Royal Commission Services

Job Description: Our client required a team that could manage all support aspects of a Royal Commission


The Challenge

The client, a specially formed arm of a Federal Government agency, required a team that could manage all support aspects of a Royal Commission. The client required a suite of solutions including document processing and management, electronic hearing room services, e-discovery services and public webcasting, whilst maintaining a presence onsite, in the context of its existing environment with minimal disruption to the current proceedings. Furthermore, there was a requirement to service several remote locations throughout Australia. The existing infrastructure was customised which required highly skilled technical staff to be dedicated to the project.

The Royal Commission itself had a high public interest component as well as delicate sensitivities and confidentiality requirements in relation to witnesses and documentation. The Commission needed a provider attuned to this process and who could offer security cleared staff.

The client also required a tight turnaround for these services to ensure the continuation of public hearings in early January in a remote location, limiting the implementation period to one month over the Christmas and New Year holiday period. We needed to coordinate a security cleared project team as well as project managing a tight implementation plan within this short timeframe.

The Solution

1. Transition Services

Within one month of the agreement between the Royal Commission and Law In Order being executed, our project teams were installed onsite. The teams undertook the following: a. Reviewed existing workflows, practices and technologies, to establish efficiencies and cost savings across all services; b. Formalised Risk Management and Change management plans; c. Implemented agreed workflow recommendations and process improvements; d. Implemented agreed changes and updated and developed SOP’s and project control documentation; and e. Continued “business as usual” in both Sydney and remote locations.

2. Document Management Services

Our team worked with registry managing the evidence handed up by the parties with leave to appear. Additional document processing was conducted off-site on behalf of the case study teams working under the Office of the Solicitor Assisting. There were 57 Case Studies and 5 dedicated case study teams who required photocopy, print, scan and objective coding services from our secure sites around Australia. Communication procedures and secure transfer protocols were established to enable document management services between the Royal Commission and our premises.

3. Hearing Related Services

The transition between our service offerings enabled the case study teams and external legal representatives to work with the technology and our staff efficiently. Hearing Services included a full court-room set up and testing of two onsite hearing rooms, operating public webcasting of hearings, commissioning and decommissioning fully equipped electronic hearing rooms in remote locations, assisting with tender bundle preparation and service, managing exhibits and transcripts, and presenting evidence during hearings. Law In Order provided solutions to the Royal Commission for up to 55 witnesses per week appearing in person or remotely.


One of the key outcomes for this project was the seamless integration of the our team into the existing Royal Commission structure. This allowed us to provide solutions quickly and effectively across multiple Royal Commission teams and create smooth work flow.

The client was able to utilise the implemented workflows and the working relationship that we fostered with the internal legal teams, to improve on document processing times. They were able to access documents for review significantly faster compared to the previous workflow.

The client was able to utilise our national team, either onsite at the Royal Commission or at our premises to assist with all aspects of the project, including 24/7 assistance.

The hearing services provided by Law In Order not only allowed the client to proceed with its busy hearings schedule without delay, but saw significant time savings resulting from an improved evidence presentation solution seamlessly integrated into the hearing room. The improved webcasting component delivered a better feed quality together with the ability for the client to monitor community viewing and engagement levels.

The client was also able to access decommissioning and archiving documentation of the review platform, enabling them to efficiently hand over documentation to the future custodian of the Royal Commission for the purposes of historical records.

Download the full case study

Contact the team

Discovery & Review Services

Job Description: Review of 88GB of email data for an internal investigation - Time Frame: 14 days


The Challenge

A State Government (Department) requested that we assist them with the review of 88GB of email data for the purpose of an internal investigation. The internal investigation needed to be conducted quickly and accurately for a report that would inform the Department’s response to a Right to Information request.

The number of the documents (747k) required to be reviewed made the traditional approach of printing and reviewing the material in hard copy, within the limited time frame, not a viable option. Further, the internal tools at the Department’s disposal did not have the forensic capability to undertake the interrogation of the documents required in this instance.

