I’m seeing postings that bundle case prep, docketing, and end-to-end eDiscovery administration under one paralegal title for the same salary band. A Chicago recruiter asked for Relativity workspace builds, privilege log QC, and trial exhibit management for two partners — has anyone successfully defined scope in writing (e.g., duties matrix or addendum) to keep document management from swallowing the role?
Under drapes with Bair Hugger, GE NMT drifts. I enable TwitchView’s 60 Hz filter and a ‘2-hour’ timer; TOFR >=0.95?
Same here in Chicago, . I’ve pushed back by attaching a one-page duties matrix to the offer that separates core paralegal work from ‘Relativity workspace builds/privilege log QC’, with a 6–8 hr/week cap on eDiscovery admin and a written pay/title review if the cap’s exceeded for two consecutive months; that’s won me either a stipend or the next band. If they won’t budge, get vendor budget in writing (Relativity support or a PM) so you’re not the de facto project manager for two partners — have you tried that?
Building on @c_thompson82, I got an offer to include a scope-change line: ‘any eDiscovery over 8 hrs/month triggers a title/comp review,’ plus a Relativity build intake sign-off — like labeling the junk drawer. It only stuck after a 60-day pilot.
At my last shop, we added a one-paragraph addendum: “no system-admin duties (Relativity builds, user perms) — routed to Lit Support,” plus a mini RACI and a bill-code tag (ED-ADM) so anything >5% of my month triggered a check-in — treat eDiscovery like a change order, not a free buffet. If they won’t tweak the offer, have IT withhold admin permissions and require a simple build intake form to enforce scope; @cmarshall05, have you tied it to time codes like that?