Understanding the Typical RFP Response Process

The RFP response process can differ across law firms, but the structure stays largely consistent: review, plan, collect, and produce.

This process applies to nearly every firm managing discovery, regardless of size or the client’s industry. The objective is to deliver an effective RFP response that meets all procedural and court requirements while protecting confidential information.

When a request for production arrives, the legal team follows a defined sequence to stay organized and compliant. Here’s how the process typically unfolds:

• Review the request: Read each request carefully to understand its key requirements, including scope, date range, and document categories.
• Identify custodians: Determine which individuals or departments hold the relevant records or data.
• Preserve evidence: Issue a legal hold to suspend automatic deletions and prevent data loss.
• Collect documents: Gather files from servers, emails, cloud systems, and shared drives.
• Review for privilege: Examine each document for sensitive, privileged, or confidential information.
• Produce and log: Deliver responsive materials in the agreed format and maintain a detailed production log.

Although each firm may adjust this sequence to fit its internal systems, following a consistent RFP process helps maintain accuracy, defensibility, and smoother communication between parties.

10 Best Practices For Responding to RFPs

Responding to discovery requests can feel repetitive, but having a clear plan makes the process much easier to manage. These RFP response best practices help you stay organized, protect privileged data, and meet every deadline with confidence.

1. Read Every Request Carefully

It might sound obvious, but this step shapes the quality of your entire response. Every RFP should be read word-for-word, and this means checking for grammatical errors, unclear language, or missing definitions that could create confusion later.

Small mistakes in wording can change the meaning of a request, so it helps to compare it against past RFPs to see if the phrasing or scope has shifted.

Pro tip: Using RFP automation can make this process smoother by highlighting variations, tracking common phrasing, and flagging inconsistencies automatically.

When drafting new responses, note each request’s timeframe, topic, and format requirements. Highlight vague terms like “all communications” or “any records,” since those may need clarification before you begin collecting documents.

Many teams keep a shared tracker for each RFP, which records the assigned attorney, relevant custodians, and upcoming deadlines. That extra step keeps everyone on the same page and prevents inconsistent or incomplete responses down the line.

2. Identify Objections Early

Raising discovery objections early helps set clear boundaries for what will and won’t be produced. It also helps save time later by preventing unnecessary document reviews and disputes.

Courts expect clear, specific objections to every request, especially during propounding discovery, where each party must balance thoroughness with protecting privileged material.

That’s why it’s best to identify potential issues as soon as the RFP arrives rather than waiting until the production deadline approaches.

When reviewing each request, look for areas that might require clarification or limitation. Typical grounds for objection include:

• The request is overly broad or unduly burdensome
• The request seeks privileged or confidential material
• The information isn’t relevant to any claim or defense
• The data has already been produced or is easily accessible elsewhere

You can check out this discovery objections cheat sheet to learn more.

Documenting your objections and discussing them early gives both sides a chance to narrow the scope and focus on what actually matters to the case. You can also share your reasoning with the client to keep them informed and aligned.

Over time, tracking objections across multiple cases provides key insights into recurring issues, which can help your team respond more efficiently and consistently in future productions.

3. Communicate With Opposing Counsel

Clear communication with opposing counsel can prevent misunderstandings that often lead to disputes or duplicate work.

One of the most common mistakes during discovery is assuming both sides interpret a request the same way. Without early discussions, teams might collect far more (or far less) than what’s actually needed, making the process unnecessarily time-consuming.

For example, imagine a case where one side requests “all financial communications.” A quick call between counsel could narrow that to a six-month window and limit it to messages between specific departments.

That small clarification saves days of collection and review, especially for large corporations with thousands of files.

Open dialogue also helps level expectations regardless of company size. Smaller firms might have fewer resources and need more time to respond, while larger organizations may require agreement on custodians or data systems.

These conversations often reveal more insights about how the other side structures their review process, which can guide your own strategy.

4. Preserve Relevant Data

Once an RFP document is received, the first priority is to make sure nothing relevant gets lost or deleted. Preserving data protects your case and builds credibility in discovery.

Legal teams should issue a litigation hold right away to cover all potential sources of evidence. Failing to preserve files can lead to sanctions or weakened positions in court.

Examples of relevant data often include:

• Emails and attachments related to the dispute
• Internal chat messages from platforms like Teams or Slack
• Shared drive files, including spreadsheets, PDFs, and images
• System logs or metadata showing document history
• Archived backups that might store older communications

These bullet points show just how many areas can hold responsive information. The scope of preservation depends on the claims, time period, and other factors such as the client’s data systems and storage policies.

Documenting what’s preserved, when, and by whom creates a defensible record if questions arise later. Taking preservation seriously early in the process helps avoid complications and keeps every RFP response accurate and complete.

5. Collect Documents Methodically

A well-organized collection process keeps your RFP response accurate and defensible. Rather than gathering files randomly, follow a structured plan that aligns with the RFP requirements.

Start by identifying custodians and data sources, then coordinate with IT or discovery specialists to retrieve the information in a consistent format. Keeping a log of when and where each file came from helps maintain traceability if questions arise later.

Referencing previous RFP responses can also make the collection faster. Many firms maintain a content library of common documents, templates, or exhibits used in similar cases.

Plus, reviewing this library before starting a new collection can reveal overlaps or reusable materials, which, in turn, can save hours of unnecessary work.

During collection, avoid mixing responsive and nonresponsive data. Each file should be verified for completeness and categorized by request number or subject. When done methodically, this process prevents missed documents, reduces duplication, and simplifies later review.

6. Review for Privilege and Confidentiality

Before producing any documents, take time to review for privilege and confidentiality. This step prevents the accidental disclosure of sensitive material and maintains the integrity of your client’s case.

Both concepts serve different purposes, but often overlap during document review:

• Privilege protects communications between attorneys and clients that were made for legal advice.
• Confidentiality covers sensitive business, personal, or proprietary information that should not be shared publicly.

For example, an internal email between a company’s general counsel and a manager discussing legal risk would be privileged. Meanwhile, a spreadsheet containing customer data or trade secrets would be confidential. Both should be handled carefully.

Teams often use software filters, tagging systems, or secondary reviews to identify these materials before production. Redactions may be applied to portions of documents that contain protected content while allowing the rest to be shared.

Maintaining a privilege log listing each withheld document, its date, author, and reason, helps keep the process transparent.

7. Use Bates Numbering and Metadata

Consistent numbering and clear metadata are the foundation of an organized RFP response. Bates numbering assigns a unique ID to each page or file (for example, ABC_0001234), helping everyone in the case reference the same document without confusion.

Meanwhile, metadata adds searchable context, like author name, creation date, and file type, which keeps productions transparent and traceable.

Together, these details make document management smoother during review, motion practice, and depositions.

For example, if a deposition witness refers to “the July report,” having the Bates-stamped version (DEF_0004521) lets all parties identify the same page instantly. It also reduces disputes about what was produced and when.

Applying Bates numbers and managing metadata manually, however, can take hours or even days for large productions. That’s where RFP automation tools can change everything.

Briefpoint’s upcoming Autodoc feature eliminates the manual work entirely. It auto-drafts RFP responses, adds Bates numbering and page-level citations, and packages everything for download in just seconds.

Autodoc can process each request in 3–10 seconds, which can turn weeks of discovery work into one upload.

Join the waitlist for Autodoc today. Be first in line to end discovery work for good and let your next RFP production build itself.

8. Produce Documents in the Agreed Format

Another obvious tip, but it’s one that saves endless headaches. Before producing anything, confirm the agreed format with opposing counsel, whether that’s PDFs, TIFF images, or native files with metadata.