As a result, the Department sought guidance from our expert review workflow team as to how best to overcome this challenge.

The Solution


1. Process the documents

a. Our technical team would remove all the duplicate documents within the data and make all remaining documents, where applicable, text searchable;

b. Develop effective and accurate key-word searches and apply them to the de-duplicated data. Responsive documents to be given a unique document reference number before upload to the review platform.

2. Review of responsive documents in an online database

a. Database design and setup to suit the Department’s review outcomes including providing training to the review team on navigating the responsive documents;

b. The Department’s team would use Analytics (email thread and near-duplicate detection), along with further key-word searches to review and “tag/code” documents relevant to their issues.

3. Produce a list of “relevant” documents

a. We would produce a hyperlinked list of relevant documents before closing the database and an export file provided to the review team should future review be required; and

b. Hold a post project review meeting to discuss


The Outcome

Our expert review team worked closely with the Department to reduce their reviewable set of potentially relevant documents from 747,000 to 6,500 documents in 48 hours. The responsive documents were uploaded the next day with training provided to the team who, with the assistance of our experts, completed a review of those remaining documents in less than 10 days.

Once the review was complete, our experts undertook various quality assurance processes and provided the Department’s review team with an exported hyperlinked list of documents within 24 hours.

In total, the review of the documents was completed in less than 14 working days saving the Department a significant amount of time and money.

Download the full case study

Contact the team


Job Description: 778GB of data to be reviewed - Cost Savings: $285,000 AUD


The Challenge

Our client—a large energy company—was involved in litigation over an environmental matter. Only one lawyer was assigned to the case, overseen by one independent consultant—an especially small team, given the 778GB of data collected for the case. In an effort to save costs, both sides agreed on a list of keywords to help identify relevant documents.

The Solution

De-duplication culled the client’s original count of 6.6 million documents down to 3 million documents. The list of keywords culled the document count significantly further, down to only 157,000 documents. However, with overly inclusive keywords like “environment” being used, it was evident there were still many non-responsive documents left in the collection to sort out—and that meant a lot of work remained for only one person to review.

Law In Order proposed using Relativity Assisted Review.

Murali Baddula, Head of eDiscovery at Law In Order, oversees the data processing services and assisting legal departments by offering technical solutions and workflows. Murali has over 14 years experience in the areas of dispute resolution, eDiscovery, project management, and software development. He understands the complexities of unstructured data and offers solutions to make electronically stored information available for search, retrieval and review in a legally defensible manner.

“I am a great advocate of Assisted Review. We always put this option forward for any matter that has a high volume of documents,” said Murali. “For this matter, there were a number of reasons it was a great option for our client.”

Most notably, Law In Order calculated that if the one lawyer had to review all 157,000 documents linearly— strictly to identify relevant documents—the review would take 1,570 hours to complete. With the lawyer open to alternative processes, the decision was made. The team would use Technology Assisted Review.

The Technology Assisted Review Process

To begin the workflow, Our team used the overly inclusive keyword-responsive document set of 157,000 documents.

“We generally don’t use keywords in addition to Technology Assisted Review, but in this scenario, it actually fit the bill. It’s important to have a decent amount of both non-relevant and relevant documents to train the software—and after applying the keywords, it still looked like we were left with a good mix of relevant and non-relevant documents,” said Murali.

The lawyer completed three review rounds—reviewing a random sample of 1,000 documents during each round—to train the software on responsive versus non-responsive. For each round, six to seven percent of the documents were identified as responsive.

From there, the lawyer tested Relativity’s accuracy by conducting a QC round. For this fourth round, Murali and his team took a statistical sample of documents based on a 95 percent confidence level and a two percent margin of error. This resulted in a sample of 2,226 documents—and the results were consistent, as six to seven percent of the documents in the sample were coded as responsive.

