eDiscovery Codes
The LOC eDiscovery codes (L600 series), the electronic discovery lifecycle as a sixth litigation phase, following the EDRM stages with mixed hourly, per-gigabyte, and per-document pricing exposure.
UTBMS eDiscovery codes structure the electronic discovery lifecycle as a sixth litigation phase, following the EDRM stages from identification through presentation plus project management.
The set's defining feature is mixed pricing exposure: some phases bill hourly, others per gigabyte, per custodian, per document, or flat fee, so the codes are the mechanism that makes eDiscovery unit economics visible. Each phase includes a catch-all (the phase code itself) and a quality assurance code ending in nine. Read this set alongside L320 fee entries and E118 vendor expenses for the complete document review economic picture. Every code is searchable alongside all sets at the UTBMS code database.
eDiscovery is often a legal department's largest single litigation cost driver and its least transparent, which is exactly where a legal spend management program focuses: the L600 codes are what turn a lump-sum vendor invoice into per-gigabyte and per-document unit costs you can actually manage.
What are ediscovery codes used for?
eDiscovery codes follow the EDRM lifecycle, from identification and preservation through collection, processing, review, analysis, production, presentation, and project management. Structuring discovery this way exposes where cost concentrates and on what pricing basis it accrues.
The signals that matter most are about pricing basis and volume. Processing and review are where per-gigabyte and per-document costs accumulate, so the review question is whether the volume was necessary and whether the unit rate matches the engagement terms.
What does each eDiscovery code cover?
L601: Discovery PlanningLOC (2011)
Discovery planning work, including initial complaint review for discovery scope and development of the data map.
When to use this code: Use for front-end discovery planning.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Planning rebuilt per matter where an organizational data map should carry forward across the portfolio.
What invoice review checks: Planning hours per matter over time; a maintained data map should drive them down.
L602: InterviewsLOC (2011)
Custodian and data steward interviews.
When to use this code: Use for identification-stage interviews.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Interview time per custodian varying widely, and interviews repeated for custodians covered in recent matters.
What invoice review checks: Per-custodian interview cost and cross-matter reuse of custodian intelligence.
L609: Quality Assurance and Control - IdentificationLOC (2011)
QA work ensuring identification practices meet defensibility standards.
When to use this code: Use for identification-phase QA.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: QA billed as a percentage-like overlay rather than tied to specific validation work.
What invoice review checks: QA entries should name the validation performed; defensibility work leaves artifacts.
L611: Preservation OrderLOC (2011)
Work ensuring preservation compliance with orders and requirements, including relief efforts and notice letters to other parties.
When to use this code: Use for preservation order work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Order-compliance work duplicating the legal hold workstream under L612.
What invoice review checks: The L611 and L612 boundary applied consistently within the matter.
L612: Legal HoldLOC (2011)
Drafting and distributing legal holds, tracking custodian responses, and releasing holds at matter conclusion.
When to use this code: Use for the legal hold lifecycle.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Manual hold tracking at professional rates where hold tooling automates the workflow, and holds never released, which quietly accrues preservation cost and risk.
What invoice review checks: Hold administration cost per matter against your tooling, and release discipline as a tracked metric; unreleased holds are a cost and risk finding in themselves.
L619: Quality Assurance and Control - PreservationLOC (2011)
QA on preservation defensibility.
When to use this code: Use for preservation-phase QA.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlay-style QA entries.
What invoice review checks: Named validation artifacts, as with L609.
L621: Collection/RecoveryLOC (2011)
Collecting and recovering custodial and non-custodial data across sources, including forensic work such as decryption, password recovery, and imaging, plus selective collection and searches.
When to use this code: Use for collection work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Full forensic imaging as the default where targeted collection meets the need, and per-custodian collection pricing varying widely across vendors.
What invoice review checks: Per-custodian collection cost, and the targeted-versus-full-image decision made deliberately per source.
L622: Media CostsLOC (2011)
Actual costs of media used for preservation, collection, and production.
When to use this code: Use for media cost tracking.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Media charges persisting in vendor rate cards as legacy line items.
What invoice review checks: Whether physical media was actually used; the category is increasingly vestigial.
L623: Media Transfer, Receipt, and InventoryLOC (2011)
Transferring, receiving, tracking, and inventorying media.
When to use this code: Use for media logistics.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Logistics at professional rates.
What invoice review checks: Administrative staffing, per the overhead provisions in guidelines.
L629: Quality Assurance and Control - CollectionLOC (2011)
QA on collection defensibility.
When to use this code: Use for collection-phase QA.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlay-style QA entries.
What invoice review checks: Named validation artifacts.
L631: Staging, Preparation and ProcessingLOC (2011)
Staging and processing collected data, including culling, date filtering, keyword application, and early case assessment.