Producing in the wrong format often leads to rework, disputes, or even motions to compel. But when both sides understand how files will be delivered, the process moves faster and with fewer surprises.

Every production package should have clear headings and a logical folder structure. Labeling folders by request number, custodian, or topic helps everyone navigate the materials quickly. It also shows attention to detail, which can strengthen your credibility in discovery.

Once everything is reviewed, numbered, and labeled, perform a quick quality check before submission. Confirm that all Bates numbers are visible, metadata is intact, and no privileged files slipped through. This final step helps you feel confident that your production is defensible and complete.

9. Maintain a Production Log

Keeping a production log may seem routine, but it’s one of the simplest ways to improve quality and accountability in discovery.

A well-maintained log tracks what was produced, when it was delivered, and to whom. This creates a complete record that can be referenced if any issues arise later. It also makes rolling productions easier to manage and keeps your team aligned across multiple requests.

Your production log should include details like:

• Production date – When the documents were sent to opposing counsel
• Bates range – The specific numbering sequence for that batch
• Recipient – The party or firm receiving the production
• Description – A short summary of what that production includes
• Notes – Any clarifications or special handling instructions

These entries might seem small, but together they build a clear trail of accountability. Over time, analyzing your logs can also highlight recurring issues or inefficiencies that your team can fix to improve quality in future productions.

10. Review Responses Before Submission

Before sending anything out, take time to review every RFP response for accuracy and consistency. This final check ensures that objections align with what’s been produced and that no privileged or confidential documents were accidentally included.

Cross-check your production against the submission instructions from opposing counsel or the court. Make sure the file formats, naming conventions, and delivery methods match what was agreed upon.

If the instructions specify a secure portal or particular labeling method, confirm that everything meets those standards before sending.

Many teams assign a second reviewer (someone who hasn’t worked on the earlier stages) to spot inconsistencies or missing files. Reviewing responses with fresh eyes helps catch small errors, such as broken Bates sequences or mislabeled folders.

Once the review is complete and the package matches the submission instructions, you can send it off knowing your production is accurate and ready for review.

End Manual Discovery Work For Good With Briefpoint

Responding to RFPs is demanding work, especially when you’re managing dozens of requests, tight deadlines, and thousands of pages. Following these RFP response best practices helps create a process that’s consistent, defensible, and less stressful.

The more structure and documentation you build into your legal workflow, the more control you’ll have over accuracy and turnaround time.

But even the best manual process still takes hours of review and organization. Briefpoint was designed for exactly this kind of work.

Built for real legal teams, Briefpoint automates drafting and document preparation so you can focus on the parts of discovery that truly need your expertise.

And now, with Autodoc, Briefpoint is taking discovery automation to the next level. Autodoc turns productions and case files into ready-to-serve discovery responses, complete with Bates numbering, page-level citations, and auto-drafted RFP answers in just seconds.

If you’re ready to save weeks of manual review and make your next production effortless, join the waitlist for Autodoc and be first in line to end discovery work for good.

Want to see how Briefpoint works? Schedule a demo today.

What is Everlaw?

Everlaw is an eDiscovery and litigation software designed to help legal professionals manage the complex process of handling electronic data during lawsuits, investigations, and regulatory matters.

For many attorneys, the challenge isn’t just the volume of documents but finding the relevant information quickly enough to support their case.

Everlaw addresses this by giving teams organized tools for data management, document review, and case preparation, all in one secure platform.

Source: G2

Litigation often involves millions of files ranging from emails to spreadsheets. Without the right system, reviewing this data can consume hours of valuable time.

Everlaw makes the process more manageable with advanced search tools, tagging features, and collaborative review. This usually helps attorneys complete due diligence faster and more reliably.

And because it’s cloud-based, attorneys can access and share information securely, even when working across different offices.

Key Features

• Advanced document review: Attorneys can filter, search, and tag documents at scale, which helps them identify relevant information faster.
• Data management: Handles large sets of electronic data while keeping files organized and easy to access.
• E-discovery workflow: Provides end-to-end support for the eDiscovery process, from document collection through review and production.
• Collaboration tools: Legal professionals can share notes, comments, and highlights within the system.
• Story-building and timelines: Helps teams connect evidence to case strategy, improving how arguments are presented.
• Secure cloud platform: Meets strict security standards while allowing remote access across different devices.

Why You Might Want an Alternative to Everlaw

Everlaw is respected in the litigation and eDiscovery space, but it may not fit every situation. Different law firms and corporate legal teams have unique needs when it comes to data processing, regulatory compliance, network security, and much more.

While Everlaw offers a strong set of tools, many attorneys and legal departments look for alternative solutions that better match their workflows, budgets, and case requirements.

Here are some common reasons professionals consider Everlaw competitors:

• Cost concerns: Many law firms need scalable pricing options that align with smaller cases or limited budgets.
• Complexity of features: Advanced technology is valuable, but teams with lighter caseloads may prefer simpler solutions with a shorter learning curve.
• Scalability issues: Not all firms handle massive document sets, so paying for enterprise-level tools isn’t always practical.
• Regulatory compliance: Some organizations require platforms with specialized compliance certifications or region-specific hosting.
• Data processing flexibility: Alternatives may offer faster or more customizable workflows for ingesting and reviewing electronic data.
• Support and training: Personalized onboarding and responsive customer service can be deciding factors for firms with limited tech staff.
• Network security options: Some competitors provide additional hosting or security controls beyond Everlaw’s cloud-only model.

If your firm wants an alternative to expensive eDiscovery solutions, Briefpoint’s Autodoc offers a smarter path forward.

It automates the creation of discovery documents and litigation drafts directly from reviewed data. However, you don’t get the steep costs or complexity of traditional platforms. 

Request Early Access Today.

5 Top Competitors of Everlaw

If Everlaw feels like more than what your team needs, you’re not alone. Many law firms look at other options that make eDiscovery and litigation solutions easier to manage, and a few competitors stand out as strong alternatives:

1. RelativityOne

RelativityOne is one of the most widely recognized eDiscovery platforms in the legal industry. It’s used by top law firms and corporations that need reliable tools for managing large-scale litigation and investigations.

Source: Relativity.com

Known for its ability to handle massive data sets, RelativityOne offers flexibility for teams that must review, search, and produce documents under tight deadlines.

The platform also supports information governance and compliance, which makes it valuable for organizations that deal with sensitive or regulated data.

With its strong infrastructure and advanced features, RelativityOne has become a go-to choice for teams needing a complete system that covers everything from early case assessment to final production.

Best Features

• Early case assessment: Helps attorneys quickly filter large data sets to focus only on the most relevant information before moving deeper into review.
• Artificial intelligence: Uses predictive coding and machine learning to speed up document categorization and review.
• Information governance: Offers tools for monitoring, securing, and organizing data across departments and cases.
• Flexible document production: Built-in features simplify how teams prepare and produce documents for litigation or regulatory matters.
• Global scalability: Designed for corporations and firms handling cases across multiple regions and jurisdictions.

2. Nextpoint

Nextpoint is a cloud-based software built for eDiscovery and trial preparation, designed to support law firms, corporations, and even government agencies that want a more affordable option than larger enterprise systems.

Unlike many complex tools, it aims to give attorneys practical case management features without overloading them with unnecessary steps.

Source: G2

One of the standout parts of Nextpoint is its “digital warroom,” where legal teams can organize exhibits, depositions, and evidence for hearings or trials. This makes it easier to shift from discovery into actual case presentation, a step often overlooked by other platforms.

