2016 mini-survey results · the time of the survey. the survey was conducted from november 3-18,...

E-discovery Data Processing and Review

2016 Mini-Survey Results

© Zapproved, Inc. All rights reserved 1 2016 E-Discovery Data Processing and Review Mini Survey Results

Contents

Executive Summary

Survey MethodologyPage 3

DemographicsPages 4-5

Data Processing Finding and AnalysisPages 6-12

© Zapproved, Inc. All rights reserved22016 E-Discovery Data Processing and Review Mini Survey Results

Executive Summary

We recently conducted an online survey of 92 in-house legal staff about their methods of data processing — manual, in-house software or outsource to service provider. The survey then asked them to rate their satisfaction with their process based on three dimensions: cost, time and ease.

Manual process is still most used at 41 percent

While data process review technology is mature, many in-house legal teams continue “doing it themselves” with systems like Microsoft Outlook. This approach is risky since it could result in spoliation of metadata which would render the evidence unusable in court.

The amount of time and complexity of data processing are reasons for frustration

When looking at reasons for dissatisfaction, “Time“ was the lowest ranked followed by “Ease” which was ranked almost the same. “Cost” actually was viewed favorably overall.

Legal teams using in-house solutions are most satisfied by a wide margin

In looking at the Satisfaction Index (the average of all three scores) the results were remarkably symmetrical: In-House was rated a +2.0; External a 0.0; and Manual at -2.0. The disparity illustrates clear differences in the experiences between these methods.

Using internal or external resources varies depending on case type

The survey asked respondents to indicate their typical processing method based on the seven most frequent types of cases. For more routine Contract Litigation, 85 percent used in-house solutions compared with Class Actions, typically one of the more complex matters, where only 37 percent used in-house methods.


Survey Methodology

The Data Processing Mini-Survey measures what the prevailing attitudes of participants were at the time of the survey. The survey was conducted from November 3-18, 2015 using an online questionnaire.

The survey respondents consisted of legal professionals, including attorneys, litigation support managers, paralegals and non-legal professionals such as IT and records managers, from in-house legal teams at organizations.

The survey had 92 responses complete the questionnaire.

The margin of error is +/- 4.5%.

Throughout this report, we represent responses in a three-dial “dashboard” that represents sentiment of respondents on three dimensions: Cost, Time and Ease. Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction by choosing “Poor,” “Low,” “Good,” and “High.” We then created a bar chart on a fixed scale and plotted the percentage of responses as follows:

By plotting a linear trend line, we set the maximum range as a +5.0 for 100 percent in “High” and -5.0 for 100 percent in “Poor.” The dial on the gauge simply represents that resulting value.

About the Satisfaction Index Dials


Survey Participants

This was a short, “flash survey” that was designed to take less than a minute to complete. During the few weeks it was available, more than 90 people participated.

Finally, we had a similar even distribution across the volume of cases being processed annually. The top category of 50+ per year was indicated by 29 percent, 38 percent in the middle two categories of 10-50 cases, and the remaining 33 percent for less than 10 cases per year.

29%

38%

33% 50+ cases/year

<10 cases/year

10-50 cases/year

Processing Volume — Cases Annually

The respondents showed an even distribution from SMBs up to enterprises and federal agencies. 35 percent were from enterprises (10,000+ employees), 42 percent from mid-size (1000-10,000) and the remaining 22 percent from small businesses (less than 1,000).

42%1,000-10,000 employees

22%<1,000 employees 35%

10,000 + employees

Size of Company

Paralegal 26%

GC/AGC 23%

Information Security/Risk/Compliance 17%

Records Manager 16%

Litigation Support Dir./Mgr. 14%

IT 4%

Based on roles, we observed a valuable representation across the in-house legal team. Following is a ranking of the categories:


Processing Methods

In order to understand how in-house legal teams are working today, we asked them to identify which of the following methods they use for processing electronically stored information (ESI), selecting as many as were applicable:

• Manual — Using internal tools such as MS Outlook

• Outsource — Send to legal service provider for hosting

• In-House — Employing an e-discovery software platform that is used by employees

The pie chart illustrates the distribution based on the three methods listed above.

The dominant method is manual, with in-house solutions comprising one third of the process, and outsourcing to a service provider representing one quarter.

