Trying to make the decision about whether adding eDiscovery Assistant is redundant when you have other legal research platforms?
Pro Tip: It’s not an OR decision, i.e. whether you need one or the other, it’s a question of whether your team needs lightning fast access to ediscovery specific research and resources. Ask yourself these questions:
If you’ve answered yes to any of those questions, it’s worth taking a look at eDiscovery Assistant.
eDiscovery Assistant rethinks the delivery of legal research and resources for ediscovery. When you’re searching for case law specific to ediscovery, traditional legal research platforms rely on user created search terms and boolean searching to find results. eDiscovery Assistant eliminates that guessing game by manually tagging each case with ediscovery issues (e.g. proportionality, failure to preserve, instant messaging, GPS, etc.) and allowing you to create issue searches that let you find case law in a few clicks vs. several hours. Annual users find it pays for itself for the year with just one search.
But eDiscovery Assistant is more than just case law — we’ve built a platform to help legal professionals learn on demand using checklists and forms for ediscovery processes, defining concepts using our our glossary of terms, and leveraging our Learning Center, launching in 2021, that provides short videos on key concepts for when you’re facing the issue in a case. Not sure how to draft a legal hold? ESI protocol? FRE 502(d) order? That’s how we help.
This comparison will walk through the key features of each product and allow you to compare eDiscovery Assistant side by side with traditional legal research platforms. Our goal in building eDiscovery Assistant is to help lawyers and legal professionals learn to spot ediscovery issues and learn how to handle them effectively. Want to see how it works? Request a demo and we’ll show you first hand how to improve your practice.
“I’ve been using eDiscovery Assistant for several years now—it’s my sole source for eDiscovery case law. Writing about 60-70 cases a year and reviewing four to five times that many each year to select cases to write about, I appreciate how easy it makes identifying cases related to specific issues, time frames, even judges.”
Editor at eDiscovery Today