Nextpoint is frequently mentioned among Everlaw alternatives because of its flexible pricing and approachable design. While it may not have every advanced feature that large-scale systems offer, it delivers the essentials in a way that’s easy to adopt.

Best Features

• Digital warroom: Provides a dedicated space for organizing exhibits, depositions, and trial evidence so attorneys can move smoothly from review to case presentation.
• Cloud-based software: Ensures secure access to documents from any location, which is especially valuable for distributed teams and remote collaboration.
• Affordable pricing models: Offers subscription plans that fit the budgets of small and mid-sized firms without sacrificing core functionality.
• Simple uploads and reviews: Allows fast data processing with drag-and-drop tools, making it easy to start new matters quickly.
• Case management tools: Combines discovery and trial preparation features to give attorneys a single platform for handling the full litigation process.

3. DISCO Ediscovery

DISCO Ediscovery is a modern litigation platform designed to simplify how attorneys and corporate teams handle document review. 

Positioned as one of the strongest Everlaw competitors, it focuses on speed, automation, and a user-friendly design that appeals to firms of all sizes.

Source: G2

When clients and legal teams need to analyze large volumes of data quickly, DISCO provides a clear advantage by reducing the time spent on manual review.

How Everlaw compares to DISCO often comes down to usability. While Everlaw has a broad set of features, DISCO emphasizes a faster learning curve and automated tools that assist attorneys in organizing and reviewing evidence.

Overall, it has built a reputation in the market as a platform that balances advanced capabilities with practical design, which is why many other users highlight it as an accessible alternative.

Best Features

• Fast data analysis: Built to analyze and filter massive data sets quickly to make reviews less time-consuming.
• AI-assisted review: Uses automation to categorize, tag, and prioritize documents, which helps focus on the most important files.
• Transparent pricing: Offers clear cost structures that make budget evaluation simpler for law firms and corporate teams.
• Client-focused tools: Designed to help attorneys collaborate with clients and colleagues during review and production.
• Free demo available: Firms can test the platform before committing, so they have a chance to compare features against Everlaw and other alternatives.

4. Logikcull

Logikcull is a self-service eDiscovery platform built to help law firms, business teams, and government organizations manage discovery without heavy IT involvement.

It has become one of the more popular Everlaw alternatives because it combines automation with affordability, which can give attorneys an efficient way to handle cases from start to finish.

Source: G2

Logikcull is typically used for smaller matters where teams want a fast way to upload data, apply filters, and prepare documents for review or production. Its design focuses on reducing the risks of manual handling by automating repetitive steps.

This makes it useful for firms or in-house counsel who need a straightforward solution to serve both litigation and compliance needs.

Best Features

• Automated uploads: Users can drag and drop files directly into the system, which speeds up the start of any project.
• Smart filtering and analytics: Built-in analytics help teams quickly find relevant material while cutting down on unnecessary review.
• Legal hold requests: Provides tools for issuing and tracking a request to preserve data to help protect against evidence loss.
• Cost control features: Offers predictable pricing and keeps details transparent, so firms avoid billing surprises.
• Data security and protection: Designed to safeguard sensitive information while meeting the compliance needs of both firms and businesses.

5. Nuix Neo Discover

Nuix Neo Discover takes a different approach compared to many of the other Everlaw competitors. 

Instead of being designed only for law firms, it has its roots in digital forensics and compliance, which makes it a strong option for government investigations and regulated industries.

This background gives it a unique appeal for teams that need more than simple document review; they need a tool that can process complicated data and keep up with strict oversight requirements.

Source: G2

Unlike other cloud solutions for law firms, Nuix offers both cloud and on-premise deployment. That flexibility is important for organizations that prefer to keep sensitive data within their own infrastructure. It also means firms with specific security policies aren’t locked into one way of working.

While Nuix may require more training than lighter tools, the trade-off is a system that can handle massive volumes of material, manage compliance, and support litigation projects with forensic-level precision.

Best Features

• Deployment flexibility: Choose between cloud hosting and on-premise systems depending on security and compliance requirements.
• Forensic-grade processing: Handles diverse file formats, making it suitable for investigations and complex litigation.
• Advanced search tools: Powerful filtering and searching across emails, chats, and structured or unstructured data.
• Compliance support: Designed to meet standards for regulated industries and government oversight.
• Case-ready output: Prepares material efficiently for review, analysis, and submitting evidence.

Replace Expensive eDiscovery Solutions with Briefpoint’s Autodoc

Choosing between Everlaw competitors often comes down to what your team values most, which might include scalability, pricing, compliance, or usability.

Each of the solutions above helps legal professionals make sense of overwhelming volumes of data. But once that data is reviewed and evidence is ready, the real work of litigation continues: drafting discovery responses, motions, and pleadings.

Many attorneys still spend hours repeating the same steps across different cases, and it takes away from the time that could be spent on higher-value work.

Briefpoint bridges that space. It doesn’t replace your eDiscovery platform but works alongside it. After documents are processed and reviewed, Briefpoint and its Autodoc technology can transform that information into fully drafted litigation documents in minutes.

Want to learn more? Book a demo with Briefpoint today to see how it works alongside your eDiscovery tools!

What is Bates Numbering?

Bates numbering or Bates stamping is a system used in the legal field to assign unique identifiers to pages in a document set. Each page receives a number in sequence, often with a case code or prefix, which makes it simple to reference and track.

For example, a page might be labeled as “CASE000123,” which shows both the case and the page order.

The method began with mechanical stamping devices but is now almost always handled through software. This allows law firms to apply numbers to thousands of pages quickly and consistently, reducing the risk of missed or duplicated references.

Bates numbers are especially valuable during discovery, when large volumes of documents are exchanged between parties. They provide a reliable way to cite specific pages in motions, depositions, or hearings without confusion.

Outside of automating legal discovery, firms also use them for compliance, internal record keeping, and accurate indexing of files.

While the concept is simple, Bates numbering has become a standard practice because it creates order and accountability in cases where document volume can be overwhelming.

Bates Numbering Made Faster with Briefpoint Autodoc

Bates numbering makes document productions more reliable, but even with best practices, it can take teams hours or even weeks to get through discovery. The legal industry has long accepted this as part of the job, but that’s changing.

Tools like Briefpoint’s upcoming Autodoc move past manual review and turn entire productions into ready-to-serve discovery responses in seconds.

But Autodoc doesn’t just apply Bates numbers. It auto-drafts each request for production, cites directly to the exact Bates pages, and packages the finished response with the production itself.

What used to take weeks of reading, tagging, and drafting can now be done in the time it takes to upload a set of files.

Early access is open, but seats are limited. Join the waitlist to be among the first to replace page-by-page review with an upload and download workflow.

• Auto-drafts every RFP
• Cites to Bates numbers and page-level content
• Produces responses in 3–10 seconds per request
• Packages discovery responses and productions for immediate use

Sign up for Early Access to Briefpoint Autodoc today and end discovery work for good.

Best Practices for Bates Numbering

Applying Bates numbers may seem straightforward, but consistency matters if you want documents to stay organized and defensible in court.

Following a few best practices helps avoid errors and keeps every page easy to reference. Take these into consideration:

1. Use a Consistent Numbering Format

It may sound like a simple step, but keeping a consistent numbering format is the foundation of proper Bates numbering.

Without it, tracking large volumes of material quickly becomes confusing, especially when multiple documents are combined into a single production set. 

Consistency means that every page follows the same pattern, whether you are working with scanned paper files or digital PDF files.

A good practice is to decide on the identifying elements you want to include, such as a case prefix or client code, followed by a fixed number of digits.

