During a recent pre-engagement meeting with a client, the Partner carrying the matter asked a pertinent but blunt question: “Why would I pay you to do this when I can get my secretary to take screenshots at 1/10 of the cost per hour?”
My equally blunt response: “How well will your secretary handle the cross from opposing counsel regarding her collection methodology and evidence providence?”
Unpacking this just a little bit, there’s no reason why you can’t have a lower-cost member of staff, be they a clerk, legal secretary or paralegal sitting there taking screenshots of social media pages through a web browser. But you can make that same argument for any other legal service provider: a clerk can complete a medical examination as well as any specialist; a secretary can hold a video camera as well as any private investigator; a paralegal would likely make a fine service agent. In each case the costs would be significantly lower than using experts in their respective fields. So why do you use the experts?
You use experts because ultimately you need probative, persuasive evidence that will meet the rigorous standards required for admission to proceedings. Part of those standards is being able to prove the providence of the material being sought to be admitted as evidence, and this is particularly true for ephemeral material such as electronic data. You just can’t reach that standard with screenshots taken by an inexperienced junior member of staff.
And I’m sure they will be thankful to you for not putting them in a witness box being grilled by a $2,000 per hour barrister. Be nice to your secretary, they work hard for you.
There are two other important aspects to this “screenshots vs collection” discussion, I’ll expand on those in later posts.
And in case you’re wondering, yes the Partner engaged us. And they were very impressed by the results we achieved on the matter.
