Applying the ACC Value Index to e-Discovery Providers

In 2008, the ACC (Association of Corporate Counsel) set forth an initiative called the ACC Value Challenge to help its corporate counsel members address rising outside counsel costs and the value they are receiving from these services. As part of the initiative, the ACC created the ACC Value Index. This is a scoring system that measures a law firm's efforts in six specific categories, and also provides an area for additional, unfiltered commentary to showcase a client's level of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with that firm.

The six rated categories are: 1) understands objectives/expectations; 2) legal expertise; 3) efficiency/process management; 4) responsiveness/communication; 5) predictable cost/budgeting skills; and 6) results delivered/execution.

For each category, corporate legal departments rate their law firms on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 representing excellent. This same rating scale may be used to evaluate e-discovery providers. With more than 600 providers claiming e-discovery services at across the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), the ratings may become significant as counsel continues to rein in legal costs and streamline third-party providers. While the rating categories have not yet been determined, if one extrapolates the ratings of law firms to service providers, some key considerations emerge.

Key Considerations

Understands Objectives/Expectations

This category would rate providers on the processes they use to identify project goals and objectives, the end result of the project and the steps they take along the way to get there. Keeping the project proportional to the exposure of the case is crucial. Providers should also offer an array of quality control protocols to prevent unexpected surprises during the project (e.g., cost overruns, inadvertent productions or missed timelines.

Legal (e-Discovery) Expertise

Number of years in business and track record are key indicators, but there are additional factors to consider: Does the provider require conflicts checking? What level of experience/training do the experts within the organization (e.g., paralegals, litigation support, attorneys, and project managers) possess and how long, on average, have they been with the organization? The provider's employees need to able work under litigation deadlines and scrutiny while maintaining corporate decorum. Ideally, the provider will have experience with other cases involving the subject matter, jurisdiction or agency related to your current case or portfolio of cases.

Efficiency/Process Management

The best providers will have professional project managers on every job and an infrastructure that is scalable and adaptable to managing a wide range of project sizes. A continuous learning loop for process improvement is also extremely valuable.

Responsiveness/Communication

Kick-off calls on every project, even the small ones, help confirm deliverables and set appropriate expectations. Deliverables should include standard communications and reports at regular intervals, and top providers will also be able to produce customized reports to meet the unique requirements of each matter. Providers should designate a single point of contact, with a backup, to help streamline communications throughout the process.

Predictable Cost/Budgeting Skills

Fixed or predictable pricing models help can legal teams accurately project spending. Does the provider offer budgeting/estimating tools and services that can be applied early in the process? What technologies and services does the provider offer for data reduction and early case assessment?

Results Delivered/Execution

A provider that can offer affidavits, testimonials and expert witnesses for use in court will have an advantage here. One key measure of success is whether the project team has been free to litigate on the merits of the case and spend less time on the e-discovery technicalities. If a provider's results have ever been found wanting in court, you should know ahead of time how well they supported their client under those circumstances and what they've done in the meantime to improve their processes.

Conclusion

Electronic discovery is an inherently difficult and complex process. Understanding how providers address the rating categories of the ACC Value Index as part of their everyday services and practices will make it much easier to assess the value received ' and should result in a much more predictable, cost-effective approach for managing the process.

Mary Mack is Corporate Technology Counsel for Fios, Inc. (www.fiosinc.com). She has more than 20 years of experience delivering enterprise-wide e-discovery, managed services and software projects with legal and IT departments in publicly held companies. Follow her on Twitter (@mackmary) and on her blog, Sound Evidence, hosted on www.DiscoveryResources.org.

In 2008, the ACC (Association of Corporate Counsel) set forth an initiative called the ACC Value Challenge to help its corporate counsel members address rising outside counsel costs and the value they are receiving from these services. As part of the initiative, the ACC created the ACC Value Index. This is a scoring system that measures a law firm's efforts in six specific categories, and also provides an area for additional, unfiltered commentary to showcase a client's level of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with that firm.

The six rated categories are: 1) understands objectives/expectations; 2) legal expertise; 3) efficiency/process management; 4) responsiveness/communication; 5) predictable cost/budgeting skills; and 6) results delivered/execution.

For each category, corporate legal departments rate their law firms on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 representing excellent. This same rating scale may be used to evaluate e-discovery providers. With more than 600 providers claiming e-discovery services at across the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), the ratings may become significant as counsel continues to rein in legal costs and streamline third-party providers. While the rating categories have not yet been determined, if one extrapolates the ratings of law firms to service providers, some key considerations emerge.

Key Considerations

Understands Objectives/Expectations

This category would rate providers on the processes they use to identify project goals and objectives, the end result of the project and the steps they take along the way to get there. Keeping the project proportional to the exposure of the case is crucial. Providers should also offer an array of quality control protocols to prevent unexpected surprises during the project (e.g., cost overruns, inadvertent productions or missed timelines.

Legal (e-Discovery) Expertise

Number of years in business and track record are key indicators, but there are additional factors to consider: Does the provider require conflicts checking? What level of experience/training do the experts within the organization (e.g., paralegals, litigation support, attorneys, and project managers) possess and how long, on average, have they been with the organization? The provider's employees need to able work under litigation deadlines and scrutiny while maintaining corporate decorum. Ideally, the provider will have experience with other cases involving the subject matter, jurisdiction or agency related to your current case or portfolio of cases.

Efficiency/Process Management

The best providers will have professional project managers on every job and an infrastructure that is scalable and adaptable to managing a wide range of project sizes. A continuous learning loop for process improvement is also extremely valuable.

Responsiveness/Communication

Kick-off calls on every project, even the small ones, help confirm deliverables and set appropriate expectations. Deliverables should include standard communications and reports at regular intervals, and top providers will also be able to produce customized reports to meet the unique requirements of each matter. Providers should designate a single point of contact, with a backup, to help streamline communications throughout the process.

Predictable Cost/Budgeting Skills

Fixed or predictable pricing models help can legal teams accurately project spending. Does the provider offer budgeting/estimating tools and services that can be applied early in the process? What technologies and services does the provider offer for data reduction and early case assessment?

Results Delivered/Execution

A provider that can offer affidavits, testimonials and expert witnesses for use in court will have an advantage here. One key measure of success is whether the project team has been free to litigate on the merits of the case and spend less time on the e-discovery technicalities. If a provider's results have ever been found wanting in court, you should know ahead of time how well they supported their client under those circumstances and what they've done in the meantime to improve their processes.

Conclusion

Electronic discovery is an inherently difficult and complex process. Understanding how providers address the rating categories of the ACC Value Index as part of their everyday services and practices will make it much easier to assess the value received ' and should result in a much more predictable, cost-effective approach for managing the process.

Mary Mack is Corporate Technology Counsel for Fios, Inc. (www.fiosinc.com). She has more than 20 years of experience delivering enterprise-wide e-discovery, managed services and software projects with legal and IT departments in publicly held companies. Follow her on Twitter (@mackmary) and on her blog, Sound Evidence, hosted on www.DiscoveryResources.org.