For example, “ABC000001” is easier to reference than “ABC1” because the leading zeros keep everything aligned and sortable. The number of digits should remain the same throughout, so the pages line up correctly when organized electronically.

When applying numbers, software tools often allow you to click “insert Bates number” across an entire batch, which saves time and keeps the format uniform. This is especially important when you need to reference legal documents later in motions, depositions, or court filings.

2. Apply Bates Numbers Sequentially Without Gaps

Bates numbering only works if the sequence is unbroken. Sequentially numbering pages makes legal documents easier to manage, especially when dealing with productions that span thousands of files.

If numbers are skipped or repeated, it can create confusion and raise concerns about missing material. 

When using PDF software, you can set a starting number and let the system apply consecutive numbers across the entire batch. This is useful when handling more than one document at a time because the numbering continues throughout, rather than restarting with each file.

The result is a clean reference number system that makes organization easier later.

Best practices include:

• Number every page, including blank or cover sheets
• Pick a consistent starting number, like “000001”
• Avoid restarting for one document within a larger set
• Verify that no pages were skipped during processing

Applying sequential numbers across all pages keeps your record reliable and ensures each document can be cited without confusion.

3. Place Numbers in a Non-Intrusive, Consistent Location

Once you decide on a numbering format, the next step is deciding where those numbers should appear.

The goal is to make them visible without covering text, signatures, or important details. Traditionally, lawyers used a Bates automatic numbering machine, a physical stamp that pressed numbers onto each page.

With that method, the lower right corner was the most common choice, because it left the rest of the page untouched.

Today, digital tools make it easy to apply the same rule. When you open files in PDF software, you can easily add consecutive numbers to every page in a set, and the program will place them in the same location across the batch.

For instance, you can set the numbers to always appear in the bottom margin of each page, which keeps them uniform and out of the way.

This consistency matters when dealing with large productions. If some pages are stamped at the top and others at the bottom, it slows down the review and makes references harder.

Whether you are numbering one document or need to add folders full of files, choosing a single location and sticking to it helps keep your records professional and easy to follow.

4. Keep a Log or Index of Bates Ranges

Applying Bates numbers is only part of the process. To make the system useful, firms should also maintain a log or index of Bates ranges.

This record shows which files were stamped, what their Bates prefix was, and how the pages are grouped. Essentially, it acts as a quick reference when someone needs to search across large sets of documents without checking each page manually.

An index is especially valuable in document management, where hundreds of files may share the same case numbers. When you track ranges, you can confirm at a glance that all materials were included and that no overlap occurred when you add Bates numbering to multiple files.

A clear log should include details such as:

• The Bates prefix assigned to the document set
• The starting and ending numbers in the sequence
• A description of the page content or file type
• Related case numbers for cross-reference

With this approach, lawyers and staff don’t have to guess where a document belongs. Instead, they can consult the index, locate the correct reference, and move directly to the material they need.

5. Automate When Possible and Double-Check Output

Large productions can involve thousands of pages, from medical records to complex litigation files. Of course, trying to stamp each one by hand wastes time and risks mistakes.

Modern PDF tools let you apply Bates numbering automatically, even across multiple PDFs at once, so you don’t have to restart sequences or worry about duplicates. Automation keeps page numbers consistent while letting you focus on document review.

Examples of automation include:

• Batch processing multiple PDFs: Apply Bates numbering to an entire folder at once so that every file receives consecutive numbering without restarting for each document. This is especially useful when handling discovery responses with hundreds of files.
• Custom alphanumeric strings: Add case codes, prefixes, or client identifiers so that numbers reflect the context of the matter, e.g., “MED000123” for medical records or “CASE2025-0001” for litigation files.
• Automatic continuation across files: Instead of resetting for every specific document, the numbering sequence carries forward, which avoids giving two pages the same number.
• Consistent placement on every page: Software applies the number in the same page position across the batch. This helps keep the format professional and easy to read during review.

But even with automation, always check how many pages were stamped and confirm sequences remain unbroken.

What is Legal Document Creation Software?

Legal document creation software (often called legal document automation software or legal document assembly software) helps law firms and legal teams handle the document creation process with less manual effort.

Contrary to popular belief, it’s not limited to writing from scratch. These tools can also draft contracts, review complex legal documents, and manage approvals, edits, and e-signatures in one system.

Here’s what they often cover:

• Drafting contracts, pleadings, discovery requests, and forms
• Pulling client or case data directly into documents
• Reviewing agreements with AI tools that flag issues
• Keeping everything organized with version control and secure storage

According to the 2024 ABA Legal Technology Survey, nearly 30% of law firms reported using AI-powered tools for legal work—up from just 11% the year before. The biggest reason cited was efficiency, with most firms saying these tools save valuable time.

For many firms, legal document creation software is now less of a nice-to-have and more of a practical step toward handling documents faster and with fewer errors.

Top 5 Legal Document Creation Tools

There are plenty of legal document creation software options on the market, each built with different strengths. Some focus on litigation drafting, others on contract workflows, and some are designed for firms that need full case management.

To give you a clear picture, we’ll look at five tools that represent a variety of use cases and applications:

1. Briefpoint

Briefpoint is document automation software built for litigators who are tired of spending hours drafting discovery documents by hand. Instead of retyping language in Microsoft Word or worrying about data entry errors, you can let Briefpoint handle the repetitive parts of the job.

It creates requests for production (RFPs), requests for admission (RFAs), and interrogatories for every U.S. state and federal district, all in just a few clicks.

Here’s how it works: Upload a complaint, and Briefpoint can generate up to 70 targeted requests in under three minutes. The language is objection-aware, so it rewrites requests to avoid ambiguity, compound structure, or overbreadth.

If you’re responding to discovery, the brand new Autodoc feature steps in. It recognizes the court, parties, and request type, then suggests standardized objections and responses you can edit before exporting straight to Word. Join the waitlist now.

Best Features

• Propound discovery: Turn a single complaint into tailored interrogatories, RFAs, and RFPs in minutes, complete with jurisdiction-specific formatting.
• Autodoc automation: Respond to discovery requests instantly with AI-suggested objections and page-level citations.
• Reusable templates: Apply firm-approved objections, definitions, and language across matters so your team stays consistent.
• Error reduction: Eliminate common mistakes through structured input and automated drafting.
• Jurisdiction-ready formatting: Automatically generate captions, numbering, definitions, and instructions that follow state and federal rules.
• Microsoft Word export: Get editable files that are clean, properly formatted, and ready for final touches.
• Security compliance: SOC 2 certified and HIPAA compliant with full encryption, keeping client data safe at every step.

Book a demo today and see how much time you can save on discovery drafting.

2. Clio Draft

Clio Draft, formerly known as Lawyaw, is part of the Clio ecosystem and gives legal professionals an easy way to handle legal drafting inside their existing workflow. 

It combines access to jurisdiction-specific forms with smart templates that save time and keep files consistent.

Source: Clio.com

And because it integrates with Clio Manage, attorneys can pull client and case details directly into templates, which speeds up legal document generation and reduces manual entry.

The result is compliant documents that are stored, organized, and easy to find through Clio’s legal document management software.

Best Features

• Smart templates: Reuse templates across cases to cut down on repetitive drafting.
• Legal document generation: Quickly create pleadings, motions, and contracts with automation.
• Compliant documents: Access official state and federal forms to stay aligned with requirements.
• Document management: Keep files stored, organized, and accessible within Clio.

3. Docupilot

Docupilot is flexible legal document drafting software that helps firms build custom document templates for everything from contracts to client intake forms.

So, rather than reworking the same text over and over, attorneys can set up templates once and use them to create documents automatically. This reduces the risk of human error while keeping files consistent across matters.

