A Guide to eDiscovery for Law Firms In 2026

What Is eDiscovery?

eDiscovery, or electronic discovery, is how legal teams manage digital information during the discovery process.

Emails, shared documents, chat messages, cloud files, and even data pulled from apps all come into play. If the information lives on a screen, eDiscovery is usually part of the conversation.

Traditional discovery looked very different. Paper files, boxes of records, and manual review were the norm. That setup made sense when evidence almost always stayed physical.

Now, most case-related information is digital, and trying to handle it the old way quickly becomes messy and time-consuming. The eDiscovery process grew out of that shift to give legal teams a clearer path for handling digital material from start to finish.

At a high level, the eDiscovery process includes:

• Identifying digital data tied to a matter
• Preserving relevant information
• Collecting files from different systems
• Reviewing materials for relevance and privilege
• Producing responsive documents

In other words, the purpose remains familiar. eDiscovery helps legal teams manage digital evidence in a way that supports the broader discovery process, but without turning every case into a manual sorting exercise.

Common Problems in Manual Discovery Processes

Manual discovery is familiar to most legal professionals, but it often creates friction once a matter starts moving. As legal proceedings rely more on digital files, manual processes can feel harder to keep under control than expected.

Here are some common issues that come up:

• Digital files end up scattered: Emails, shared drives, and local folders all hold pieces of the record, which makes it difficult to see what’s been collected, reviewed, or produced.
• Discovery costs increase over time: Manual review takes longer, and those hours add up. Discovery costs often grow as the case progresses, sometimes without a clear way to track such expenses.
• Limited visibility into the work: Teams often rely on spreadsheets or informal updates to track progress, which makes it easier for steps to be missed or repeated.
• Inconsistent review decisions: Without shared tools or legal workflows, relevance and privilege calls can vary between reviewers, leading to additional review work later.
• Greater risk of mistakes: Manual handling increases the chance that files are overlooked or productions are incomplete, which can create problems during legal proceedings.
• Difficulty with cost recovery: When time and effort aren’t clearly documented, cost recovery for discovery work becomes more difficult.

How Law Firms Handle eDiscovery Today

Most law firms rely on a mix of tools, people, and outside help to get discovery done. The setup varies by case size, budget, and internal resources, but a few common patterns show up again and again:

In-House Review Teams

In-house review teams are made up of attorneys, paralegals, and support staff within legal firms who handle document review as part of their regular workload. These teams review electronic documents tied to active matters, flag relevance, assess privilege, and prepare materials for production.

Because they already understand the case strategy and client context, reviewing documents often feels more integrated with the rest of the litigation work.

Compared with external teams, in-house reviewers offer tighter control and faster feedback loops. Questions get answered quickly, and adjustments happen without formal handoffs.

The tradeoff usually shows up in capacity. When data volumes spike or deadlines tighten, internal teams can get stretched thin, especially if document review competes with other responsibilities.

On the other hand, external review teams bring scale and dedicated focus, which can help with large productions. Still, in-house teams tend to work best for ongoing matters, targeted review sets, or cases where familiarity with the facts matters as much as speed.

Outside eDiscovery Vendors

Outside eDiscovery vendors are specialized third-party providers that support law firms with parts of the e-discovery process, such as data processing, document review, production prep, and analytics.

These vendors bring scale, dedicated teams, and tools that many firms can’t justify owning in-house, especially on big cases where the volume of electronic documents and complexity can overwhelm internal resources.

It may be comforting to know that the market for outsourced legal services is growing fast. The global legal process outsourcing space was valued at USD 23.45 billion in 2024, which shows strong growth as firms look to manage cost and workflow pressures.

Some benefits of working with vendors include:

• Expanded capacity for large document review sets
• Access to expert e-discovery teams and tools
• Faster data processing and defensibility tracking
• Flexible resourcing tied to case needs
• Reduced pressure on internal staff

Outsourcing can be especially appealing when deadlines tighten or when cases involve massive volumes of digital data.

Hybrid Discovery Models

Hybrid discovery models are what many firms land on once they’ve lived through both extremes.

You keep some discovery work in-house, and you bring in outside help when volume or timing makes that necessary. It’s less a formal system and more a flexible way to handle electronically stored information without overwhelming your own team.

Typically, internal attorneys stay close to the case. They decide what counts as relevant documents, handle privilege calls, and make judgment-heavy decisions.

Outside resources step in for data processing, large review sets, or technical tasks that benefit from scale and specialized legal technology.

The appeal is control without burnout. You stay connected to the substance of the matter while letting an eDiscovery solution handle the heavy lifting.

Plus, as cases grow or shrink, the model adjusts with you to make it easier to manage shifting discovery demands without constantly reworking your setup.

Cloud-Based Platforms

Cloud solutions have become the default for how most legal teams handle discovery today. These systems let you collect documents, review electronic data, and manage production from one shared environment.

Teams can log in from anywhere, collaborate in real time, and move between matters without juggling multiple platforms.

Non-cloud systems still exist, but they’re far less common now unless a law firm or legal team is holding onto truly archaic practices.

Those setups usually depend on on-prem servers, manual transfers, and limited access, which slows everything down once data volume increases or deadlines tighten.

Cloud tools remove much of that friction. They scale as matters grow, support modern data sources, and keep everyone working from the same version of the data. And for most teams, that shift has made discovery feel more manageable and far less fragile.

Manual Workarounds and Legacy Tools

Even now, some discovery work still relies on manual workarounds and legacy tools, usually layered on top of newer systems.

These approaches often develop over time as teams try to keep moving without fully rethinking their setup. But while they may feel familiar, they tend to add friction and risk when assembling evidence or trying to stay aligned with legal standards.