When to use this code: Use for processing work, the per-gigabyte core of eDiscovery cost.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Per-GB rates that have not tracked the market's steep price decline, and processing volumes unreduced by culling before the expensive stages.
What invoice review checks: Per-GB unit price benchmarked across matters and vendors, and volume reduction ratios stage over stage; both numbers move real money.
L632: Scanning - Hard CopyLOC (2011)
Scanning paper documents, including OCR and metadata production.
When to use this code: Use for paper digitization.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Per-page scanning rates above commodity market pricing.
What invoice review checks: Per-page unit cost; this is a commodity service.
L633: Foreign Language TranslationLOC (2011)
Translation of electronic and paper documents.
When to use this code: Use for translation in the processing context.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Human translation applied where machine translation with targeted human review is the accepted workflow.
What invoice review checks: The translation workflow decision and per-document unit cost, read with E125 where both appear.
L634: Exception HandlingLOC (2011)
Handling documents requiring special processing, including decryption.
When to use this code: Use for exception work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Exception volumes claimed without an exception report.
What invoice review checks: Exception rates are reportable by every processing platform; ask for the report.
L639: Quality Assurance and Control - ProcessingLOC (2011)
QA on processing defensibility.
When to use this code: Use for processing-phase QA.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlay-style QA entries.
What invoice review checks: Named validation artifacts.
L693: Review Planning and TrainingLOC (2011)
Developing review protocols and training reviewers before and during review.
When to use this code: Use for review setup. Note the out-of-sequence code number within the review phase.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Protocol development rebuilt per matter where a client playbook should carry forward.
What invoice review checks: Setup cost per review over time against a maintained protocol library.
L651: Hosting CostsLOC (2011)
Database creation, data loading, online storage, user and license fees, and archiving for review platforms.
When to use this code: Use for hosting charges.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Monthly hosting continuing on dormant matters, per-GB hosting rates above current market, and user licenses exceeding the active review team.
What invoice review checks: Hosting as a recurring line audited monthly: active matters, current rates, right-sized licenses, and archiving policy for dormant data. This is the most reliably recoverable spend in eDiscovery.
L652: Objective and Subjective CodingLOC (2011)
Unitizing and coding bibliographic information, including auto-coding.
When to use this code: Use for coding work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Manual coding of fields auto-coding extracts reliably.
What invoice review checks: Per-document coding cost and the manual-versus-auto split.
L653: First Pass Document ReviewLOC (2011)
First-level review for relevance, issue coding, tagging, and initial privilege calls.
When to use this code: Use for first-pass review, the largest human cost in discovery.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Attorney-rate first pass where staff attorney, contract reviewer, or technology-assisted review is the market staffing model, and documents-per-hour rates below defensible norms.
What invoice review checks: Documents per hour and cost per document by reviewer tier; with TAR in play, also the machine-versus-human allocation. This is where L320, L650-series, and E118 tell one story.
L654: Second Pass Document ReviewLOC (2011)
QC review of first-pass coding decisions.
When to use this code: Use for second-pass QC.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Full re-review framed as QC sampling, which multiplies review cost.
What invoice review checks: The QC sampling rate, stated in the protocol and verifiable in the platform metrics.
L655: Privilege ReviewLOC (2011)
Final privilege review and privilege log work.
When to use this code: Use for privilege work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Log construction at senior rates where log automation and tiered staffing are standard, and log formats exceeding what the case requires.
What invoice review checks: Cost per log entry, and the log format negotiated with opposing counsel before the work, since format drives cost.
L656: RedactionLOC (2011)
Developing redaction protocols and performing redactions.
When to use this code: Use for redaction work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Manual redaction of pattern-based content that automated redaction handles.
What invoice review checks: Per-document redaction cost and the automation split.
L659: Quality Assurance and Control - ReviewLOC (2011)
QA on review defensibility.
When to use this code: Use for review-phase QA.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlay-style QA entries.
What invoice review checks: Named validation artifacts.
L660: Analysis (NOS)LOC (2011)
Analytical work enabling informed strategy and scope decisions from verified data. This phase carries no subcodes beyond the NOS.
When to use this code: Use for discovery analytics and strategy analysis.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Analysis blending into first-pass review time.
What invoice review checks: The boundary with L653; analysis should produce strategy artifacts, review produces coded documents.
L671: Conversion to Production FormatLOC (2011)
Converting documents to production format, including imaging, Bates stamping, endorsing, and load file preparation.
When to use this code: Use for production processing.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Full-image productions where native production is acceptable and cheaper, and per-page conversion pricing at legacy rates.
What invoice review checks: The production format agreement drives this cost; negotiate format early and benchmark per-unit conversion pricing.
L679: Quality Assurance and Control - ProductionLOC (2011)
QA on production defensibility.
