Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe…

As a member of the e-discovery vendor community, I often self sympathize on the challenge I, my company, and my other vendor-side colleagues face when trying to sell e-discovery services. Between the fierce competition and the (justifiable) “what have you done for me lately” mind set among clients, keeping the project pipeline at capacity is a constant struggle. However, from time to time I think its important that we take a step back and try to put ourselves in our clients’ shoes (clients — feel free to do the same ).

If I were on the client side of the fence, I think it’d be a HUGE struggle to sift through the various vendors who pitch their services to me on a daily basis. The sheer number of e-discovery vendors — a number that increases daily — is one thing, but perhaps a bigger challenge is the overwhelming variance among companies offering e-discovery services. To illustrate this point, let’s look at the top 20 e-discovery service providers based on the 2008 Socha-Gelbmann Survey. Companies within this group include:

• Two of the “Big Four” accounting firms
• A business advisory consulting firm
• A computer forensics software company
• Several pure e-discovery ASPs
• A company that has evolved from paper-based litigation support services

Keep in mind this variance is only among the top 20 providers, and there is an estimated 500 providers in the space. So how exactly does one select from this list? On the law firm side, many have turned to a formal RFP/Response process. This is probably long overdue, but unfortunately many of the RFPs that I’ve seen are poorly structured/written and therefore have limited value. On the corporate side, many turn to independent consultants — of which there seems to be an endless number these days — to help vet/qualify/disqualify providers.

Any way you slice it, picking the the right provider is a daunting task, and I for one do not envy those charged with doing so.