Source: G2

One of Docupilot’s strengths is handling complex documents with conditional logic. Clauses can appear or disappear based on case details, which makes it easier to generate documents that fit each client without starting from scratch.

Firms with a large library of legacy documents can also adapt them into templates and bring older files into modern document workflows.

Best Features

• Document templates: Build reusable templates for contracts, forms, and agreements.
• Generate documents: Automate the creation of routine files with data pulled from case details.
• Handle complex documents: Apply conditional logic so content changes based on client or case needs.
• Client intake forms: Collect information once and have it flow directly into documents.
• Legacy documents: Convert existing files into templates to modernize drafting workflows.

4. Filevine

Filevine combines case management with automated document drafting that helps firms produce accurate documents faster.

Source: G2

Attorneys can build custom forms to capture client details and feed them directly into standardized templates. These capabilities can help cut down on repetitive work while keeping language consistent.

Finished files are stored in Filevine’s secure document storage, with support for both Word and PDF documents. Since it connects with existing systems, firms can keep their critical documents organized and accessible while reducing duplication of effort.

Best Features

• Custom forms: Collect client or case details and insert them directly into drafts.
• Automated document drafting: Generate critical files quickly with fewer manual steps.
• Standardized templates: Maintain consistent language across contracts, motions, and family law filings.
• Document storage: Keep files organized, searchable, and secure in one place.
• PDF documents: Export clean, court-ready files in Word or PDF format.

5. DocuSign CLM

DocuSign CLM is a legal document automation software designed for legal teams and large law firms that need more than basic drafting. It’s built around contract lifecycle management, which means it gives firms tools to draft, review, approve, and sign agreements in one system.

Source: G2

One of DocuSign CLM’s strengths is its built-in electronic signatures, which cut out delays and keep the entire process digital. Contracts move from draft to signed agreement without leaving the platform.

The system also supports seamless integration with CRMs, law office management tools, and other business software, keeping data connected across workflows.

For firms that need advanced features, DocuSign CLM includes audit trails, automated approvals, and version tracking to maintain compliance and accuracy.

Best Features

• Electronic signatures: Collect signatures securely without printing or mailing documents.
• Document automation solution: Draft and manage contracts from start to finish in one platform.
• Automating repetitive tasks: Save time by routing approvals and filling fields automatically.
• Seamless integration: Connects with CRMs, document management, and other existing systems.
• Advanced features: Gain access to audit trails, version history, and automated approval workflows.

Greater Efficiency Starts with Smarter Document Automation

Manual drafting takes time that most legal teams don’t have. How much time does your team spend fixing formatting, copying text from old files, or drafting objections line by line? Those small tasks add up quickly and can take attention away from higher-value work.

Now, the second question is: how much more could your team get done if the drafting process moved faster and left fewer chances for mistakes?

That’s the gap legal document creation software fills. It automates the routine steps, reduces errors, and produces accurate, consistent documents in less time. In other words, it turns drafting from a time sink into a reliable part of your process.

Briefpoint was designed specifically for this. It generates discovery requests and responses in minutes, uses objection-aware language, and formats everything to meet state and federal standards.

Plus, with reusable templates and Word exports, it removes the drag of manual drafting while keeping your documents accurate and compliant.

Book a demo with Briefpoint to see how quickly you can shift from manual drafting to a more efficient, reliable process.

Who Are Virtual Legal Assistants?

A virtual legal assistant is a remote professional who supports lawyers, law firms, and legal professionals with a mix of tasks that go beyond basic admin work.

While they do handle administrative tasks like scheduling and drafting letters, many also take on legal-focused work such as research, preparing forms, or updating case management systems.

This growing field is part of a global trend. As of 2025, there are an estimated 40 million virtual assistants worldwide, with many working from regions like Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

With such a large talent pool, law firms can find assistants who match their specific needs, whether that’s general office support or more specialized legal help.

For solo attorneys, a legal virtual assistant can act like an extra member of the legal team and help lighten the load. Meanwhile, larger firms often use them to handle overflow during busy periods.

Of course, they’re not a replacement for licensed professionals, but they do cover the kind of recurring work that allows lawyers to focus on core legal work.

What Do Virtual Legal Assistants Do?

A virtual assistant for lawyers can step into many roles depending on what a firm needs most. Some handle administrative work, while others take on legal-focused tasks under attorney supervision. Here’s a closer look at the areas where they usually help:

• Scheduling and email management: Keep calendars updated, coordinate client meetings, triage inboxes, and track important deadlines.
• Document drafting and preparation: Draft letters, forms, contracts, and demand letters, plus handle document management so files are easy to find.
• Legal research and case support: Pull case law, prepare summaries, and organize discovery files. For example, compiling liability rulings in a personal injury case.
• Billing and accounting help: Send invoices, track payments, follow up on overdue accounts, and maintain expense records on legal billing software.
• Client services: Manage client intake, guide onboarding, schedule follow-ups, and answer routine questions while protecting confidentiality.
• Data entry and software tasks: Enter client details, record deadlines, upload and label files, and keep systems accurate using legal software.

Essentially, these responsibilities cover the routine side of practice so attorneys can put their time and energy into work that demands more legal knowledge and expertise.

What Virtual Legal Assistants CANNOT Do

While independent virtual legal assistants and agency-based staff are valuable, there are limits to their role. They’re talented professionals, but they’re not licensed attorneys.

With that in mind, knowing where the line is drawn keeps your practice compliant with ethical guidelines and protects your clients.

A few areas that remain off-limits:

• Provide legal advice: Only licensed attorneys can counsel clients or offer legal opinions, even if assistants have years of experience.
• Represent clients in court: Virtual assistants cannot appear in hearings or trials on your behalf.
• Sign or file documents as an attorney: They can help with drafting and document management, but final signatures and submissions are the attorney’s responsibility.
• Break client confidentiality agreements: Assistants may handle sensitive files, but lawyers must make sure proper safeguards are in place.
• Act as substitutes for paralegals: While they can take on research or drafting tasks, they don’t replace even certified paralegals working under attorney supervision.

In short, virtual assistants are there to support, not replace, licensed professionals.

Remember: Treating them as partners for administrative and case prep work while respecting boundaries helps maintain compliance and strengthens trust with clients.

A Guide to Hiring the Right Legal Virtual Assistant

Since we’ve covered what virtual legal assistants can and cannot do, the next step is figuring out how to bring the right one onto your team. The hiring process matters just as much as the work itself, because a poor fit can create more headaches than help.

In the legal profession, where confidentiality and accuracy are non-negotiable, taking time to choose carefully pays off. So, here are a few steps to keep in mind:

1. Define Your Needs First

Before you start interviews, make a clear list of what you want handled. Is it mostly scheduling and billing, or do you need someone who can assist with legal research and strategic planning?

Being specific keeps the process focused and prevents you from hiring someone who doesn’t match your expectations.

Writing out the tasks in detail also helps you decide whether you need a generalist who can handle day-to-day admin work or someone with prior legal experience. To get started, consider listing needs like:

• Managing calendars and client calls
• Handling billing and follow-ups
• Drafting legal documents for attorney review
• Supporting research and case prep
• Keeping files and legal software updated

2. Decide on Flexible Plans or an In-House Team

One of the first choices in the hiring process is deciding whether your firm is better served by an in-house team or by flexible arrangements with virtual legal assistant services. Both options come with advantages, and the right fit depends on how your legal practice is structured.

With an in-house setup, you get people in the office every day who can handle tasks face-to-face. This model gives you direct oversight and tighter integration with the rest of the staff.

