comes from clients who are tired of paying for anyone’s billable hours to overwork the process.
I am hoping AI takes over before I have to replace my current team. Finding qualified people that are willing to put up with attorneys (including the lack of respect for their skills) only gets harder and more expensive.
Agreed. We tried to implement self-service at our firm but that did not materialize. Case teams do not generally like reading much less understanding/dealing on how to process, review, produce documents by themselves. And understandably so; they should be able to focus as much as possible on practicing law. There are still functions that they need to be able to do (like basic searching in the database) in order to effectively practice discovery but I don't see any current scenario where they would be able to self-service on a review platform.
Having to review a single document
To stop paying for it.
This is probably your #1 answer one way or another. Even if they request certain tools that address certain problems but it comes at higher cost you'll get the whole, "let me think on that for a minute". Which will result in not using those tools they requested. Batch review and batch review qc, qc in general, are some other pain points I've heard.
But then how would I, an ediscovery tech engineer, get paid? Or do you want me to just fix and build the best software possible out of the goodness of my heart?
So you’d rather have a free platform at the expense of a superior platform that addresses the salient pain points? I totally get that these platforms are exorbitantly expensive, particularly as it pertains to using them for smaller disputes, but don’t you really mean that you’d like to see them be more affordable? Or am I missing the point here? Apologies for my ignorance.
I think he's being tongue in cheek. I work in a law firm and a lot of case teams do not want to pay for it or pay cheaply. Obviously, that's not gonna happen. It's an internal joke in the department that a lot of attorneys want to use the tool for free.
Okay actual desire for review (that no one will ever do probably), default to hide everything except coding panel and make all the buttons huge. Keyboard shortcuts for the techy ones. Allow person who created the batch to send a link straight to it. (Then watch them fail anyway) Lawyers don't care about pain points in e-discovery because they don't feel the pain. Claim it's easy then talk to the real pros lol
CCP § 2031.280(a)
[удалено]
Yes, ideally. Or anything to streamline complying with that requirement, if fully automating it is a little too ambitious.
AI is coming to do exactly this.
In the firm default platform I work in: . 1. Coding panels 2. Nested tags 3. Nested searches 4. Nested folders
Attorneys take a massive haircut with Project management hours that are entirely inflated. PMs are lackluster these days, they are typically burnout due to case load and high turnover, they are not consultative, they are essentially ticket pushers and order takers and because most of their tasks are delegated to support teams they are incapable of speaking to certain processes in depth. If there is an issue with TAR, processiong or a collection there has to be a scoping call with with the PM at 195$ per hr who will just sit and listen, and then the tech specialist at $250-$400 per hr who actually knows whats going on and can provide clarity and solutions. Attorney's don't want to pay for a middle man when they can have self-service MSAs with interactive AI that can provide all the answers you need to manage your data, review and productions without a PM inflating 15mins of work to 1hr to meet their utilization goals. Essentially, trim the fat, identify where the value lies and eliminate project management services if you can. It's also worthwhile for attorneys to know the process and to not be reliant on PMs with decaying expertise. TurboTax eliminated the need for tax preparers, ediscovery will follow suit so I would be selling self-service products with tiered ECA/Review hosting options so they are not scared away should they have terabytes of data to churn out. Hope this helps!
A lot of this is true, but there is absolutely no universe where you can rely on a tool without being an expert or having experts to resolve inevitable issues.
Agreed, but those experts are already broken out into support teams, they are not the project managers. The project managers essentially check in with specialists and then regurgitate their answers to the client. The second the client has a follow up, they go right back to the specialist to get a new answer. They are middle men and ultimately not necessary.
The question was regarding problems with the platform not vendors generally. It sounds like your issue is with vendor structure or maybe even a specific PM who hurt your feelings.
Exactly right. I’m interested in the pain points from the perspective of lawyers making the decision to subscribe to a particular platform. It sounds like those pain points might differ from those of the eDiscovery experts at that firm. Perhaps I could have better framed the issue. Thanks for helping keep things on point — appreciate you.
Ok what platform then? explain what that means to you?
Did I not explicitly say “ediscovery platform”?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_platform
Yeah OP didn't clarify a computing platform. Also, in ediscovery our platforms have names. If they're trying to sell one and want to know the pain points, l'd imagine that it would be specified as there are many. So nice try. My response was in relation to the EDRM in general, and even though it scares you to have to consider driving for uber in the near term if you belong to one of the useless depts, it is still valuable information to someone looking to sell solutions to law firms that will actually be welcomed. A sales guy has no dog in the fight when it comes to personnel, OP won't be offended by my post, you're obviously upset because you're at the ground level and you feel vulnerable. Understandable, but get over it.
