eDiscovery for Law Firms: A Complete Process Guide [2025]

Understanding eDiscovery Fundamentals

Before exploring the eDiscovery framework, it’s useful to first define what eDiscovery is, why getting it right is critical for law firms, and how firms of different sizes approach what is often a complex and demanding task.

What is eDiscovery? 

eDiscovery is the process of finding, reviewing, and sharing electronic information for a lawsuit or investigation. This information, called electronically stored information (ESI), can include emails, texts, documents, spreadsheets, social media posts, cloud files and more. 

ESI often carries metadata, like dates, authors, and edits. This can make digital data richer in context and often trickier to handle than paper records.

Getting eDiscovery wrong has severe consequences. Courts don't hesitate to issue sanctions for misconduct, ranging from monetary penalties to adverse inference instructions or even case dismissal. 

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (2003–2005) is one of the most foundational cases in eDiscovery. Judge Shira Scheindlin’s rulings established that parties have a clear duty to preserve relevant electronically stored information once litigation is reasonably anticipated. UBS’s failure to properly preserve and produce emails led to sanctions, cost-shifting, and adverse inference instructions, setting the standard for proportionality and preservation obligations. In Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. (2008) the withholding of tens of thousands of emails relevant to a patent dispute resulted in $9 million in sanctions and several attorneys being referred to the state bar for ethical violations.

The legal framework governing eDiscovery obligations is primarily set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), particularly Rules 16, 26, and 37, which emphasize cooperation, proportionality, and the duty to preserve relevant information. Most states have adopted similar rules, creating a national standard that holds all firms, regardless of size, accountable for their eDiscovery practices.

eDiscovery vs eDisclosure

eDiscovery is the term used almost exclusively in the US, whereas eDisclosure is used more commonly in the UK and broader Commonwealth. While both words mean generally the same thing, it’s worth noting that, in addition to different terminology, the approach to storing and producing information for litigation also varies.

In the U.S., eDiscovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure emphasizes broad collection and review, and sifting, redacting, and analyzing massive data sets for relevance. In England and Wales, eDisclosure under the Civil Procedure Rules is narrower and more structured. There’s a stronger focus on producing ESI in a usable format and using “menu” disclosure options to keep scope and costs under control. 

The labels “discovery” and “disclosure” are the least of it… What matters far more are the deeper assumptions about each other’s approach to litigation and to technology.

eDisclosure Information Project, Chris Dale

The goal is the same, getting the right evidence before the court, but the U.S. system casts a wider net, while Commonwealth courts put tighter guardrails on what must be disclosed.

How Different Law Firms Approach Discovery

A law firm’s size, resources, and typical case complexity dictate its eDiscovery strategy. What works for a global firm with a dedicated department is not feasible for a solo practitioner. Understanding these differences is key to developing a sustainable and effective workflow.

eDiscovery for Solo and Small Firms (1-10 attorneys)

Solo and small firms face a trifecta of challenges: limited budgets, expertise gaps, and the overwhelming volume of ESI in even routine cases. With discovery costs consuming a massive portion of litigation expenses, small firms must be strategic. The most effective approach involves a tiered model based on case complexity, relying heavily on cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions with transparent, pay-as-you-go pricing. These platforms level the playing field, providing access to powerful analytics and review tools without the need for significant upfront investment in infrastructure or personnel.

eDiscovery for Mid-Size Firms Considerations (11-100 attorneys)

Mid-size firms often adopt a hybrid approach, balancing in-house capabilities with selective outsourcing. According to a recent survey, they tend to keep critical early-stage tasks like legal holds (69%) and data preservation (56%) in-house to maintain control and reduce risk. More resource-intensive phases like large-scale document review (31%) and production (26%) are frequently outsourced to specialized vendors.

eDiscovery for Large Firms (100+ attorneys)

Large firms treat eDiscovery as a competitive differentiator and, in many cases, a profit center. They invest in comprehensive infrastructure, including dedicated eDiscovery departments with specialized teams of attorneys, project managers, and technologists. These firms utilize enterprise-grade platforms, often with significant customization.

With global capabilities and deep expertise in cross-border discovery, large firms can handle the most complex, data-intensive litigation matters. Their scale allows them to adopt advanced AI and analytics tools early, offering clients sophisticated solutions for technology-assisted review, data reduction, and case strategy development.

The eDiscovery Process Framework

While the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) lays out the industry-standard nine-stage framework, real-world eDiscovery is rarely so linear. Modern workflows are iterative, often looping back as new information surfaces. Like any investigation, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, and firms adapt the process to their resources, clients, and case demands. 

Still, the core phases remain indispensable guideposts for building a defensible, efficient eDiscovery strategy. Here’s a practical, phase-by-phase guide for law firms.

“E-discovery is still discovery. Unquestionably, at times, ESI discovery can be complex. But complex issues were not at play here. The same basic discovery principles that worked for the Flintstones still work for the Jetsons.”

– District Judge Iain D. Johnston, DR Distribs. v. 21 Century Smoking

Phase 1: Legal Hold and Data Preservation

This is the foundational step where a firm's defensibility is established or lost. The duty to preserve evidence triggers not when a lawsuit is filed, but when litigation is “reasonably anticipated.” 

