Lawyer-Centric Work Flow

EDBP contains the latest, tested compilation of attorney best practices for law firms and in-house counsel. All specialists in electronic discovery who are practicing attorneys or paralegals are invited to submit proposals to improve upon the EDBP.  See our Mission Statement for guidance on project scope. Submissions may be made in the public comments section below or in private email to Ralph Losey. If your proposed refinement or addition to EDBP is accepted, you will be identified as the author of that description in comments and retain co-copyright-ownership of that contribution. Alternatively, you may remain anonymous. Editing will be provided. Practicing attorneys may also submit separate stand alone articles on attorney best practices for consideration by EDBP.



Anyone may freely use the charts and graphics provided here with attribution.

For an additional introduction to EDBP see the e-DiscoveryTeam blog, Announcing, a New Website of Best Practices For Attorneys.

Please note that while the EDBP was inspired and based in part on the ideas of the nine-step EDRM flow-chart created by the Electronic Discovery Reference Model group, there is no direct connection between our groups and respective projects. We commend lawyers to study the EDRM works and extensive writings, although, sadly, they choose to ignore us. For more on the differences of focus of EDRM and EDBP, see the EDBP Mission Statement.

EDBP also recommends that practicing attorneys seeking quality information on best practices study the many e-discovery writings of The Sedona Conference®  Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production.

Anyone may freely use the charts and graphics provided here with attribution.

5 thoughts on “Lawyer-Centric Work Flow

  1. Any suggestions by legal practitioners will be given due consideration and could lead to future modifications of the EDBP. This is designed to be a dynamic, evolving model, not a set-once and never-change kind of chart. Are there critical bullet-points that you think should be added? Are one or more of the 10 steps unnecessary or better combined with other steps? Should there be more steps? Have a best practice you do not see written up here? See a best practice described here, but think it should be slightly altered or expanded upon? Other ideas, comments?

    We are open to all suggestions from practicing attorneys and paralegals.

    Shy or have other reasons not to want to comment in public? Please feel free to write to Ralph Losey directly with your input at, but please do not try to sell Ralph stuff under the guise of a learned comment.

    We also welcome questions in the comments section below, and are not adverse to mild praise either, but the praisey-stuff will be deleted after a couple of days.

  2. Thank you very much. I am constantly looking for ways (and resources) to increase my knowledge of ediscovery in addition to my hands-on (OTJ) training as we deal with our first few ediscovery cases here at my firm. Although I do have some knowledge (and help from a good vendor), I know that there is much I still need to learn, and I intend to share this website with the attorneys and other paralegal on our ediscovery team.

  3. Having no idea how this information will be incorporated, here is an opening salvo. Two frameworks for getting the hold discussion started – the first is designed for counsel interacting with a client on a new matter; getting up to speed. The second works more to guide an attorney through the discussion regarding trigger, scope, and how to implement.

    EDITOR’S COMMENT: Jim’s comments has been moved to the Preservation Page, at the bottom, as input under consideration, since his best practice pointer pertained to preservation. If you are unsure to which section your comment goes, please leave on this first page as Jim did and we will move it. If you think you know which page your input pertains to, please leave the comment on that page.

  4. Perhaps a no-brainer, but consideration should be given to the structure and contents of the legal hold form itself as part of Litigation Readiness. Is proper space and description provided for audience, are the parameters for the legal hold clearly spelled out, consequences for inaction specified, and action items specified?

  5. I am curious to what extent you are seeing E-discovery pursued in Medical Malpractice cases especially given the increasing use of Electronic Medical Records. There seems a wealth of data that is not generated when paper records are generated from the EMR. Any refernces or observations would be greatly appreciated.

    Patrick L

Please leave a comment and help improve EDBP