Extract from Johanny Olmedo’s article “A Better Way to Staff and Price Managed Review? We’ve Got It”
Managed review is arguably the most expensive element of eDiscovery – in many cases, review services comprise more than 70 percent of all production costs – so, for many reasons, it’s important to do it right.
As a former division director at a legal services staffing group, I was responsible for compiling contract attorney teams for document review. I’ve seen firsthand how the traditional staffing and pricing models for managed review work. Now that I’m here at BIA and see how our managed document review services works, I’m here to tell you that there’s a better way to do it – a way that can save you time and money while delivering superior work product at the same time.
Let’s take a look at the comparison of BIA’s managed review staffing and pricing models with the traditional models.
1. Staffing
Traditional Managed Review Services Staffing Model
Typically, when you call a company to provide document review services, their first step is to source review attorney candidates, working with an existing database and/or putting feelers out into the industry to find those who are available. The contract attorney company will talk to potential reviewers to understand their background and what kind of work they’ve done before and vet them for subject matter expertise. The company will also conduct conflict checks.
While vetting the available attorneys, most providers will also need to identify and obtain a secure, appropriate location where the contract attorneys can conduct the review. Many providers have review centers with empty offices and computers for review attorneys to use, but with various cases and reviews going on simultaneously, it’s easy to run out of space. So they then have to find an office space to rent and stock it with computers and other resources necessary for a secure review.
At this point, once the interviews are completed and document review commences, it’s already been three or four days. A minimum of 72 hours is common when starting a new review project. More likely than not, all this start-up time is billed to you… and yet not a single document has been reviewed.
And, because review jobs are temporary, the temporary attorneys you worked so hard to vet are constantly looking for their next job – taking time away from your review and possibly pulling them away from the project altogether if they find another job with a higher rate or longer review timeframe. This means the provider is constantly sourcing, vetting and replacing attorneys over the course of review due to reviewer attrition. This can significantly affect the speed and accuracy of the review process, while also increasing your cost. The dreaded double-whammy!
