§ 01
Collection standard
ACPO-aligned, hash-verified, documented at every acquisition.
§ Provider · How to instruct
Choosing a UK eDisclosure provider is a case strategy decision.
The provider you instruct sets the ceiling on how defensible, timely and cost-controlled your disclosure will be. This page sets out what a serious UK eDisclosure provider should be able to evidence - and how we meet each test.
- Independence
- Neutral
- Standards
- ACPO · ISO 27001
- Hosting model
- Yours or ours
- Pricing
- Transparent unit
Ref · E-D · 2026 · §PRVClass · ConfidentialJuris · England & WalesStatus · Active
Plate · Provider§ 01 · Audience
Who this page is for.
Litigation partners, procurement leads and legal operations professionals responsible for choosing an eDisclosure provider - whether for a single matter or as a panel appointment.
- Litigation partners
Choosing a provider whose work will hold up in front of a judge.
- Procurement & LegalOps
Comparing providers on unit economics, security posture and tooling.
- In-house counsel
Building a shortlist for regulatory and investigations work.
- Chambers
Referring clients to a provider whose evidence handling is neutral by design.
§ 02 · The problem
The four ways provider selection goes wrong.
In our experience - including matters where we're brought in after another provider - provider failure clusters around four issues. Each is diagnosable in the pitch, if you know what to ask.
Risk
Collection quality is opaque
The provider cannot describe, in plain language, how a mailbox or a mobile device is imaged, hashed and verified. On the day, non-forensic short-cuts follow.
Risk
Security posture is aspirational
The provider markets 'ISO-aligned' without evidence of the underlying controls. A regulator, a client or the other side will eventually ask for the certificate or the audit report.
Risk
Pricing is deliberately obscure
Headline day-rates in the pitch, unpredictable pass-through fees on the invoice. The problem is not the price - it is the inability to forecast the total.
Risk
Independence is not real
The provider is a de facto extension of one firm's litigation practice and will not, in practice, give neutral evidence on how the disclosure was done.
§ 03 · Scope
What we evidence, up front.
The eight tests a serious UK eDisclosure provider should be able to pass.
§ 02
Security posture
ISO 27001-aligned programme, MFA and encryption by default, controls audited internally.
§ 03
Data residency
UK by default. Cross-border only where the matter permits.
§ 04
Tooling
Relativity/RelativityOne, Reveal, Nuix Discover; Nuix, EnCase, FTK, X-Ways, Cellebrite, GrayKey, AXIOM.
§ 05
Workflow
PD 57AD-fluent, two-layer privilege QC, documented reviewer training.
§ 06
Pricing
Per-GB processing, per-GB per-month hosting, per-hour review management. No hidden pass-through.
§ 07
Independence
No adverse position on the merits. Willing to give evidence on process.
§ 08
Deliverables
Signed audit trail, metadata schedule, privilege log and destruction certificate on close.
§ 04 · Why e‑discovery.uk
Why practices instruct us as their UK eDisclosure provider.
Because the discipline is forensic, the workflow is PD 57AD-fluent, and the commercial model is transparent.
Forensic pedigree
The eDiscovery arm of Computer Forensics Lab. Collections done by expert practitioners.
Independent by design
We act for neither party on the merits and will give evidence on process where asked.
Transparent unit pricing
Per-GB processing, per-GB per-month hosting, per-hour review - with a sampled cull forecast up front.
Your tenancy or ours
Fluent working inside a firm's Relativity, and equally fluent standing up our own.
UK residency
Processing and hosting on UK infrastructure by default.
Direct partner contact
The practitioner supervising your matter is the practitioner who takes the call.
§ 05 · Typical matters
Typical instructions.
Where firms most often bring us in.
- ▸Single-matter appointment for a live piece of contentious disclosure
- ▸Panel appointment for a firm's disputes practice
- ▸Second-opinion engagement on an existing provider's DRD
- ▸Rescue engagement where an existing provider has failed
- ▸Regulator-led work where independence is required
- ▸Cross-border matters coordinated from a UK anchor
- ▸Internal investigations run under legal privilege
- ▸Public inquiry disclosure with confidentiality regimes
§ 06 · Deliverables
What you get from us as your provider.
Every engagement produces the same portable evidence pack.
- Sampled cull forecast
A defensible early view of the review population before you commit.
- Working set
Processed, culled, threaded, reviewer-ready.
- Hosted workspace
Configured, QC'd, access-controlled.
- Production set
Court or regulator-compliant, delivered with signed audit trail.
- Audit pack
Hash logs, workflow documentation, reviewer training records.
- Close-out certificate
Secure destruction or archive on matter close.
§ 07 · Frequently asked
Answers to the questions counsel ask most.
- What should a UK eDisclosure provider be able to prove?
- Four things: ACPO-aligned collection with hash logs, ISO 27001-aligned information security, PD 57AD-fluent workflow, and independence from the parties on the merits. If any of the four cannot be evidenced, the provider is a risk on any matter that ends up in front of a judge.
- How do I compare eDisclosure providers on price?
- Compare unit rates (per-GB processed, per-GB per-month hosted, per-hour review management) and the cull ratio the provider actually achieves on sampled data - not headline day-rates. A provider with lower unit rates but a poor cull will cost more end-to-end than a provider that removes 60–80% of ingested data before review.
- Should I use my firm's Relativity tenancy or the provider's?
- Either works. Some firms prefer to keep the data in-house; others prefer a provider-hosted tenancy to keep matter costs off the firm's Relativity bill. What matters is that the workflow, QC and audit trail are the same either way.
- Is the provider genuinely independent?
- Independence means (a) they do not act for either party on the merits, (b) the collection team is not incentivised on review outcomes, and (c) they will give evidence in court on how the work was done, if asked. Ask the question directly.
- What's the cost of getting the provider wrong?
- Re-collection, re-processing, adverse cost orders where an over-scoped DRD has to be re-scoped, and - occasionally - challenges to admissibility. On mid-size matters this can run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The provider decision is not a procurement decision, it's a case strategy decision.
- How do you handle a challenge from the other side on our disclosure?
- Because our process is documented at each step, we can produce witness statements, hash logs and workflow evidence to answer challenges without disrupting the timetable. Where an expert view is needed, our supervising practitioner can provide a CPR Part 35 report.
- Which tooling do you use?
- Relativity, RelativityOne, Reveal, Nuix Discover and Everlaw for hosted review; EnCase, FTK, X-Ways, Cellebrite, GrayKey and AXIOM for forensic acquisition; Nuix Workstation for processing at scale. Tool choice is driven by the matter, not by a single vendor relationship.
- Do you take direct instructions from clients or only from counsel?
- Both. In-house teams instruct us directly for internal investigations, regulator response and pre-action work. Panel counsel instruct us for contentious disclosure. In either case we work under legal privilege where the retainer permits.
Instruct the practice
Bring us in early.
Defensibility is built, not retrofitted.
Whether you are responding to a regulator, preparing for disclosure, or scoping an internal investigation, start the chain of custody with a short, confidential conversation.