DISCO Ediscovery vs. Everlaw vs. Relativity

It's user-friendly and very intuitive. It has many capabilities that are out of the box, and it does not need to do any workaround. Also, there are many ways to do the same thing which is great when we are in a rush and how a user learns. Attorneys are loving the Case Builder function. I am happy that we can streamline processes and get to do more of what we love to do versus being bogged down by tedious steps.

Incentivized

I think Everlaw is very well suited for any project where you want to organize your documents, produce documents or review documents produced to you. It's "word processing" features are pretty awful and that makes the Storybuilder functionality less useful. The best workflow for me is as follows: On Screen 1 you have Everlaw browser open. You tag those documents you may use in your story, they show up on the right panel. Then, you open up your word processor on Screen 2 and get writing. If you need to refer to an exhibit in your word processed document, use the #idenitication number from Screen 1 and type it in your document. If you want to review the document, you click the "eye" icon in the right panel on Screen 1 and read it as you are doing your typing on Screen 2. When done with the document, you cut and paste it into the Everlaw Storybuilder "body". You may have to manually search for the #'s to have the documents tagged in your story - You need to have them tagged in the story body so that when you click on "exhibits" you can export all of the exhibits referenced if that is something you want to have done (for example, to upload for e-filing).

Incentivized

In cases involving massive datasets (I.e. regulatory investigations, cross-border litigation), Relativity's powerful search, deduplication, and technology-assisted review features enable fast, accurate identification of relevant documents. For example, we used it in a front-running investigation involving a large asset management firm, where Relativity streamlined data review across multiple custodians. There are multiple use case available.

Incentivized

• Search and locate
• Document organization
• Ease of use
• Review Stages are used by our Experts with direct access, which eliminates the need to create folders on our servers, download to flash drives, or having to upload documents and create links in the cloud

• Organization
• Flagging and keywords of important points in documents
• Making document review easier

Incentivized

• Searching for documents and native files with various terms and approaches.
• Tagging documents and native files for further review.
• Creating and downloading collections of documents and native files for depositions.

Incentivized

• Allow bates labeling to be completed at ingest
• Providing a guide for load file ingest and remediation of load file errors
• Availability of predictive tagging in matters with smaller production than is currently necessary
• Improve ability to review and summarize medical records
• Ability at ingest to break up a single large document into individual documents for review, whether through a manual or AI-driven process

• Not everything is as I would like it to be. For example, while it is easy to copy work product (highlights, issue tags, comments) from one project to another, for some reason they don't allow you to copy "storybuilder" objects. It would be nice if they allowed this. What this means is if you have the same set of documents in two projects, you can carry over the issue tags, highlighting, etc., if you want. But, if you created a deposition outline in "Storybuilder" in Project A, you can't copy that deposition (with exhibits) over to Project B.
• The Storybuilder "outline" function is not easy to use and does not export well to word. That said, once you get the hang of it, it really works beautifully for organizing exhibits.

Incentivized

• Very powerful tool, but does require a high level of expertise and head count to administer the product.
• If hosting yourself, requires investment in servers and ideally is housed in a data center
• Providers need to pay kCura a monthly user license fee for every user who has access to the tool. Providers can purchase blocks of users, but with a large amount of users on a case, it's cost that some external clients are not thrilled about

Incentivized

There were some customer service issues in closing a project, but generally the service has been helpful to our needs.

Incentivized

I've been able to go from never using this type of software before, to confidently using it on an everyday basis, and the learning curve was not steep at all.

Incentivized

Relativity is a well established tool that continues to evolve and look for ways to improve. Particular focus on Australian workflows is very promising for us and appreciated. There is a lot of scope for improvement in the processing and PDF workflows but it is great to see Relativity being proactive in those areas

Incentivized

I've never had a problem with the support team getting back to me re my questions or assisting me in a project.

DISCO provides good resources in addition to the walkthroughs.

Incentivized

I have used proprietary in-house software at a litigation management firm. The in-house software allowed for documents to be processed and coded in order for the end-user to run a report that met the end-users parameters. DISCO allows for documents to be ingested, and for those ingested documents to be divided into review stages. The reports that DISCO allows the end-user to run are far superior to end-user reports of other in-house systems

Incentivized

I've used something called blade.acorn in a different mass tort case. I did not like it as much as Everlaw. Maybe it was because I used Everlaw first and was used to it. But Everlaw does have a great and organized platform that I think is better and is well-suited for mass tort cases' discovery process.

Incentivized

Relativity contains all the features together in a single platform. And most of all other than Brainspace none of the other tools have document review capability as good as Relativity has.

Incentivized

• DISCO has saved our clients tons of money in hosting fees, as well as hourly fees in time spent reviewing documents.
• With DISCO's search capabilities, a review that could take weeks or months by many can be performed in days or weeks by fewer personnel.
• With DISCO, actions that previously had to be contracted out to a vendor can now be handled in-house at a much cheaper cost.

Incentivized

• Unfortunately, I do not have any hard numbers to share. The platform costs what it costs and you either eat that cost or pass it on to the client. The platform certainly makes you a more efficient attorney and saves a lot of time, so even if the monthly fee is kind of high, the client gets a lot of value out of it.

Incentivized

• Saves time spent searching for documents and native files.
• Easy to download materials when needed.
• Can share collections of materials across team members in other offices.

Incentivized