When to use this code: Use for production-phase QA.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlay-style QA entries.
What invoice review checks: Named validation artifacts.
L680: Presentation (NOS)LOC (2011)
Preparing and displaying evidence at depositions, hearings, and trials, especially in native and near-native forms. This phase carries no subcodes beyond the NOS.
When to use this code: Use for presentation-stage work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlap with L440 trial support and E117 exhibit vendor costs.
What invoice review checks: Read with the trial preparation codes so presentation cost is counted once.
L690: Project Management (NOS)LOC (2011)
Supervising and managing work across the EDRM lifecycle, including meetings, work plans, budgets, forecasts, and reporting. This phase carries no subcodes beyond the NOS.
When to use this code: Use for discovery project management.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: PM billed as a percentage-of-spend overlay, and PM layers duplicated between law firm and vendor for the same workstream.
What invoice review checks: PM as a percentage of total discovery cost, benchmarked, with the firm-versus-vendor PM division defined once per matter.
How should legal departments use ediscovery codes in invoice review?
eDiscovery review is unit-economics work more than reasonableness work. Track cost per gigabyte through processing and per document through review, confirm that volumes tie to the collection scope, and read the L600 codes together with the L320 fees and E118 vendor expenses that complete the discovery cost picture.
Making that visible depends on the eBilling platform capturing L600 codes and their pricing basis, which is where legal technology implementation matters: vendor invoices should arrive coded to phase with unit rates the system can check, not as flat sums a reviewer has to decompose by hand.
How do eDiscovery Codes support legal spend management?
eDiscovery Codes only deliver value inside a program that enforces them. Our legal spend management and enterprise legal management hubs cover how coded invoices become spend control, and our guides to outside counsel spend benchmarks, the cost of poor eBilling governance, and matter budgets go deeper on the review programs, guidelines, and eBilling rules that put UTBMS coding to work.
Bottom Line
eDiscovery is where the largest and least transparent litigation dollars live, and the L600 codes are the tool that makes them legible. Coded to phase with their pricing basis, they turn a lump-sum vendor bill into per-gigabyte and per-document unit costs. Read alongside the L320 fees and E118 expenses, they complete the discovery economic picture.
The L600 codes are what turn an opaque eDiscovery vendor invoice into unit costs a legal department can manage.
Frequently asked questions
How do eDiscovery codes fit with the litigation task codes?
The L600 series acts as a sixth litigation phase, extending the five ABA litigation phases to cover the electronic discovery lifecycle. It follows the EDRM stages and is read alongside the L300 discovery task codes and E118 vendor expenses for the full picture.
Why do eDiscovery phases have different pricing?
eDiscovery work bills on mixed bases: some phases are hourly, others per gigabyte, per custodian, per document, or flat fee. The codes make that mixed pricing visible, which is what lets a department manage eDiscovery as unit economics rather than a lump sum.
What are the NOS and quality assurance codes?
Each phase includes a catch-all code, the phase code itself, used when no more specific task applies, and a quality assurance code ending in nine. Watching catch-all volume is a coding-quality check, since heavy use of the phase-level code suggests work that should have been coded more specifically.
How should eDiscovery codes be used in invoice review?
Track cost per gigabyte through processing and per document through review, confirm volumes tie to collection scope, and read the L600 codes with the related L320 fees and E118 expenses. Each code below lists the patterns reviewers commonly see and what invoice review checks.
How do UTBMS codes relate to outside counsel billing guidelines and legal spend management?
UTBMS codes are the shared vocabulary that outside counsel billing guidelines and a legal spend management program depend on. Guidelines define what each code should and should not contain, the eBilling system enforces those rules, and consistent coding is what makes spend analytics and cross-firm benchmarking possible. Without agreed codes, guidelines cannot be enforced and spend data cannot be compared.
About this reference
UTBMS code sets are standards published by their respective bodies, including the ABA, the LEDES Oversight Committee, UTBMS.com, the CBA, DRI, the Judiciaries of England and Wales, and the Yerra Global KM Expert Group. All copyrights and trademarks are the property of their respective owners; Swiftwater & Company is not affiliated with or endorsed by any of them.
Code identifiers follow the published standards, while all descriptions and annotations are original Swiftwater commentary, developed with human expertise, proprietary consulting knowledge, and AI assistance.
This is general reference material, not legal advice. Standards are revised over time, so confirm the current version with the originating body before implementing.
Next Step
Ready to talk to a legal operations practitioner who has actually done it?
Start with the free CURRENT Assessment to benchmark your spend program, or use legaltechcalculator.com to build the cost case for the eBilling rules that enforce these codes.
Book a Discovery CallNo commitment and no pitch deck, just a direct conversation with a legal operations practitioner.