As expected, Predictive Coding led the charge of buzz words once again this year. Many vendors offered their flavour of machine learning technology. However, some vendors appear to have realized, as we have, that Predictive Coding alone will not solve the dilemma of ever increasing e-discovery volumes and ever decreasing budgets and timelines. These forward thinking software developers are now integrating Predictive Coding into a package that includes all the tried and true e-discovery technologies, such as concept clustering, near duplication, email threading, and our trusted friend, keyword searching.

While there are many claims of unique Predictive Coding approaches, they all generally fall into one of two main categories – either quickly teach the computer up front what you’re looking for and then have it find your relevant documents, or let the computer observe as you search and find relevant documents using other methods, so that it can subtlety influence the result and present you with more likely relevant documents to review.  Both methods should theoretically end up with the same results.

Wortzman Nickle will be exploring these two approaches over the next couple of months and report in upcoming blogs and papers on the costs and benefits of each methodology.

The article provided a clear and concise overview of the new systems available to assist legal teams.  However, the conclusion that these technologies will replace “expensive lawyers” misses the mark. All of the technologies mentioned in the article require a combination of machine and human interaction in order to operate. Humans have to “teach” the computer to identify relevant information. As with any educational process, the more highly skilled the teacher, the better the lesson will be. What the technologies will replace are lawyers working at very basic levels without a strong understanding of the case.

Although the new technologies will force lawyers to learn new ways to approach document discovery, the technologies are just one cog in the legal machine. Lawyers still need to understand the content of the documents to build their case. The new systems will help lawyers to zero in on the documents containing the relevant content.

No matter how sophisticated a computer system gets, it can’t make subjective evaluations. The legal process is not black and white – it’s ultimately based on judgement and inference. As a result, it will always require highly skilled talent.

In particular, the term “review” is causing some confusion. In the legal context, “review” means the fifth stage in the EDRM model referencing the “lawyer review”. This is the phase after collection and processing/culling when lawyers review and code the records for relevance, privilege and to issues codes. At the review phase, we look for a robust review platform that allows customized coding fields and the integration of near de-duplication and/or concept clustering software. These features save our clients significant time and money as they avoid a linear review. 

However, in the forensic context, “review” often means the ability to view records (images or in native format) during the early case assessment or processing/culling phases. 

Does this potential conflict in e-terminology matter? Yes.  Suddenly, a solution billed as “end to end” is actually an early case assessment or processing tool – one which will require an export of data to an appropriate (but different) review platform down the road. This can mean an increase in time and cost for the litigant company – the one that believed it had purchased a single “end to end” e-discovery solution.

The lesson learned is this – ask lots of questions and clarify the terminology at every stage. Alternatively, call Wortzman Nickle and we’ll help you with the e-translation.