Litigation Holds Should Fit Into Your Workflow, Not Disrupt It
Managing eDiscovery across multiple systems can be slow and difficult. Legal holds, document collection, review, and production often rely on disconnected tools and manual processes.
TeamSync's eDiscovery capability brings these activities into one system. The hold lives on the same platform as the documents, so preservation starts automatically the moment it's issued. Collection is just a query. Privilege review is AI-assisted, with the statistical evidence Federal Rule 26 expects. Every action is logged to the audit chain.
It's designed to help legal teams respond faster while maintaining defensible processes.
Talk to the legal solutions team · Read the defensible eDiscovery pillar · See the eDiscovery Counsel page
What's In The eDiscovery Surface
This capability is built into the platform rather than bolted on; it reads from the Intelligent Repository, respects the same permission model, and writes to the same audit chain.
Sub-capability | What it does |
Hold management | Sets a hold flag on the platform; preservation happens automatically across connected sources |
Custodian notification | Sends notifications and tracks acknowledgment; status is logged |
Collection | One query across everything connected, with a cryptographic chain of custody |
Early case assessment | Statistical sampling, deduplication, and near-duplicate detection |
Predictive coding | AI-assisted privilege review, with statistically defensible evidence |
Native review | Document review inside TeamSync, using the same audit chain |
Production | Generates the output in whatever format the receiving party needs |
Hand-off to Relativity / Everlaw / DISCO | Standard load-file formats, with chain-of-custody preserved |
What A Hold Actually Looks Like On TeamSync
A hold isn't just a notification; it changes how the platform handles retention for everything within scope.
Stage | What happens |
1. Hold scope defined | Custodians, document categories, date ranges, and source systems are specified |
2. Hold flag set | The platform marks every matching document as held |
3. Federation respects the hold | Connected systems receive preservation instructions where supported; otherwise, the platform keeps its own copy |
4. Audit chain logs the event | Hold creation, scope, and custodian acknowledgments are all recorded |
5. Edits or deletions to held documents | Blocked automatically by the platform's retention rules |
6. Hold release | The release is logged, along with who authorised it |
If a regulator or opposing counsel asks "when was the hold set, what did it cover, who was notified, and what was preserved?", the answer comes straight from the chain.
What The Predictive Coding Actually Delivers
Predictive coding is what determines whether your privilege review holds up at scale — and that comes down to statistical evidence, since Federal Rule 26 defensibility depends on it.
Element | What TeamSync provides |
Training-set construction | Active learning with a reviewer in the loop |
Coding decisions | Per-document classification with a confidence score |
Statistical sampling | Recall, precision, and F1 scores with confidence intervals |
Reviewer agreement metrics | Tracks agreement between reviewers, with calibration |
Defensibility evidence pack | Generated automatically, aligned to Federal Rule 26 |
Audit anchoring | Every coding decision and reviewer override is logged |
This means deposition prep no longer involves reconstructing the process after the fact.
What Changes For The Legal Team
Activity | Before | With TeamSync |
Hold notice deployment | Email, plus manual preservation per system | A workflow step, with automatic preservation |
Custodian interview cycle | Multiple weeks; often reveals more repositories | Much faster, since the platform already connects everything |
Collection cycle | Manual, system-by-system reconciliation | One query, with a cryptographic chain of custody |
Privilege review at scale | Junior associates working overtime | AI-assisted, with statistical defensibility |
Production package | Rebuilt manually | Generated automatically |
Defensibility argument | Explained procedurally | Backed by cryptographic proof |
How TeamSync Compares
Customers typically evaluate this against:
Relativity / RelativityOne: Strong for large-matter review, but weaker on platform-level holds and in-place collection
Everlaw: Strong, modern review experience, but weaker cross-source coverage
DISCO: Strong AI-assisted review, but weaker integration with records-of-record
Microsoft Purview eDiscovery (Premium): Strong within M365, but weaker cross-source coverage and cryptographic audit
For specific comparisons: TeamSync vs Relativity · TeamSync vs Everlaw
Read Further
Why TeamSync — defensible eDiscovery — the architectural pillar
eDiscovery Counsel page — the role-specific conversation
General Counsel page — the executive view
Capabilities — the 16 capabilities, one platform