On March 5th, the New York Times published an article entitled “Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software” which discussed the “new e-discovery software that can analyze millions of documents in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost consumed by human lawyers, even deducing patterns of behaviour”. It discussed the explosion of electronically stored information, the technology used to analyze that data and how all this has disrupted the legal job market.
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.
Tags: costs, discovery, e-discovery, e-discovery Canada, e-Discovery Costs, e-discovery processes, e-discovery project management, e-discovery solutions, early case assessment, ediscovery, ediscovery Canada, lawyer review, litigation support tools, managing e-discovery costs, Proportionality, review platforms, Technology
In-house e-discovery, Proportionality, e-Discovery Costs, e-discovery in Canada, e-discovery solutions, early case assessment, lawyer review, software and tools | admin March 22, 2011 | 
Comments (0)
Last week, the Wortzman Nickle home team travelled to Collingwood for the firm’s retreat.
This annual event gave us the opportunity to re-group, review processes and files, and team-build. Guided by a comprehensive agenda and inspired by the beautiful surroundings, our team has emerged stronger and more efficient than ever.
Key topics of interest? Efficient collection and data processing, lawyer review processes and platforms, plus project management best practices ruled the day. We know that being efficient with processes and reporting keeps files on track, on budget, and clients happy.
In the name of team-building, we took on a “strenuous/advanced” mountain hike in the rain, as well as two yoga classes. There’s nothing like sore muscles, exhaustion, and a few headstands to bring a legal team together.
Things to watch for? Wortzman Nickle’s edgy, innovative, advertising campaign, introduced this Spring and to be continued in the Fall. Some other surprises are in store for our firm…stay tuned.
New e-discovery products are coming to market on almost a weekly basis. They serve different functions and fit into different parts of the EDRM model (notionally being: preservation, identification, collection, processing/culling, review, and production). In researching these options, we are learning that the terminology used by forensic companies is often as diverse as the products they are selling.
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.
