1. Project Management
Tools for E-Discovery
and Litigation Support
Two Firms Share Their Experience Designing and
Implementing Project Management Tools For
E-Discovery and Litigation Support

2. Panelists
 Steven Clark, Director of Litigation Support, Lathrop &
Gage
 Guy Wiggins, Director of Practice Management, Kelley
Drye & Warren

3. Background
 Initial Objectives
 Track and document client-related work
 Gain better visibility into firm needs & staff workload
 Creation of centralized “knowledge bank”
 Lay foundation for increased scalability
 Selection of Platform
 Criteria
 Web-based
 (Truly) Customizable
 Few obstacles to “buy in”
 Cost
 Options
 “Lit Support” specific tools
 Create your own market

4. Background
 Getting Started
 Identified goal(s) and what was important
 Sketched out what the tool should do
 Detailed the points/fields that needed to be captured

5. Overview of Current System
 Functionality of the Current System
 Mechanism to capture complete record of client-based work
Matters Tasks Activity
Case Team Members Type/Name Application/Tool Utilized
Office Date Requested/Due/Complete Details of Work Performed
Notes/Description Description Reference Files/Documents
Data Storage Reference Files/Documents Time Spent
Media Deliveries/Details
Assigned To
Status
 Track other department responsibilities (assets, applications, lit
holds)
 Benefits
 Transparency of workload/service levels
 Full reporting/administrative dashboard
 Permanent (and published) record
 Collaboration & accountability

6. Lathrop & Gage Overview
Track
Matters
Track
Tasks
Track
Activity
Other
Concerns

7. Lathrop & Gage Overview
Complete “Lifecycle” of a Matter…Matter
Info.
Case
Team
Members
Tasks
Activity
Media
Deliveries
Data
Storage

8. Vision for Future
 Plans for Additional Functionality
 Integration with other firm applications
 Email (MS Outlook)
 Time Capture (Elite)
 Increased exposure and interaction with non-Lit Support
members of the firm
 Embedded forms/reports for “public” consumption
 Developed workflows to increase efficiencies
 Expansion of User Base
 Dashboard and tailored reporting created for Firm
management (Chair of Lit., COO, CIO)
 Possible for Dept./Practice leaders

9. Kelley Drye & Warren Overview
 System Started with a Simple Form to Manage
Productions
 Expanded to Track all Document Load Requests
 Two Different Forms/Lists in SharePoint
 Would be nice to have one integrated database

10. Background
 Initial Objectives
 Reduce risk and errors around productions
 Create a central database of production specs
 Educate attorneys on production specs
 Gain better visibility into firm needs & staff workload
 Creation of centralized “knowledge bank”
 Improve workflow communications
 Selection of Platform - SharePoint
 No cost – we were already using it
 Almost no programming required
 Very quick and easy to build basic “workflow lite” tool

11. Functionality of Production
Form
 Form captures all information required for a production, Project Manager
assigns tasks, attorney and analyst are notified
Matters Tasks Activity
Database Type/Name Attorney certifies QC
Office Date Requested/Due/Complete Alerts notify attorney
Notes/Description Description Reference Files/Documents
Reference Files/Documents
Media Deliveries/Details
Assigned To
Status
 Benefits
 Form educates attorneys on all production specs
 Certification requirement by attorney improves QC and reduces risk
 Transparency of workload/service levels
 Permanent (and published) record
 Collaboration & accountability

12. Kelley Drye & Warren Overview

13. Kelley Drye & Warren Overview

14. Kelley Drye & Warren Overview
Example of a simple
OOTB SharePoint Alert

15. Data Loading Form
 Initial Objectives
 Make more user friendly – goal is to have attorneys fill this out
 Reduce risk and errors around data loads
 Educate attorneys on e-discovery specs
 Gain better visibility into firm needs & staff workload
 Creation of centralized “knowledge bank”
 Improve workflow communications
 Development Effort – not as OOTB
 More programming to build web form (could be done with
InfoPath – we used aspx)
 More sophisticated alerts also required programming

16. Functionality of Document
Loading Form
 Form Captures All Requests to Add Data to Any of Our Systems, Including
Concordance, CaseMap, TextMap
 Designed to be Client Facing – Attorneys Fill Out the Form
 Information From Form Kicks Off Alerts and Workflow
 Matters Tasks Activity
Client/Matter Status
Database Type/Name Analyst is notified
Office Date Requested/Due/Complete Alerts notify attorney of
status
Notes/Description Description Reference Files/Documents
Data size Reference Files/Documents
Media Deliveries/Details
Assigned To
 Benefits
 Form educates attorneys on all loading requirements specs
 Transparency of workload/service levels
 Permanent (and published) record
 Collaboration & accountability – workflow lite

17. Loading Request Form

18. Loading Request Form Details

19. Loading Request Alert

20. Vision for Future
 Plans for Additional Functionality
 Integration with other firm applications
 Email (MS Outlook)
 Time Capture (Aderant)
 Create reports to capture and analyze metrics
 Integrate the different lists into one system
 Will wait until SharePoint 2010 – MOSS is not very
relational
 Create KPI’s and a better dashboard for Lit Support
Managers

21. Tips for Getting Started
 Start Small – Solve a Pressing Problem
 Define the Problem You are Trying to Address
 Prioritize Your Needs
 Seek Staff Input/Wish Lists
 Relax…

22. Q&A