The annual e-discovery and legal technology show kicked off yesterday morning. WortzmanNickle were there to see what’s hot, what’s not and what’s the same.
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.
Tags: discovery, Document Review, e-discovery, e-discovery Canada, e-discovery conference, e-Discovery Costs, e-discovery processes, e-discovery software, e-discovery solutions, early case assessment, ediscovery, ediscovery Canada, predictive coding, review platforms, Technology
LegalTech, e-discovery solutions, early case assessment, lawyer review | admin January 31, 2012 | 
Comments (0)
Interesting. I just attended a workshop titled “Litigation Readiness: The Impact of the Records Management Program”. According to the panel, following a market research survey, 80% of companies surveyed reported having a records management policy. I found this statistic extremely high and query whether these reported policies are updated, followed and audited regularly. I have my doubts about that.
However, only 60% of those policies contained a litigation readiness component, and only 20% of those utilized litigation readiness software. Further only 38% of those companies had a litigation response team in place to handle all of the e-discovery phases.
Also interesting – in the panel’s view (and these were employees of a service provider) the effectiveness of a litigation readiness program is based 90% on the policies and the team put in place, and only 10% on the software. In their words, technology is merely an “enabler” in the quest for defensible litigation readiness.
More later.
Nickle from New York with Andre, Wortzman Nickle’s Senior E-discovery Analyst and Project Manager at North America’s largest legal technology conference and trade show.
This overwhelming spectacle (this year, complete with demonstrators protesting GB fees in front of the venue!) offers lawyers, forensic vendors, records managers and other e-discovery providers the opportunity to network, attend education sessions, and scope out “the next big thing” in the technology exhibit areas. Breakfasts, lunches and dinners with our colleagues and friends is our favorite way to keep abreast of new technology.
While we are trying to look at everything, our focus this year rests at both ends of the e-discovery spectrum – Early Case Assessment and Review tools. We are always searching for faster, cheaper and more efficient solutions. There is amazing software available – stay tuned for our conclusions!