Failing to act promptly can lead to spoliation and severe sanctions.

A step-by-step process for a legal hold includes:

1. Identifying the Trigger: Document the exact moment the duty to preserve arose (e.g., receipt of a demand letter, a credible threat of litigation, an internal investigation).

2. Scoping the Hold: Immediately identify key custodians (individuals with relevant information) and likely data sources (e.g., email accounts, laptops, mobile phones, specific Slack channels, cloud storage).

3. Issuing a Clear, Written Notice: Oral instructions are not sufficient. The notice should be easy to understand and explicitly state what needs to be preserved and what actions custodians must stop (e.g., deleting emails, auto-deleting text messages, wiping devices).

4. Confirming and Tracking: Use legal hold software or a managed process to track custodian acknowledgments. Send automated reminders to those who haven’t confirmed receipt.

5. Implementing In-Place Preservation: Whenever possible, use technology to preserve data at the source. Tools like Microsoft 365 eDiscovery holds or Google Vault can preserve ESI in-place without disrupting employee workflows, providing a crucial backstop to custodian self-preservation.

The image shows AI-driven extraction of key people and roles from financial documents, an early step that can help eDiscovery teams quickly identify relevant custodians and entities.

The most common mistake is waiting too long to issue the hold. Another is failing to preserve data from modern sources like messaging apps (Slack, Teams) or mobile devices. In Safelite Group v. Nathaniel Lockridge (S.D. Ohio Sept. 2024), an individual defendant was sanctioned simply for failing to disable the auto-delete function on his phone.

Phase 2: Data Identification and Collection

Once data is preserved, the next step is to identify what is potentially relevant and collect it in a defensible  manner. This phase requires close collaboration with the client’s IT department and key custodians.

A typical, though non-exhaustive checklist may include:

• Email servers like Exchange, Microsoft 365, or Google Workspace

• File servers and laptops (network drives and local hard drives)

• Cloud storage such as OneDrive, Google Drive, Box, or Dropbox

• Collaboration platforms like Slack, Microsoft Teams, or Asana

• Mobile devices, texts, call logs, and app data

Audio eDiscovery (which can include voicemails, call center recordings, meeting audio and more) relies heavily on AI and phonetic speech technology to generate reliable transcripts. With V7 Go, transcripts typically exceed 95% accuracy, and advanced natural language processing captures context and relevancy even in complex conversations.

eDiscovery often involves a variety of formats that need to be collected and analyzed. Advanced AI platforms like V7 Go enable documents in every format to be processed, labelled and standardized, even handwritten notes. 

Always prioritize forensically sound collection methods that preserve metadata (the “data about data,” like creation dates and authors). Avoid simple “drag-and-drop” copying from a custodian's laptop, which alters metadata and can compromise authenticity. 

Using targeted collection tools or engaging an eDiscovery vendor ensures a defensible chain of custody, documenting that the data has not been altered from collection through production.

Phase 3: Processing and Data Reduction

Raw data collected from various sources is often unusable for legal review. The processing phase transforms this data into a standardized, reviewable format while culling irrelevant information to reduce costs.

Key technical steps include:

• De-duplication: Identifying and removing exact duplicate documents to avoid reviewing the same file multiple times. Exactly how far back to prune is often dependent on the nature of the case, information and process; if the same email was sent to six people, should it be preserved in full? Or one copy kept, and the recipients noted?

• File Filtering: Removing files that are clearly irrelevant, such as system files or file types that cannot contain responsive information (e.g., .exe files).

• Metadata Extraction: Pulling key metadata fields from each document (e.g., To, From, Date, Subject for emails) to make them searchable and sortable.

• Text Extraction and OCR: Converting documents into a searchable text format. Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is used for image-based files like scanned PDFs to make their text content searchable.

The goal is to shrink the mountain of data to a manageable molehill before incurring the high cost of attorney review. 

Modern intelligent document processing through platforms like V7 Go can significantly accelerate this phase, reducing data volumes by over 70% before human review even begins.

Phase 4: Document Review and Analysis

This is the most expensive and time-consuming phase of eDiscovery. A RAND Institute study found that document review accounts for 73% of total eDiscovery costs. The goal is for attorneys to assess each document for relevance, privilege, and key issues.

An effective review workflow can include:

• Linear Review: The traditional, page-by-page review method. While thorough, it's often inefficient for large datasets.

• Relevance Review: A first-pass review where attorneys make a simple “relevant” or “not relevant” coding decision.

• Privilege Review: A second-level review performed by more senior attorneys to identify documents protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. This is a critical step to prevent inadvertent disclosure.

• Issue-Specific Review: Attorneys tag documents for specific legal issues, facts, or key custodians to help build the case narrative.

Consistency is crucial. Review teams should be managed with a clear protocol, regular training, and quality control sampling to ensure reviewers are applying the coding criteria consistently. 

Human reviewers are more limited in the number of documents they can review per hour, especially if those documents are long or complex. This makes technical assistance essential for large cases. Tools that provide Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) can reduce review hours by up to 80%.

