Managing litigation and work-product

Are two systems really needed just to manage my documents?

Legal offices are document factories — they take documents in as raw materials and produce documents as finished products. In this post we look at the rational and benefits behind MasterFile’s single document repository for evidence and work-product.

We now use MasterFile for every file we open, whether the file is a litigation file or a transaction file. … MasterFile has exceeded all of our expectations. … We would strongly recommend that any law firm – large or small, litigation or transaction oriented – consider MasterFile for their document management needs. — Nicholas Davies

Here’s what we’ll cover:

The problem and the conventional solution →
Can document management and litigation support be combined into one system? →
Should evidentiary documents be kept with work-product? →
The benefits of MasterFile for evidence and work-product →

The problem and the conventional solution

A BTI Consulting Group, Inc. study of corporate counsel identified the following 4 functions and activities most valued by clients in their counsels’ information systems:

Litigation Documentation.
Case Management.
Document Management.
Comprehensive search capabilities.

Now, although three of these are related to documents — litigation and work-product — conventional wisdom (and technology) suggests these be managed in two separate systems:

a litigation support system for evidence, and
a document management system for work-product

but what BTI don’t really point out, is that leaves you with the burdensome tasks of installing, configuring, maintaining, supporting and training your users on several possibly different technologies including databases, file servers, workstation software and special “Internet options” for mobile users, increasing cost and complexity for all.

Moreover, search presents a conundrum too. Imagine you had reviewed a client’s document (stored in your litigation support system), had some questions, and wrote to them — a copy of which is in your DM system. Your client replied, also requested a status update, set out some changes in strategy to consider and listed some some other administrative issues to go over. A week later when you come back to the matter, you had to

locate the original documents in your litigation support system.
locate your letter in your document management system.
locate your client’s reply — but the problem was where was it stored — in the document management system, the litigation support system, or in both — because the reply had set out new evidence for the litigation and other matters not evidentiary in nature.

Clearly something is wrong. Having two systems just to deal with documents simply does not make any sense.

Can document management and litigation support be combined into one system?

At MasterFile we took a fresh look at documents. We wondered: Why incur all the associated costs of acquisition, installation, support, security, and training, etc. for two major systems? Could one system be sufficient? Since litigation support and document management systems both dealt with ‘documents’ and were actually quite similar, in either system we could:

profile documents with their document type, author, recipient, document date and a summary,
classify documents by their matter or issue,
index documents’ contents so you can search to locate what you need,
able work on your documents when you’re away from the office,
bulk load existing documents, and
secure documents to limit access and help preserve confidentiality.

The differences lay in the types of documents they managed:

Litigation support helped search, sort and sift through evidence — static documents — that came in native file formats or on paper that was then scanned into TIFF or PDF or searchable PDF and stored.
Documents in DM systems underwent change and revision. Therefore, unlike litigation support systems, work product was stored primarily in native format as these documents required editing and revision. DM systems also controlled work-product so it was not scattered on users’ computers, in random server directories, or on flash drives, etc. and provided some other related features such as draft versions or document check-in/check-out.

It was clear to us that these differences were slight and the two systems could be merged into one without any loss of functionality.

Should evidentiary documents be kept with work-product?

Now some may argue work product documents and evidentiary documents should be kept separate — mainly because until now, existing technology left no other option. However, there are many advantages and logical reasons to keeping them together:

often pleadings, work-product and correspondence between opposing counsel becomes evidence itself for motions and applications, or contains admissions and/or stipulations blurring the line between “evidence” and “other” documents; and
primary evidence is often used with current correspondence, affidavits, etc. for pleadings so one system is conceptually less taxing for end-users as it’s one less issue to be concerned with when under pressure.

Nevertheless, MasterFile gives you that option too: simply set up two MasterFile databases for each case file and retain the all the benefits of one system in your organization.

Learn more about separating databases →

Using one system for evidence and work-product

At MasterFile we’ve developed the only document repository for both litigation and work product. It not only reduces costs, but in fact, brings out many new synergistic benefits. For example:

Everything works the same way whether you’re dealing with evidence, email or work-product.
The repository is a single-file-per-case architecture. Simply start with key evidentiary and/or work-product documents from one client/matter file and one user and then roll-out to other users as you incrementally expand its use within your organization for litigation or document management, or both, without disrupting your technology infrastructure or current practices.
That one-file-per-case technology is actually a “document-centric” design that imports documents in their native format and as PDF, storing both versions. Its unique views keep both evidence and work product automatically categorized for ready reference by date, author, issue, document type, etc. so you can pinpoint any document by browsing in just two or three clicks.
You can extract key information from work product as well as evidentiary documents on the fly by simply highlighting. Since these extracts stay visible while browsing, critical paragraphs in affidavits, contracts, etc. can be seen at a glance, saving hours of re-reading. When linking key information to issues and/or substantiating facts, your notes and argument you’re now drawing from all documents related to the case — whether work product or evidence.
Collaboration with others is also quick and easy: you can grant access to an entire case or to selected documents with the permissions you like (read only, edit, etc.) in two or three clicks and the new participant can begin work immediately (note that they would need a copy of MasterFile). Myriad configuration, security protocols and whatnot for multiple applications, and the time involved, is all eliminated.

MasterFile finally gives lawyers and litigators a comprehensive view of an entire case or matter — with everything related in one place.