Start With the Evidence You Actually Handle
The first step is to map the kinds of material that enter the matter, because that shapes everything that follows. Some firms mainly receive message exports, PDFs and scans, while others also deal with messaging exports, shared folder dumps, images, audio clips and spreadsheet trails.
List each source and note how it usually arrives, who collects it, and whether it needs filtering before review. In many South African matters the volume is not the surprise, the spread of formats is, and that is where filing can become untidy very quickly.
- List common file types, not just the largest ones.
- Note where evidence is stored before import.
- Mark which items need OCR or text extraction.
- Separate active matter evidence from background material.
Set Review Stages Before the First Import
Review work is easier to track when the stages are defined upfront. A sensible flow usually moves from intake to first-pass sorting, then issue tagging, privilege marking, relevance review and final export for the matter team.
Without those stages, review queues become a pile of loose tasks with no clear finish line. That slows down attorneys and paralegals, and it also makes handovers messy when more than one person is working in the same matter.
- Define who may mark items for privilege or relevance.
- Decide which tags must be used on every review job.
- Set the order in which documents move through the queue.
- Confirm what must be exported for internal use and what stays locked.
Match Access Rules to Real Firm Roles
Not everyone in a firm needs the same view of the evidence. Partners may need broad visibility, while junior staff, support teams and matter administrators often need narrower access tied to their duties.
That is especially important where sensitive material, personal information or confidential correspondence is involved. POPIA concerns are not solved by a label alone, the access structure has to fit the way the team actually works.
- Identify who can upload, edit, review and export.
- Limit visibility for matters with sensitive or restricted content.
- Separate admin rights from day-to-day review rights.
- Record who can change templates, tags and permissions.
Work Out What Has to Be Searchable
Searchability is one of the most useful parts of e-discovery, but only if the content is prepared properly. If scanned files are not readable, or if naming is inconsistent, the team ends up searching around the evidence instead of through it.
Good scoping looks at search terms, metadata fields, date ranges and file type filters before the system is configured. It also checks whether the matter team needs full-text search, field-based filtering, or both. In practice, many firms need a mix of the two because one method alone is too blunt.
- Decide which metadata fields matter for the matter team.
- Confirm whether duplicate detection is needed.
- Set date filters for large evidence collections.
- Check if scanned images need OCR before review starts.
Plan for Storage, Retention and Secure Handling
E-discovery files can grow fast, and storage planning matters just as much as the review screen. A firm should know where the evidence sits, how it is protected, who can remove it and what happens when a matter closes.
Secure hosting, backup routines and retention rules need to be set with care, especially when files move between offices in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban or Bloemfontein. If evidence is copied to ad hoc drives or shared too widely, the risk rises quickly and the file trail gets hard to follow.
Practical scoping should also include how deleted items are handled, whether archive copies are kept, and how long the review queue must remain available after handover.
Prepare the Team for the First Live Matter
A well-scoped setup still needs people who know how to use it. Attorneys, paralegals and firm ops staff all handle evidence differently, so the training plan should reflect the tasks each group actually does.
For some firms the main need is template use and matter tracking. For others it is bulk evidence import, tagging discipline and careful export control. The best time to settle that is before the first live matter lands, not when the review queue is already full.
- Give users role-based training, not one generic session.
- Test the approval path for exports and escalations.
- Show staff how to flag broken files or missing pages.
- Run a small test matter before heavier use begins.
Build a Scope Sheet That Holds Up Later
A proper scope sheet keeps the project steady when the workload changes. It should capture evidence types, review stages, permissions, search rules, storage choices and the people responsible for each part of the workflow.
That document also helps during health checks and incident response, because the team can see what was agreed and what was actually configured. When the scope is clear, the software work becomes less of a guessing game and more of a measured setup for the firm’s real deadlines.
For South African firms, that kind of structure saves time across matter teams and keeps evidence handling more orderly, especially where deadlines are tight and the file load is heavy.