The key here is balancing the efficiency of AI with oversight and human judgment. V7 Go is built with this balance in mind: it explains its reasoning, points directly to supporting document fragments through AI citations, and invites attorneys to step in where needed. Each human correction strengthens the system, creating feedback loops that make the AI smarter and more reliable over time.

The image below shows this in action, with a reviewer overseeing and refining AI output inside V7 Go.

Phase 5: Production and Privilege Protection

The last step in eDiscovery is turning over the documents that matter, and just as importantly, holding back the ones that don’t.

Where there is no written agreement as to form of production, production formats are often a strategic as well as a practical choice :

• Native format (e.g., an Excel file in .xlsx) preserves formulas, metadata, and functionality, but it can also expose more than intended if hidden data or tracked changes slip through.

• TIFF or PDF images are the most common choice. They’re clean, static, and usually paired with searchable text files. This can be safer, but they strip away some functionality, which can sometimes matter in disputes over metadata or calculations.
  
  

Privilege Logs

Anything withheld under privilege needs to be carefully logged, with information justifying the privilege claim (e.g., author, recipient, date, privilege type), but without revealing the privileged content itself. Modern eDiscovery platforms can automate large parts of log creation. 

It's critical to have a robust quality assurance process to prevent the inadvertent production of privileged documents, which can lead to waiver of privilege.

Strategic Considerations and Optimization

Within that eDiscovery framework, how can law firms manage costs and operate more efficiently? The following section outlines practical recommendations for reducing eDiscovery expenses, building the right team structure, and leveraging technology to streamline every stage of the process

Three Effective Strategies for Managing eDiscovery Costs

With document review accounting for the bulk of expenses, effective cost management is a strategic imperative. Civil cases often reach more than 130 gigabytes of data, over 6.5 million pages. Without a clear strategy, costs can quickly spiral out of control.

1. Early Case Assessment and Budgeting

The best time to control costs is at the very beginning of a matter. Early Case Assessment (ECA) involves using analytics tools to quickly understand the data landscape—identifying key custodians, concepts, and time frames—before starting a full-scale review. This allows firms to develop a proportional discovery plan, negotiate a narrower scope with opposing counsel, and create a more realistic budget for the client.

2. Vendor Selection and Management

Choosing the right eDiscovery vendor is a critical decision. Look for partners who offer transparent, predictable pricing models. While per-gigabyte pricing is traditional, many vendors now offer per-user, subscription, or flat-rate models that can be more cost-effective for firms with consistent litigation volume. 

A strong vendor relationship is a partnership; they should provide not just technology but also strategic advice and project management support.

3. Balancing In-House with Outsourcing

Firms must decide whether to build in-house capabilities or outsource. Bringing eDiscovery in-house can reduce costs by 30-50% on recurring matters but requires investment in technology and skilled personnel. For firms with regular litigation, investing in an in-house platform can generate significant ROI.

On the other hand, for firms with sporadic or highly complex cases, outsourcing remains the safer and more cost-efficient route. 

The key is to match the approach to your firm’s caseload, risk profile, and long-term strategy. 

Building Effective eDiscovery Teams and Workflows

Efficiency in eDiscovery comes down to two things: clear roles and repeatable workflows. When responsibilities are well-defined, accountability is built in and handoffs between phases happen seamlessly.

Team roles:

• Partners/Senior Attorneys: Make strategic decisions, oversee the overall process, handle privilege review, and manage client communication.

• Associates/Staff Attorneys: Conduct the primary document review, make relevance determinations, and tag documents for key issues.

• Paralegals/Litigation Support: Manage the technology platform, coordinate with vendors, perform quality control checks, and prepare productions.

• IT Staff: Assist with data collection and liaise with the client’s IT department.

From automated data collection to AI-assisted review, technology multiplies what these teams can accomplish, with reduced costs, shrinking timelines, and a lowered risk of human error.

When and How to Integrate Technology Solutions

The decision to invest in eDiscovery technology should be driven by case volume, complexity, and client needs. For firms handling cases with significant ESI, a dedicated platform is no longer optional.

Evaluate technology based on its ability to integrate with your existing systems, its ease of use for your team, and its pricing transparency. Before committing, run a pilot project on a small case to test the platform’s capabilities and the vendor’s support.

AI for eDiscovery

As David Cohen, Esq., Partner at Reed Smith said during the 2024 "e-Discovery State of the Union" at Relativity Fest:

“It’s clear that the e-Discovery advances from generative AI are hands-down the biggest developments in e-Discovery in 2024, and probably, in the whole history of e-Discovery.”

Modern platforms like V7 Go demonstrate how AI is making advanced document processing more accessible. These tools use generative AI to automate complex review tasks, such as identifying key clauses in contracts or summarizing long documents, while always maintaining transparency. The system provides verifiable citations for its findings, ensuring attorneys retain full control and can validate every AI-generated insight. 

AI-assisted legal document processing doesn’t replace human judgment, but it does reduce the manual burden of large-scale review and attorneys to focus on higher-value strategic work. In many cases, this means cutting eDiscovery timelines by weeks while actually improving consistency and accuracy.