Common examples include:

• Tracking discovery status in spreadsheets shared by email
• Manually renaming and organizing electronic files in folders
• Printing electronic data to review alongside paper documents
• Copying text between documents to build responses
• Relying on local drives or outdated servers for storage

These methods can work in small bursts, but they don’t scale well. As data grows and deadlines tighten, the lack of integrated technological solutions becomes more noticeable.

Client and Court Expectations

Clients want to feel confident that relevant data is handled carefully and that costs stay predictable. They often ask practical questions. How much data needs review? How long will it take to collect data? Why does one phase of the review process cost more than another?

Meanwhile, courts bring a different kind of pressure. Deadlines are firm, production formats matter, and decisions around scope or privilege may need to be explained later.

In addition, judges expect teams to understand their own process and show that reasonable steps were taken to narrow data and produce documents correctly.

For example, a client may get frustrated if the review drags on longer than expected, while a court may question why certain materials were included or excluded. Those expectations push legal teams to stay organized, deliberate, and ready to explain their choices at every stage.

Time and Budget Constraints

Time and budget constraints sit at the center of almost every discovery decision. When review takes longer than expected, or costs climb without warning, pressure builds quickly from both clients and the court.

That’s why many firms spend time evaluating their eDiscovery platform early. The right software can reduce manual work, help teams move through review faster, and keep eDiscovery costs more predictable.

Some firms rely on free trials to test how a tool handles real data before committing, especially when budgets are tight and mistakes are expensive.

Without the right software in place, teams often compensate with extra hours or rushed decisions. As time goes on, that approach becomes harder to sustain. Investing in tools that match workload and timelines can make discovery feel less reactive and far more controlled.

How eDiscovery Fits Into a Litigation Strategy

Discovery often influences a case earlier than people expect. The choices made during eDiscovery can affect leverage, timing, and how arguments take shape, especially in these areas:

Early Case Insights and Leverage

Early discovery work can quietly change how a case feels from the inside. Once you start reviewing documents with a clear purpose, things tend to click faster. You see how events actually unfolded, who was involved, and where the story holds together or falls apart.

For example, a small batch of emails might confirm a timeline everyone assumed was shaky, or expose decision-making that the other side would rather not explain.

Early review can also surface potentially privileged documents or show that a large portion of the data is irrelevant or redundant information that doesn’t deserve more time.

Those insights shape real conversations. Some clients simply refuse to keep pushing once the risks are obvious. Others gain confidence when the evidence lines up in their favor.

Early clarity helps teams:

• Focus on the right custodians early
• Cut back on unnecessary reviews
• Spot weak spots before positions lock in
• Shape negotiation strategy sooner

Discovery’s Role in Motion Practice

Motion practice refers to the written requests lawyers file with the court asking for a ruling. These filings often deal with discovery disputes, procedural issues, or efforts to narrow the case, and they usually come with tight deadlines.

Discovery feeds directly into that work. When discovery is handled manually, pulling support for a motion can feel scattered.

Teams end up hunting for documents, double-checking versions, and stitching together citations while the clock keeps ticking. The pressure can make the process feel rushed rather than deliberate.

With eDiscovery, the transition feels smoother. Documents have already been reviewed, organized, and tied to specific issues, so the focus stays on the argument itself.

When a motion needs to be filed, you’re working from a record you already understand. That familiarity helps arguments land more cleanly and keeps motion practice grounded in the facts.

Using Discovery to Shape Settlement Strategy

eDiscovery often influences settlement discussions earlier than expected. Once documents are reviewed and organized, the case becomes clearer. The evidence starts telling a story, and that story matters when deciding how far to push or when to open negotiations.

For example, early document review might uncover emails that undercut a key argument or expose gaps in the other side’s claims.

In other situations, the record may strongly support your client’s position, which changes how firmly you hold your ground. eDiscovery tools make these signals easier to spot because documents are searchable, grouped, and tied to specific issues.

That visibility changes the tone of settlement talks. Parties adjust their expectations once the evidence is hard to ignore. Negotiations become more concrete, focused on what the documents show rather than assumptions or pressure tactics.

With a clearer record in hand, teams can make settlement decisions with more confidence and fewer unknowns.

Common eDiscovery Tools for Law Firms

Most law firms don’t rely on one tool to handle electronic discovery. Discovery work touches a lot of moving parts, so firms usually combine several tools depending on the case, the data involved, and how the team prefers to work.

Here are the types of tools law firms commonly use:

• Case assessment tools: Give you an early look at data volume and timelines, which helps shape case strategy before discovery requests expand.
• Data collection tools: Gather files from email, document storage, and other systems while keeping file details intact.
• Processing and review platforms: Prepare documents for review and apply smart filtering so teams are not wading through unnecessary material.
• Search and analytics tools: Use search filters and data analytics to surface patterns and narrow large data sets more quickly.
• Redaction and privacy tools: Handle data redaction to protect personally identifiable information and other sensitive content.
• Production and access tools: Support document delivery, permissions, and data security, often within cloud-based eDiscovery software.

The right eDiscovery technology depends on how your firm handles discovery day to day and how much control you want at each stage.

How Briefpoint Makes eDiscovery Work Without the Drag

eDiscovery has a way of taking over a case if you let it. Files can pile up, timelines can stretch, and hours can disappear into work that feels necessary but never strategic.

Most legal practice teams feel that tension, particularly as digital discovery keeps expanding.

Briefpoint is an AI-powered tool that steps in as a practical answer to that problem. It focuses on written discovery, where a lot of time quietly gets burned.

Meanwhile, Autodoc turns production files into Word-ready discovery responses with Bates citations in minutes.

Many firms see 30+ hours saved per case, which creates real cost savings without asking attorneys to give up control or change how they review work.

Is discovery taking more time than it should? Book a demo with Briefpoint today!