However, it also comes with higher overhead costs. Salary, benefits, and office space add up quickly. For small or growing firms, that expense can feel heavy.

On the other hand, working with a remote legal assistant or a broader virtual legal staff offers flexibility. You can scale hours up or down depending on the caseload, and you only pay for the support you need.

Some firms even work with an entire outsourced team for billing, intake, and scheduling. This arrangement can free up attorneys without forcing the firm to commit to permanent hires.

3. Look for Professional Oversight

If you decide to hire through an agency rather than working with an independent assistant, it’s worth checking whether they provide a dedicated account manager. 

This role acts as a bridge between your firm and the assistant, making sure tasks are handled correctly and deadlines are met.

An account manager also gives you a single point of contact, so you’re not left chasing updates or repeating instructions.

This layer of oversight adds value in a few ways. It creates accountability, since there’s someone actively monitoring the assistant’s performance. It also gives you room to request changes, refine the workflow, or scale support as your caseload grows.

4. Prioritize Confidentiality and Fit

Skills and experience are important, but in the law practice, trust and compatibility matter just as much.

A dedicated virtual assistant may be working remotely, yet they’ll have access to sensitive client data and case files. That means they should approach confidentiality with the same care you’d expect from an in-house employee.

Always ask about their familiarity with confidentiality protocols, data handling practices, and whether they’re comfortable signing agreements that protect client privacy.

It’s also smart to dig into their background with legal software and the type of onboarding process they’re used to. Someone who can quickly adapt to your systems will save you from having to spend weeks training them on the basics.

Beyond the technical side, cultural fit plays a big role. A good assistant doesn’t just complete all the tasks you assign. Beyond that, they mesh well with your team’s communication style and workflow.

So, ask yourself: Will this person handle client interactions in a way that reflects the professionalism of your firm? Do they seem organized and responsive?

Choosing someone who respects privacy, adapts quickly, and works in sync with your team can make the difference between just filling a role and finding long-term support.

Where to Find Virtual Legal Assistants

Once you’ve decided you need extra help, the next step is figuring out where to actually find it.

The good news is there are plenty of places to look for legal virtual assistant services, but the best option depends on your budget, the kind of work you need covered, and how much oversight you want.

Common routes include:

• Freelance platforms: Sites like Upwork or Fiverr give you access to a wide pool of on-demand support. You can hire someone for short-term projects like drafting legal documents or handling administrative support without committing to a long-term arrangement.
• Specialized agencies: Agencies that focus on legal support can match you with assistants trained in legal operations, client intake, e-filing, or even bookkeeping professionals for billing. They’re usually more reliable but can cost more, and some niche specialists may be harder to find.
• Referrals from the legal profession: Asking colleagues or bar associations often leads to trusted recommendations. A referral can give you confidence that the assistant has real experience in a law firm setting.

Each path has trade-offs, but with the right search, you’ll find support that fits your needs and makes running your practice far smoother.

Questions to Ask During the Hiring Process

Asking the right questions during the interview will help you gauge whether they can truly support your firm’s needs and free you from the time-consuming tasks that slow you down.

Consider asking:

• Do you have experience with legal software? Look for comfort with case management systems and document management, since that’s where many assistants spend time.
• Are you familiar with legal databases? Research support during case preparation is easier when an assistant knows how to locate statutes, rulings, and references tied to legal procedures.
• How do you handle client confidentiality? Assistants will interact with sensitive details from both prospective and existing clients, so they must follow strict privacy practices.
• What’s your availability and time zone? Confirm they can respond promptly, help track critical deadlines, and adapt to your work hours.
• Have you managed intake before? The ability to handle client intake (gathering forms, organizing information, and scheduling meetings) adds real value from day one.

As you may have observed, these questions go beyond basic skills and help you find someone who can seamlessly support both your team and your clients.

Still, they’re just a place to start. You can add more based on your firm’s size, practice areas, and the kind of support you expect from a virtual assistant.

Power Your Practice With Virtual Assistants AND Briefpoint

A virtual assistant for lawyers can handle calendar management, research, billing, and client communication. In doing so, they can genuinely lighten the load so attorneys can focus on higher-value work.

But some parts of practice, like discovery, call for more than administrative help.

Briefpoint is the right AI-powered tool to handle that. Our AI-powered platform is built specifically for the legal field, designed to take the most tedious drafting work off your desk and turn it into accurate, ready-to-use outputs.

From automating discovery responses to preparing legal documents, Briefpoint helps both attorneys and their assistants cut hours of manual effort.

With Briefpoint, firms get:

• Faster document preparation and review
• Automated formatting and organization of discovery responses
• Reliable accuracy that reduces human error
• More time for case strategy and client advocacy

When you combine the everyday support of a virtual assistant with the automation of Briefpoint, your practice gains the balance of personal service and advanced legal tech.

If you’re ready to see how Briefpoint can support your practice (and your assistants), don’t wait. Book a demo with Briefpoint and watch how much easier your workflow can be.

What Is Litigation?

Litigation is the traditional method of resolving legal disputes through the court system. It’s what most people picture when they think of court cases: judges, lawyers, and sometimes juries. The litigation process follows strict rules and results in court judgments that are legally binding.

A few key points about litigation:

• It takes place within the court system under established laws and procedures.
• The goal is to resolve legal disputes through a final decision, usually in the form of a court judgment.
• Traditional litigation is often public, which means filings and hearings are generally part of the public record.
• Cases can range from small civil matters to large, complex disputes.

Litigation can take time, sometimes months or even years, depending on the complexity of the case. While the process may feel slow, it provides structure and the chance for appeals. For many individuals and businesses, it remains the standard path for resolving legal disputes.

Since litigation is document-heavy, having the right support matters. Briefpoint helps legal teams draft discovery documents quickly and with consistent quality. 

Book a demo today to see how Briefpoint can cut hours of drafting into just minutes.

What Is Arbitration?

Arbitration is a private method of resolving disputes that takes place outside the court system.

Unlike court cases, the arbitration process is less formal and typically faster. The parties involved agree (often through arbitration clauses in contracts or a separate arbitration agreement) to let a neutral third party decide the outcome.

Here’s what you need to remember about this alternative dispute resolution method:

• Unlike litigation, arbitration proceedings are usually private and not part of the public record.
• The neutral third party, known as an arbitrator (or a panel of arbitrators), listens to both sides and makes a binding decision.
• The arbitration process is more flexible than traditional litigation, with fewer rules and shorter timelines.
• Appeals are very limited, so the arbitrator’s ruling is often the final word.

Arbitration is common in business contracts, employment agreements, and commercial disputes where both sides prefer a private, quicker resolution. Essentially, it offers a practical alternative to lengthy court battles.

Key Differences Between Litigation and Arbitration

Litigation and arbitration both aim to settle disputes, but they go about it in very different ways. Let’s see the key differences between arbitration and litigation to see which option might fit a particular situation better.

Main Purpose

When you’re caught up in a dispute, the first question is usually: where will this get resolved? That’s where the purpose of each process really stands out.

With litigation, the goal is to settle legal issues through formal court proceedings. Everything follows strict court rules and civil procedure, ending in a court judgment. These judgments can even set legal precedent, meaning they influence how similar cases are handled down the road.

If you want your case to be part of the public record and have the option to appeal, litigation is the path.

Arbitration, on the other hand, is built around speed and privacy. Arbitration offers a way to sidestep drawn-out court battles. 

The parties agree to have a neutral third party hear both sides and issue an arbitration award. That award is binding, and unlike court rulings, appeals are extremely limited.

To put it simply:

• Litigation aims for a structured, public decision that can influence future cases.
• Arbitration aims for a quicker, private resolution where the decision is final.