In addition to the consistent results, the lawyer overturned only 174 of the 2,226 documents in the QC round. In other words, he disagreed with the software’s coding decisions only 7.8 percent of the time, further demonstrating the computer’s accuracy. Moreover, he made an interesting discovery while reviewing the overturns.

“As he double-checked the overturns to see what led the computer to make an incorrect decision, he actually ended up agreeing with the software the majority of the time,” said Murali. “He realized his initial decisions were wrong.”

With this realization and the already low overturn rate in mind, the lawyer felt the computer had achieved a consistent level of accuracy for this case—even after just one QC round—and decided to stop review.

Using the logic it learned from reviewing nearly 5,000 documents—three training rounds and one QC round— Relativity categorized the remaining 152,000 documents. In the end, 27,122 documents were marked responsive, 117,635 were non-responsive, and 300 remained uncategorised.

“Because of the limited resources, the legal team had very little time to complete this review. But, they were able to get good results quickly using Assisted Review,” said Murali.

The Outcome

Relativity Assisted Review saved our client a considerable amount of money. Without this, the client would have likely hired a junior lawyer—generally billing at $200 AUD/hour—to manually review all 157,000 keyword-responsive documents. Assuming the junior lawyer reviewed strictly for relevance at a rate of 100 documents per hour, it would have taken 1,570 hours to complete the first-pass review and would have cost the client $314,000 AUD.

However, by using Relativity Assisted Review, the client’s senior lawyer was able to complete the first-pass review at an estimated cost of $29,000—a savings of approximately $285,000 AUD for our client.

“This matter is a great example of the efficiency and cost savings realised by the use of Assisted Review,” said Murali. “Our client was very pleased with the results.”


Download the full case study

Contact the team

Job Description: Novice eDiscovery users required to assess 40GB Lotus Notes Files - Time Frame: 1 week


The Challenge

Our client with no E-Discovery experience had to assess 40GB worth of Lotus Notes e-mail files. They wanted a quick, low cost option to access the information on hand in order to evaluate the scope of the issues and determine their approach.

The Solution

We ran the files through Venio which gave lawyers access to the data within hours. As the client needed to ascertain how connected the e-mails were in relation to the matter – they wanted a clear picture of the parties involved, our Solutions Consultants ran keyword searches and showed the social network map that visually shows who this person sent emails to which proved to be a great tool to the legal team.

The Outcome

The use of Venio allowed for the legal team to complete scoping in 2 days and the Discovery completed within 7 days. The job was delivered earlier than expected and under budget.

Contact the team

Job Description: Regulator request for information, unknown data size & scope - Time Frame: 10 days


The Challenge

Our client was tasked to meet a regulator request for information within a 10 day period. The initial data size was not known, nor was the content or discovery scope. Ultimately we received 400GB of email and free files from the file server.

The Solution

We ran the raw data into Venio and within 24 hours the lawyers were able to look at the first 100 GB batch of information first thing in the morning. We then sat down with the partner and the senior associates of the matter and were able to refine Keywords/Date Range/Custodians elements of the data very very quickly – ultimately there were 150 custodians and 450 individual items.

The Outcome

Project was delivered within the time frame.

Contact the team

Job Description: Fast discovery deadline - Time Frame: 3 days


The Challenge

Our client had 1.2TB of data they needed to assess to determine the scope of discovery.

The Solution

We received 1.2TB of data on three hard drives.

The Outcome

The data was ingested and indexed into Venio FPR within 3 days, allowing the lawyers to view, search and analyse the documents to accurately determine the best course forward in the matter.

Contact the team

Document Production

Job Description: 23,000 documents reviewed and printed - Cost Savings: $28,000 - Time Frame: 2 days


The Challenge

A client requested an estimate of fees associated with the production of a chronological ordered, hard copy version of the email data that had been provided to them by their client. The client needed to review the material and provide a hyperlinked list of the most relevant documents to their barrister.

We essentially broke down the required work into three simple steps:

Task 1 – Produce the email data.