25.2%Outsource

33.9%In-house

40.9%Manual

Processing Methods


Processing Satisfaction — Overall

Time and ease are greatest points of dissatisfactionWhen looking at the responses in aggregate, we can start understanding the general “pain points” for data processing and review in corporate legal departments. On our three dimensions, we learn that:

• Cost – More than six out of 10 rated their satisfaction as positive, the only aspect that is viewed positively of the three measured.

• Time – More than half of the respondents (51 percent) were unsatisfied with the amount of time it takes to complete data processing.

• Ease – The Satisfaction Index score for Ease was also negative at a -0.7. While there was an almost even split between positive (52 percent) and negative (48 percent), the detractors’ sentiment was much stronger at a 2-to-1 ratio, i.e. 28 percent selected “Poor” versus 14 percent choosing “High.”

COST TIME EASE


Processing Satisfaction — Manual

Manual methods result in lowest satisfactionWith an average Satisfaction Index of -2.0, those using manual processes were clearly the most discontented with their process. The lowest score of the survey was the dissatisfaction with the amount of time for manual processes, with 7 out of 10 having a negative view. The 51 percent “poor” rating for Ease also was the greatest portion in that category. Echoing the overall results, Cost was negative but only marginally so with score of -0.4.

COST TIME EASE


Processing Satisfaction — Outsource

Neutral attitudes toward outsourcing with an average index of zero Corporate legal teams indicate neutral feelings toward outsourcing this phase of electronic discovery. Cost was somewhat positive with a +0.8 score which was tipped by 21 percent “High” rating. Time and Ease were only slightly negative but with the former category being only slightly lower.

COST TIME EASE


Processing Satisfaction — In-House

In-house review of ESI is the most satisfying method by a wide marginThe clear winner among the three methods being examined is in-house data processing with a Satisfaction Index averaging +2.0 (compared to a -2.0 for manual and a 0.0 for outsource). Respondents appreciate all dimensions strongly, with costs leading the way, followed by the time and ease.

Cost was remarkable in the strength of sentiment with 31 percent rating satisfaction as “high” and another 49 percent as good – totaling stunning 80 percent with positive rating.

COST TIME EASE


Process by Case Type

While contract litigation and investigations are often done in-house, class actions use service providersAs a way to determine if processing method shifted by the type and complexity of case, the survey asked respondents to indicate whether they handled the case internally or externally.

An impressive 85 percent of participants handle ESI processing internally for contract litigation, followed closely by 79 percent of “regulatory/investigations.” These tend to be more frequent and less complex – requiring less amount of ESI from few custodians.

On the other end of the spectrum, class action litigation is most typically passed on to external service providers given the complex nature of these cases and the risk to the company.

CONTRACTS

REGULATOR/INVESTIGATIONS

IP/PATENTS

LABOR/EMPLOYMENT

PRODUCT LIABILITY

PERSONAL INJURY

CLASS ACTION

85% 15%

79% 21%

62% 38%

62% 38%

55% 46%

49% 51%

37% 63%


Processing Satisfaction — High vs. Low Volume

High-Volume teams struggle with speed, low-volume with complexityAs a way to determine if processing type shifted by the type and complexity of case, the survey asked respondents to indicate whether they handled the case internally or externally. High-Volume Litigants were those with more than 26 cases processed per year and an average size greater than 10,000 documents/case. Low-Volume Litigants were the mirror image below those thresholds.

COST TIME EASE

Hig

h V

olum

eLo

w

Volu

me


Focus on the Enterprise

Large companies struggle with the complexity of data processingLooking at the largest companies with more than 10,000 employees, 41 percent continue to outsource data processing work. Meanwhile, the distribution of the number of cases for which they process data is evenly split from low volume (10-25 per year) to high volume which held a slight lead with 38 percent.

When drilling down into how survey participants from enterprises are satisfied, the overall Satisfaction Index is -0.3, or somewhat neutral. Looking deeper, the positive satisfaction level of +1.1 is more than offset by a markedly negative perception of the ease of completing data processing – in fact, 35 percent chose their satisfaction as “Poor” for this characteristic. The Time required was somewhat negative with a -0.5 score.

COST TIME EASE

Processing Volume

10-25%<10%

26-50%

Processing Methods

41.4%Outsource

31.0%In-house

27.6%Manual

2016 mini-survey results · the time of the survey. the survey was conducted from november 3-18,...

Documents