Think of it as choosing between the formality of the courtroom and the flexibility of a private decision-maker.

People Involved

Another big difference between litigation and arbitration is who actually takes part in the decision-making process. The people involved shape how each method works and how the outcome is reached.

In litigation, you’ll often see:

• Judge: Oversees the case and makes rulings based on the law.
• Jury: In some court cases, a jury decides the facts and outcome.
• Attorneys: Represent each side and argue their positions.
• Clerks and court staff: Handle filings, scheduling, and records.
• Witnesses:  Provide testimony to support either party.

In arbitration, the group is usually smaller:

• Arbitrator (or panel): Acts as the neutral party and makes arbitration decisions.
• Parties involved: Present their evidence and arguments.
• Attorneys: May be present to guide each side, but the setting is less formal.

Because arbitration involves fewer people, the decision-making process tends to be quicker and more focused compared to traditional litigation.

Process

The way each method unfolds is another key difference. Litigation follows a strict path through the courts, while arbitration is more flexible but still guided by agreements and procedures. Let’s look at how each process works in practice.

The Litigation Process

Litigation can be complex, and the way it plays out often depends on the type of case, the issues raised, and the court handling it. But in general, here’s how the process usually unfolds.

• Filing the case: The process starts when one party files a complaint in court. This outlines the legal issues involved and sets the stage for the case.
• Pre-trial procedures: Legal discovery, motions, and hearings take place under strict procedural rules. Each side exchanges evidence, and judges may rule on preliminary matters.
• Court schedules: Dates are set by the court, which often leads to lengthy proceedings. Delays are common, especially in busy jurisdictions.
• Trial: Both sides present arguments and evidence before a judge, and sometimes a jury. The court decides the outcome using established legal principles.
• Appeals: After a judgment, the losing party can appeal to a higher court. Appeals extend the case but allow further review of the decision.

Litigation provides structure and the chance for appeals, but it can be slow and costly, especially if the matter drags through multiple levels of the court system. For this reason and others, many law firms use litigation support software to make the workload lighter.

The Arbitration Process

Same with litigation, the arbitration process can vary based on the agreement and the nature of the dispute. But in general, here’s what it looks like.

• Arbitration agreement: Disputes usually go to arbitration because of an agreement or an arbitration clause in a contract. This commits both parties to resolve issues outside the court system.
• Selection of arbitrator: The parties choose a neutral third party, or sometimes a panel, who has expertise in the area. This can make the process better suited to specialized disputes.
• Arbitration hearing: Both sides present their arguments and evidence. While it resembles a trial, the setting is less formal, with fewer procedural barriers.
• Arbitration decisions: The arbitrator issues a final ruling, called an award. These awards are binding in most cases and can be enforced through the courts if needed.
• Limited appeals: Unlike litigation, appeals are rare and only possible under specific conditions, such as proof of bias or misconduct by the arbitrator.

Because arbitration avoids court schedules, it usually wraps up much faster than litigation. That speed, plus the privacy of the process, makes it attractive to businesses and individuals who want quicker dispute resolution without the public nature of court trials.

Key Benefits

Both litigation and arbitration serve the same goal of resolving disputes, but the advantages of each process look different.

Some of these benefits overlap with points we’ve already touched on, but here they’re laid out more clearly so you can see what each option offers.

Benefits of Litigation

• Court enforcement: Court judgments carry the full weight of the law. Once a judge rules, that decision is backed by the state, and parties must comply.
• Appeal options: If one side believes a legal error affected the outcome, there’s usually an option to appeal. This layer of review is built into the legal process and provides extra protection.
• Legal precedent: Decisions made under established rules can set guidance for future cases, offering predictability in how similar disputes may be resolved.
• Transparency: Proceedings and outcomes are public. This openness creates accountability but can also expose sensitive details.
• Cost structure: While litigation can mean higher court fees and legal fees, the public system doesn’t require paying one or more arbitrators directly.

Benefits of Arbitration

• Privacy: Arbitration proceedings are not part of the public record, which helps parties avoid negative publicity.
• Speed: With streamlined procedures and fewer formalities, arbitration often wraps up faster than court trials. Limited discovery also helps reduce delays.
• Expertise: Parties can select one or more arbitrators who have direct experience in the field, making the arbitrator’s decision more informed on technical issues.
• Finality: Arbitration decisions are binding, and since appeals are very limited, the dispute ends sooner without dragging through higher courts.
• Cost flexibility: While arbitrator fees are an added expense, arbitration can lower overall legal costs by avoiding lengthy court schedules and prolonged discovery.
• More control: Parties often have greater say over timelines, location, and even some of the procedures. This can make the process more manageable compared to traditional litigation.

Enforceability

Enforceability is one of the most important factors to think about. As mentioned, court decisions in litigation carry the authority of the state.

When a judge issues a ruling or a summary judgment, the outcome is binding and can be enforced through the court system. This gives parties confidence that the decision will be carried out, though it can take additional time if appeals are filed.

Arbitration works a little differently. The arbitrator’s decision, also called an award, is usually final and binding, but appeals are only possible under specific circumstances, such as misconduct or bias by the arbitrator.

For many, this finality is one reason they prefer arbitration. It avoids drawn-out appeals and brings closure more quickly. However, enforcement sometimes requires taking the award to court to have it recognized, especially in cross-border disputes.

In short, litigation offers the weight of the legal system and broader options for challenging a decision, while arbitration provides faster closure with fewer opportunities to contest the result.

Common Use Cases

Litigation is often chosen for complex legal matters that require a formal record and the ability to appeal. Courts are also the natural venue for cases where public accountability is important. Examples include:

• Intellectual property cases: Patents, copyrights, and trademarks often involve high stakes and detailed arguments that benefit from a structured court setting.
• Large contract disputes: When millions of dollars are on the line, parties may prefer the formal protections and court decisions that litigation provides.

Arbitration, on the other hand, is typically private and is used where speed and confidentiality are priorities. Common examples include:

• Business disputes: Companies often rely on arbitration to settle disagreements without the delays of court.
• Consumer agreements: Many service providers include arbitration clauses so customer disputes can be resolved outside the courtroom.
• International agreements: Arbitration is popular for cross-border contracts since it avoids navigating multiple national court systems.

Litigation often fits when public rulings and appeals matter, while arbitration is more common in contracts and industries where privacy and legal efficiency are valued.

Litigation or Arbitration? Briefpoint Can Help With Both

Litigation and arbitration may take very different paths, but they share one thing: both depend heavily on solid document preparation. 

Whether it’s pleadings filed in court or evidence presented in an arbitration hearing, the quality of the paperwork can make or break the outcome.

Which brings us to a tool built to handle discovery for you. Briefpoint drafts your discovery documents automatically, so you don’t waste hours formatting, editing, or double-checking details. You can:

• Upload a complaint and get up to 70 targeted requests, including interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production, in just minutes.
• Rely on objection-aware generation, with phrasing rewritten to avoid ambiguity, compound questions, or overbroad requests.
• Get discovery documents that are jurisdiction-ready for all U.S. states and federal districts, complete with captions, definitions, and instructions.
• Keep your standards consistent across cases, regenerate variants, and export to Word whenever you need.

It doesn’t stop at propounding discovery; Briefpoint also helps you respond to discovery. Upload discovery requests, add objections and responses with AI-assisted suggestions, and export a finished brief that’s ready to serve.

If you’re dealing with litigation or arbitration, document prep doesn’t need to slow you down. Book a demo with Briefpoint today!

What Is a Request for Admission?

