Clients' cases depend on how well you can find evidence hidden in thousands of documents and emails. Using basic keyword searches returns overwhelming results that dilute critical evidence with irrelevant materials, while skipping helpful evidence entirely if the search terms don't match.
Missing key documents can weaken your case strategy and settlement position. But eDiscovery software can help surface relevant evidence through search techniques for data collection, processing, and indexing.
This guide provides details about how these platforms support your legal discovery process while complying with the protocols and evidentiary standards for defensible discovery. Finally, we will summarize what is changing in eDiscovery technology for small law firms.
eDiscovery software refers to specialized platforms that help small law firms manage the process of locating, collecting, and reviewing electronic documents and data during legal cases. During litigation, lawyers must wade through emails, text messages, PDFs, social media posts, and other Electronically Stored Information (ESI) to identify information that may be relevant to the case.
For small law firms that handle divorce matters, personal injury claims, employment disputes, or business litigation, eDiscovery software will make that overwhelming process more manageable.
Understanding what eDiscovery software provides is important—not just in general, but specifically for small firm needs. Because small law firms operate differently from large corporate legal departments, you need to examine the features closely to see which ones support your practice and caseload patterns.
Here, we've highlighted some of the most important features to consider:
Feature | Description |
Affordable Per-Case Or Per-Gigabyte Pricing Models | Small law firms face unpredictable caseloads, with some months bringing multiple eDiscovery cases while others bring none. eDiscovery software needs pricing that aligns costs with actual usage. That's how small practices make eDiscovery economically feasible. The system even supports per-case pricing where firms pay only for active matters, per-gigabyte storage fees based on actual data volume processed, and month-to-month subscriptions with no lengthy commitments. |
Simple Data Collection And Upload | User-friendly collection is another important functionality for small firms. By user-friendly, we mean tools with drag-and-drop upload or email collector integration that support small firms where attorneys with limited technical resources need to collect evidence directly from clients and opposing parties. And the software supports this through cloud storage connectors pulling directly from Dropbox and Google Drive, automatic file format detection, and collection progress tracking. That level of simplicity removes barriers preventing small firms from handling eDiscovery independently. |
User-Friendly Document Review Interface | One of the most valuable features attorneys can have is a truly intuitive review platform that does not require extensive training. Instead of undergoing rigorous training on how to follow complex workflow processes before even reviewing documents, you can open the platform and start working with emails, PDFs, and presentations. In fact, numerous eDiscovery platforms even provide side-by-side comparison tools, threaded email display, and annotation capabilities to ensure that whenever you review documents, you can highlight key information and navigate seamlessly. This works whether you are working on laptops or tablets without delegating contract reviewers. |
Built-In Search And Filtering | Another important functionality is the ability to quickly find relevant documents when reviewing hundreds or thousands of files for case significance. eDiscovery platforms are equipped with multi-faceted search functionality, including keyword search, Boolean operators, date range filtering, custodian filtering, file type filtering, and much more. This keeps case teams efficient and reduces the time wasted on manual sequential review, which takes far too long when trying to locate responsive materials for production. |
Small law firms using the right eDiscovery software gain competitive advantages in case efficiency and client billing. Based on our research, here are the most significant benefits you'll experience:
Bill Clients More Reasonably For Document Review
When clients receive bills for extensive manual review, work that software could have processed much faster, they question why a simple review costs so much. The software cuts review time through automated deduplication and search, focusing on relevant materials. You bill your clients for time spent on productive analysis rather than time spent reviewing documents. Plus, you can confidently explain the charges to your client—’ we used eDiscovery software, reducing review from 20 hours to 5 hours, saving you $X’.
Organize Evidence Supporting Your Case
It can help you systematically organize the facts as you are reviewing them, whether using tagging or coding to mark the documents supporting each claim, or organizing documents by legal issues. Because discovery typically produces thousands of raw documents, organizing the material manually in a paper binder takes significant time. And the firm is, again, losing valuable hours reorganizing all evidence before motion deadlines or trial preparation.
Maintain Control Over Sensitive Client Information
On the security side, these solutions keep client materials within your control from collection through production. So, if a client has a legitimate concern about where their sensitive business records are located, you never give that document to the outside vendor, thereby reducing security risks while maintaining tighter control over attorney-client privilege.
Compete With Larger Firms On Document-Heavy Matters
It gives small firms access to capabilities that large firms' resources provide. Often, prospective clients think a small firm cannot handle their case because of their need for extensive electronic discovery. However, when you credibly explain your eDiscovery workflows, you now compete on legal expertise, instead of being ruled out in favor of a larger firm with more manpower.