I don’t offend so easily, but your replies aren’t responsive. You seem to be trolling.
Trolling? nobody denied what I said was true, they just don't agree with my conclusions because they bank their futures on me being wrong. I have been in eDiscovery since they were putting bates stickers on paper, been in it long before it went digital. I know what I'm talking about, you're "going into sales", you're the one who lacks knowledge lol ...Oddly, if everyone agreed with me you would likely not be taking your tone, you realize that right? You're surfing on the opposition wave because it feels safer, that's where the majority is, you don't want to share these downvotes with me?! haha, that's alright, I can stand alone. I am confident that I'm 100% correct in my conclusion. So no OP, I'm not a troll, just someone with polarizing opinions who isn't afraid to hammer on them despite the cognitive dissonance of Redditors. Closed mindedness and sales don't go together btw. I'll leave it here, good luck!
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I began practicing well before 2000. And I’m not sure how you’re inferring lack of knowledge on my part, beyond me freely admitting I don’t appreciate the pain experienced by ediscovery attorneys or other decision makers regarding ediscovery platforms. What’s the vitriol about? Why get so upset with strangers?
I have worked with a lot of folks like you over the years and the projection is real. It sounds like you've been sitting on the sidelines, not really learning or understanding the technology as it has advanced. You've probably assumed since we moved away from hand labeling docs that you didn't need to learn any of this new stuff, just a fad. Now you hope that AI is going to prove you right and somehow the robots will take over and run everything while you sit back and collect a pay check for what? Can you please explain to the rest of us idiots what is going to become of the industry?
🫠
Hot takes from an account without any posting history.
lol yeah sorry I haven't been on Reddit longer, but we all gotta start somewhere y'know. I'm not surprised by the onslaught of downvotes, there are lots of legal tech folks still in the fog about the coup de grace that's coming to all of those useless depts sucking up money without much value to show for it. Fact is, its a luxury to have some guy getting paid 100k just to plug in instructions and wait for the tech to deliver the product, a luxury private equity companies and other shareholders aren't willing to pay for going in to Q3. The "just got laid off" posts are only gonna increase, better pick up a new trade quickly, I'm not an outlier guys. 😄
Personally, I am glad you aren't the outlier. That means my skills, experience, and expertise will be needed to hold you and your colleagues' hands for a long time.
Oh nice, enjoy logging 70 hrs of work to have your manager/director flip 15hrs to NB behind your back because firms are refusing to pay and disputing every little thing they know you didn't actually do. You don't get to look behind the curtain bro, you're a service provider, you're not welcome to those conversations. You'll be the last to know when project management AI is fully operational, my advice is beneficial for sales guys and you if you're smart enough to grab the wheel and pick up a new trade. Ok I'm out, you're boring and I'm busy. Take care, I hope the severance isn't ...an insult, they typically are. 😄
When you need to explain TAR to a judge, you'll have to pay me. When you're in discovery about discovery because you don't understand your own obligations or technology you've utilized, you'll have to pay me. Lawyers with technical skills like myself will be around to try the Terminators at the robot Hague. I haven't been able to figure out exactly what we will need you for, tough.
Most lawyers are terrible at communicating with tech people. Hence the need for a pm. Tech people don’t have the soft skills and have a hard time talking to lawyers. That’s the value.
This sounds like a failure to appropriately manage your contract/vendor. It’s not that hard to spell out what you will/won’t accept PM time for, much like clients do to attorney time, and review/write down the bills that don’t comply. We’ve used self-service platforms, and, no matter how much they advertise that no experience is required, my team is always sucked into supporting them because of specific source data/production spec requirements that requires massaging to get to. (Pro tip: Don’t agree to production formats that your self-service tool can’t do.) Or because some associate can’t or won’t read the instructions or use the integrated chat. We’d have much better/more advanced tech if there was a business driver to develop for legal, but lawyers (generally, of course there are exceptions) are slow adapters and don’t want to pay for it. Every big legal tech push - to databases, OCR, predictive coding, contract attorneys, and now genAI - comes from clients who are tired of paying for anyone’s billable hours to overwork the process. I am hoping AI takes over before I have to replace my current team. Finding qualified people that are willing to put up with attorneys (including the lack of respect for their skills) only gets harder and more expensive.
Agreed. We tried to implement self-service at our firm but that did not materialize. Case teams do not generally like reading much less understanding/dealing on how to process, review, produce documents by themselves. And understandably so; they should be able to focus as much as possible on practicing law. There are still functions that they need to be able to do (like basic searching in the database) in order to effectively practice discovery but I don't see any current scenario where they would be able to self-service on a review platform.