Task 2 – Review the email data in the manner in which it had been produced.

Task 3 – Provide a refined list of relevant documents, along with the documents themselves, with a supporting index for review by their Counsel.

The Solution

Workflow Options

Following our initial consultation with our client we identified three separate workflow options to complete the Production tasks identified, which also had varying degrees of benefit in terms of the Legal Review. Those workflow options were:

1. Internal Hardcopy (Time = 8 Weeks*)

Our client could print the email data using their available internal resources, manually converting each of the 23,000 documents to printable format. Review all 60,000 pages and select which of those will form part of the brief to Counsel. Once the relevant documents have been identified an index could be dictated, transcribed and a manual hyperlinking process completed using internal resources.

2. Outsourced Hardcopy (Time = 1 week*)

Our client could engage us to de-duplicate the data, print in chronological order and provide a technically extracted index of all emails from which the relevant documents can be identified. Once the relevant documents have been identified they can be hyperlinked in a semi-automatic manner.

3. Outsourced Electronic (Time = 2 Days*)

Our client could engage us to de-duplicate the data and upload to an electronic review platform. Using the platform, and its data analytics (like email threading), they could identify the relevant documents and have a hyperlinked index of those relevant documents exported automatically, or allow Counsel access to the platform through their own secure login.

* excluding review

The Comparison

Set out below is a comparison of the fees/costs for each of the three tasks, using each of the three workflows identified previously.


Please note that the relevant workings for Production and Review figures can be provided on request.


The Outcome

In this instance our client opted for the Outsourced Electronic workflow as it presented the best immediate value for them and their end-client because of the following benefits:

  • they could begin reviewing documents almost immediately;
  • duplicate documents could be removed;
  • email conversations could be organised and “threaded”;
  • the review platform gave short, and long-term efficiencies in respect of the review; and
  • some of the fees could be passed directly to their client.

The client also opted to have a copy of the final relevant set of documents produced by our team as it represented a saving to them as compared to the cost (both tangible and intangible) of using their internal resources.

Download the full case study

Contact the team

Job Description: 50 Folders x 10 copies - Time Frame: 1 day


Law In Order received the job at 5pm, due the next morning. Documents required pagination, copied 10 times and delivered to the other parties at 4 different CBD locations. Documents contained staples, clips and dividers. All folders were placed in boxes with clear labels specifying box number, copy set and volume range with recipient details. Job was completed by the due time of 9:00 am.

Job Description: Overnight Work - Time Frame: 5-8 hours


Over a period of 3 weeks, 2 firms that were engaged in Federal Court Fast Track Litigation proceeded to service documents to opposing parties at Midnight. LIO would be required to pick up documents from between Midnight and 3:00 am from various locations in the CBD; copy and then deliver the finished product to various locations by 8:00 am.

Job Description: 27 folders x 20 copies - Time Frame: 15 hours


Our client logged an urgent copying job at 6:00 pm which required an overnight turnaround. LIO picked up the documents, continuously paginated 27 folders, prepared over 200 custom dividers, placed in folders with folder covers and spines. The job was delivered back to the client at 8:30 am.

eTrials & eArbitrations

Job Description: Last minute request for eTrial - Time Frame: 48 hours


The Challenge

Law In Order received a call at 5:00 pm on a Friday with an urgent request for quotation for a court ordered eTrial involving the provision of evidence display solution to be managed by Counsel. There were two parties, 5 barristers and 5 lawyers. Law In Order had already worked with the plaintiff to provide an eCourtbook. The trial was schedule to commence on Monday.

The Solution

Law In Order responded with a quotation within 10 minutes of the request and received the go ahead from the client to proceed by 5:40 pm.

The Outcome

Law In Order worked through the weekend to ensure all the logistics were secured and set up the eTrial ready for proceedings to begin the following Monday at 10 am.

 Can't find the resource you need?

Get in contact with the Law In Order team or call us on 1300 004 667.

Get in Touch