Some standard factors worth checking when evaluating eDiscovery software include intuitive interfaces, search capabilities, and document review features. But beyond these are deal-breaker concerns that small firms, serious about handling eDiscovery independently, simply cannot ignore.
Calculate True Cost Per Case, Not Just Subscription Fees
eDiscovery software pricing varies in structure and actual cost. Some vendors may offer a low monthly subscription model, but charge substantial processing fees per gigabyte, storage, and seats, making small cases unaffordable. Other vendors offer a per-case pricing model and include everything in that fee.
So, to evaluate realistic costs for your anticipated cases, you need to understand how many gigabytes typically pertain to your cases and how many cases you work annually. Subscription fees that seem affordable can become very expensive when processing and storage fees are charged, and per-case pricing may demonstrate better value for limited use.
Verify Vendor Provides Adequate Training Resources
Small firms need to learn eDiscovery software independently without relying on extensive vendor training. You need to evaluate available learning resources—whether there are comprehensive written guides or video tutorials. Or if the training materials are actually helpful or just feature lists.
We suggest you test the training materials during the demo—do you feel confident you can accomplish the task you need to get done using the materials, or do you get stuck and have to rely on the vendor for every task? Some vendors provide detailed documentation so you can learn on your own. Alternatively, some vendors provide very limited learning material, and they push training services that you can’t afford as a small firm.
Understand What Counts As A ‘Case’ For Billing Purposes
Per-case pricing sounds straightforward until you encounter edge cases where definitions become unclear. The same case may count as a new case if it is reopened. Related matters that arise from underlying facts may count as one or multiple cases. Discovery disputes requiring separate productions might be charged separately.
You must therefore clarify these definitions explicitly in contracts before committing—what happens if you need to reproduce documents with different redactions, whether you can maintain multiple document sets within one case, and how vendors define ‘case’ for billing.
Verify Compliance With Jurisdiction-Specific Requirements
Different jurisdictions have varying discovery rules and electronic production requirements. If you practice in multiple states or federal courts, you need to verify that the platform accommodates jurisdictional variation. Whether you can create productions that follow a different state's rules, different Bates numbering protocols, and have the ability to generate privilege logs with the flexibility of a separate local rule.
We highly recommend checking for flexibility with jurisdictional variations during your assessment. This is because some platforms without this flexibility create problems when handling cases with varying requirements.
The eDiscovery landscape is progressing rapidly, and with it, the pressure on small firms to process larger volumes of data with limited resources is increasing. As Travis McConnell, an attorney at Ready Legal, states:
"eDiscovery tools are essential in the 21st Century. The volume of documents, emails, and plans can be overwhelming. These tools make it possible to sort, search, and organize materials quickly and accurately, which is critical when preparing for depositions or trial."
That might be the reason why the global eDiscovery market is projected to reach $39.25 billion by 2032.
That market growth narrates a familiar story to many small firms: discovery volumes are outpacing human capacity. And manually reviewing today's data loads is nearly impossible. Therefore, law firms with limited resources are turning to AI-powered eDiscovery that uses natural language processing and predictive coding to automate document review. According to Al-Karim Makhani, VP, EMEA and APAC, London:
"As law firms integrate AI, junior lawyers will play a pivotal role in adopting and refining these tools. Firms should invest. Where budgets constrain investment at the level requisite to manifest real change, they should forge partnerships with academic institutions and technologists to quickly upskill their teams. This will ensure junior lawyers shape the future of legal work and add strategic value to the firm."
But it is also important to note that even the latest AI engines do not provide a full solution. Robert Wagner, Global Director of Multilingual eDiscovery based in London, explains that "the new type of AI engines... are significantly better at working through... linguistic shortcuts, abbreviations, and typos commonly seen in chat data." Yet he cautions these tools "should still be considered a halfway house"—and should be seen as a tool that cannot fully replace the review process of a human.
Small firms evaluating eDiscovery platforms should prioritize solutions that balance AI efficiency with human oversight.
We've shown you what a genuine small-firm-focused eDiscovery platform performs like throughout this guide. It approaches pricing in a way that aligns with variable caseloads. It provides user-friendly interfaces that attorneys can use without needing a technical background. It retains control of your client's documents from collection to production without relying on external vendors.
Use those distinctions to weigh your options—because purchasing a platform designed for enterprise legal departments creates problems that extend far beyond budget. It creates barriers that prevent you from competing on document-heavy matters and forces you into billing conversations where clients question why simple review costs so much. The right eDiscovery platform removes these obstacles to allow you to compete based on your legal talent rather than technical capacity.