In civil procedure, a request for admission is a written statement that one party serves on the other party during discovery. The goal is to get clear answers about specific facts or the authenticity of documents.

When the responding party (sometimes called the answering party) receives the request, they must either admit, deny, or explain why they can’t respond after making a reasonable inquiry. If they don’t answer at all, the request may be treated as admitted by default.

For example, one side might ask the other party to admit that a contract was signed on a certain date, or that an email is genuine.

So, by resolving these points early, both sides can focus on the issues that are actually in dispute.

Want to simplify the way you draft or respond to requests for admission? Book a demo with Briefpoint today.

How Requests for Admission Work

An RFA is served during the discovery stage of a lawsuit. Like interrogatories or document requests, it’s one of several discovery requests lawyers can use to narrow down the issues.

But instead of asking for new information, it’s focused on getting the other side to confirm or deny specific facts.

Here’s a step-by-step process:

• The party requesting sends the written request
  • The request is drafted as simple statements of fact or the authenticity of documents.
  • Each statement should cover only a part of an issue so that it can be clearly admitted or denied.
• The responding party must reply
  • The law requires them to either admit, specifically deny, object, or explain why they cannot admit or deny after making a reasonable inquiry.
  • If there’s an objection, the court may order the objection addressed before a final response is given.
• The effect of admission
  • If a matter is admitted, it’s conclusively established in the case. That means it no longer needs to be proven at trial.
  • Once admitted, it’s very difficult to withdraw unless the court allows it.

Key Points to Remember

• Qualified answers are allowed: If a request is partly true and partly false, the responding side can admit only a part and deny the rest.
• On qualifying an answer: Should a court require that a party qualify an answer, the response must fairly meet the substance of the request and state the limits clearly.
• Be specific: A party must specifically deny any part that’s not admitted. Vague denials won’t cut it.
• Objections aren’t the last word: A court can order an objection addressed and require a straight answer.

Common Uses of Requests for Admission

Requests for admission play a big role in the discovery process. They don’t seek new evidence. Instead, they confirm what’s true and what isn’t.

When a party gives a clear written answer, like stating whether they admit or deny a fact, both sides save time and keep the case focused.

Confirming Facts and Documents

Lawyers often use admissions to lock down simple facts. Under the federal rules, if the fact is clear, within the knowledge of the responding party, and readily obtainable, the party should truthfully admit it.

For example, admitting the date a contract was signed or confirming that a letter came from a certain office. Once admitted, the fact is conclusively established in the pending action and doesn’t need to be proven again at trial.

Narrowing Issues for Trial

Courts want parties to avoid wasting time on issues where there’s no genuine issue. A request may ask the other side to admit that a medical record came from a specific clinic.

If admitted, that point is settled and can’t be argued later. If the court permits, an admission can sometimes be used in another proceeding, not just the current lawsuit.

Avoiding Unnecessary Disputes

Some questions don’t go to the sole cause of the case, but still matter. Admissions can confirm details like addresses, company names, or whether a message was sent. 

Using direct questions for these points saves everyone from doing additional discovery on things that aren’t really in dispute.

Supporting or Limiting Interrogatories

In some courts, admissions are included in standard form interrogatories. In others, they’re sent separately. Either way, they work together.

Interrogatories ask for explanations, while admissions push the other side to take a clear stand. This keeps the other party from changing positions later without a good reason.

Handling Mixed Questions

Sometimes a request involves both fact and opinion, creating mixed questions. Courts often require a response anyway, but the party can qualify their answer if needed.

The important part is that the written answer addresses the request fairly and completely.

Clarifying Case Law Positions

Admissions can also help shape how case law applies. If a legal rule depends on whether notice was given, one side might ask the other to admit that notice was sent on a certain date. 

That way, the legal debate is focused on how the law applies, not on whether the fact happened.

Serving Other Purposes

Finally, requests can serve other purposes, like authenticating documents or setting up facts for settlement talks.

Whatever the reason, they make it easier for the parties, the judge, and even the jury to focus on the truth instead of wasting time on points no one really disputes.

Do You Always Need to Respond?

Yes. If you receive a request for admission, you’re expected to reply within the designated time set by the court rules, usually 30 days.

Skipping a response can lead to the requests being treated as admitted, which can change the outcome of a case involving disputed facts. 

Unlike special interrogatories, which ask for explanations, admissions are meant to pin down facts directly. Courts expect the responding party to give a clear answer.

Here are a few key points to remember:

• A party must either truthfully admit, deny, or object to each request.
• If the directed serves of the request are proper and within the rules, silence counts as an admission.
• Admissions can be used in the current case and sometimes in other proceedings if the judge allows it.
• Courts may revisit discovery responses during a pretrial conference to decide if more discovery requests are needed.

Drafting Requests for Admission

Drafting requests for admission isn’t foolproof, but in general, there are best practices that help keep things clear and within the discovery rules.

Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the starting point. It explains how a requesting party can send written statements and how the other side must respond.

If the party states an admission, that matter admitted becomes binding unless changed through an amended answer with the court’s permission.

• Keep each request simple: Rule 36 expects each request to cover only one fact or the authenticity of one document. That way, the other side can clearly admit or deny it. If a request is too long or complicated, the judge may not enforce it.
• Stay within discovery rules: Different courts set limits on how many requests may be served. Always check local discovery rules before sending them. This prevents objections and delays later.
• Think about trial strategy: The best requests target facts that will matter in front of the jury. Once a matter admitted is on record, it’s conclusively established for trial.
• Understand the cost of denial: Rule 36 also allows judges to order a party to pay expenses incurred if they deny something that later turns out to be true. This makes it risky to deny a request without a good reason.
• Amending answers: If circumstances change, the responding party can file an amended answer, but only with court approval. Judges will usually allow it if it won’t unfairly harm the requesting party.

Responding to a Request for Admission

When a party receives the request, the clock starts ticking. Whether you’re the defendant or the plaintiff, you have to provide a response within the set deadline.

Courts treat a failure to respond as an admission, which can shift the entire case. That’s why most lawyers stress answering carefully and on time.

Role of the Attorney

An attorney usually reviews each request with the client, checks the facts, and decides how to respond. The answer must be honest and specific, which means no vague denials.

If a party admits a fact, that admission counts as proof in the case and doesn’t need to be argued again.

Standards for Responses

• A party can admit, deny, or explain why they can’t respond.
• Good faith requires a real effort to check the facts before denying. Courts don’t accept blanket denials when the truth could be confirmed with reasonable effort.
• If a response is missing or incomplete, the other side can file a motion asking the court to treat the request as admitted.

Using Document Automation

Many firms now rely on document automation tools to draft responses. These tools help organize requests, track deadlines, and prepare clear answers.

While they don’t replace legal judgment, they reduce errors and make sure responses go out on time.

Achieve Faster, Smarter Discovery With Briefpoint

Requests for admission may not get as much attention as depositions or interrogatories, but they’re one of the most efficient ways to narrow issues in a case. 

When handled well, they save time, reduce litigation costs, and keep a trial focused on the real disputes instead of minor details.

We just looked at how responses work, including the growing role of document automation in drafting them. Automation makes it easier to prepare clear responses, stay on top of deadlines, and keep every request organized.

Briefpoint takes this a step further by giving lawyers purpose-built tools for discovery.

Briefpoint helps lawyers propound and respond to requests for admission, requests for production, and interrogatories across all U.S. states and federal districts. 

The platform generates objection-aware drafts, applies the right formatting, and saves hours that would otherwise be spent editing line by line.

If you’re ready to cut drafting time without losing quality, Briefpoint can help. Book a demo and see how you can automate discovery today.