eDiscovery built around your case — not a playbook.
Spark is lawyer-led eDiscovery counsel for small and mid-size litigation practices.
We don't run standard processes — we think about your data in the context of your case.
What makes Spark different?
Most eDiscovery vendors run the same playbook on every matter: Collect broadly; Load everything; Review by the book. For giant cases with millions of documents and teams of reviewers, that process is built for the risks involved. For everyone else, it's slow, expensive, and disconnected from the case you're actually trying to win.
Spark is different because Spark is lawyer-led.
Founder Sara Perkins Jones is a practicing litigator with 13+ years of eDiscovery experience in AmLaw 100 firms, Chambers-ranked boutiques, and complex civil matters. She approaches every case the way a senior associate would: thinking about what the evidence actually means, where the key documents are likely to be, and what strategy will hold up when a judge asks questions. Those considerations determine the tools and processes that best fit your case.
Think of Spark as your fractional senior eDiscovery associate — one who understands your litigation strategy, not just your data set.
Working with Spark, you can:
Preserve and collect your clients' data correctly the first time — and avoid the costly spoliation fights that follow when it's done wrong, particularly with mobile data and collaboration tools like Slack, Teams, and WhatsApp.
Choose the right platform and review process for your specific matter — not whatever the vendor finds easiest to run.
Review documents efficiently for responsiveness and privilege, whether you're looking at 1,000 emails or 1,000,000.
Find what matters fast — key documents, hot docs, and the evidence that changes cases — using the best search and AI tools available.
Prepare for depositions and trial with a clear, organized exhibit set.
Do you sell software?
Spark is a certified Everlaw partner, which means we can host your matter on our preferred cloud-based litigation platform — designed with nimble, smaller practices in mind. That said, we recommend the right tool for your job. We're comfortable working in many platforms and will tell you honestly what fits your matter and your practice. Learn more about Everlaw hosting.
The eDiscovery Landscape Has Changed.
Has Your Approach?
For all but the smallest disputes, electronic discovery is no longer optional — and the bar for what’s required keeps rising.
Discovery is no longer the process of photocopying files and delivering them to opposing counsel in a few Bankers boxes. Nor can it be effectively handled by having a few key custodians print their relevant emails to PDF.
Your clients’ employees each send and receive hundreds of emails a day. Post-pandemic, both remote and office-based workers communicate through collaboration apps like Slack or Teams, and they may talk business or discuss office gossip via text messages and other mobile apps like WhatsApp, Signal, or Telegram. They manage tasks and workflow through project management apps like Trello, Monday, or Asana, and track customer interactions in databases like Salesforce, HubSpot, and Zoho. They may record or auto-transcribe Zoom meetings, or use AI note-takers to summarize conversations.
And in 2026, they are using Generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and CoPilot to create and manage work product.
The courts’ rules are evolving to meet this tidal wave of data, and so have opponents’ tactics. Courts increasingly assume that parties will negotiate ESI (Electronically Stored Information) Protocols that lay out what will be searched, how it will be reviewed (AI? TAR? Search terms?), in what format it will be produced, and what metadata will be included. Government subpoenas are accompanied by 10- or 20-page specifications for how documents are to be produced.
Spark’s blog, eDiscovery in Real Life, tracks some of the consequences for attorneys and clients of not keeping up to date with eDiscovery and AI. But if you want to hear it from a judge, what about Delaware Vice Chancellor Travis Laster?
Professed technological incompetence is not an excuse for discovery misconduct. … Deliberate ignorance of technology is inexcusable. If a lawyer cannot master the technology suitable for that lawyer's practice, the lawyer should either hire tech-savvy lawyers tasked with responsibility to keep current, or hire an outside technology consultant who understands the practice of law and associated ethical constraints.
James v. Nat’l Fin. LLC, 2014 WL 6845560 (Del. Ch. Dec. 5, 2014) (internal citations omitted), discussing Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, which requires technological competence.
Spark is the lean, qualified, and strategically-focused partner your practice needs for eDiscovery.