We finished our three days at LegalTech and have safely returned to Toronto. Our general impression was that there have not been any monumental changes in the e-Discovery technology industry since last year. While there was some consolidation of products and vendors, the software systems available to litigators to deal with electronic records are pretty much the same as last year. We did see some refinements and improvements in previous year’s new innovations, but nothing stood out to us as the next e-discovery solution.
While products were not much changed, we did note a change in the way the products were promoted. Many vendors began their sales pitch by telling us why their competitors’ products did not work, and only their own products could meet our requirements. Perhaps this was due to it being a primaries year in the U.S., or it was a result of the lack of progress in software design since last year. Whatever the reason, it did somewhat dampen our overall experience. We most appreciated the vendors who proudly demonstrated their own wares without slamming the product next door.
The lack of real innovation may be due to a maturing e-Discovery industry. But, we are still optimistic as both products and processes continue to improve. The goal remains to develop solutions to reduce the cost and effort to identify, collect, review and produce electronic information.
Tags: Document Review, e-discovery, e-discovery Canada, e-discovery conference, e-Discovery Costs, e-discovery processes, e-discovery software, e-discovery solutions, ediscovery Canada, LegalTech, review platforms, Technology
Blog | admin February 2, 2012 | 
Comments (0)
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)
Predictive Coding. Conceptual Clustering. Visual Analysis. Computers that can win on Jeopardy. New technologies related to the review of electronic information are being announced almost daily. It seems from the hype that we will soon have a “press here” button that will give a lawyer all of the relevant documents without any work.
Reality Check: while all of these technologies help to wade through the continually growing volume of electronic information, they are really only options which must be considered by those charged with the management of large volumes of electronic data. Leading edge technology is not for everyone, nor for every case. Even where its application will reduce costs and effort, there must be a balance struck between technology and human resources.
Introducing new technology into any process is fraught with uncertainty. To alleviate some of this uncertainty and ensure that the proper tool is selected for each job, Wortzman Nickle systematically analyses new and existing technological tools that assist in large volume document reviews. We know what technology will provide real benefit in any given situation, and will actually assist, rather than deter, human reviewers to get the job done faster, more accurately, and cost effectively.
Whatever role technology plays in any litigation search, and however sophisticated it becomes, human review will always retain a place alongside the technology as a way of getting quickly and efficiently to the document set that matters. If we leave aside those who sensibly and genuinely see the need to consider all possible ways of handling documents efficiently, there are growing external pressures on the rest to do so; they include increasingly active management by judges, competition with others for client business and, in some cases, mere survival as a litigation practice.
If you have any questions concerning litigation technology, reach out to Wortzman Nickle for help.
Tags: Document Review, e-discovery, e-discovery Canada, e-Discovery Costs, e-discovery processes, e-discovery project management, e-discovery software, e-discovery solutions, ediscovery, ediscovery Canada, ediscovery review, lawyer review, managing e-discovery costs, predictive coding, Technology
Blog | admin October 26, 2011 | Comments (0)
When searching for information, it’s not the “search” that’s important, it’s what you find. According to the analyst firm Gartner, what we once knew as search, is not just search anymore. In fact, it now uses the term “information access” to include a collection of technologies to help you find information, such as:
- content classification, categorization and clustering
- fact and entity extraction
- taxonomy creation and management
- information presentation (for example visualization)
Many of the tools around extraction, classification, and categorization of records remain supplementary to the essential task of organizing information. There are three main ways in which people look for information:
- Pattern Matching – using search criteria with the same physical attributes as the sought after information, such as keyword searching. Pattern matching requires that the found information contains the words or phrases in certain parts (e.g. the title, author, content), and possibly that certain words exists close to each other (e.g. clustering).
- Semantic Web Navigation – an artificial “web” of data that allows machines to understand the semantics, or meaning, of information. Relationships between discrete pieces of information are identified, usually in some sort of visual representation.
- Classified or Categorized, that which is organized by topic browsing. – This is where we use classification taxonomies and related structured organizations of information.
While only the first approach relies exclusively on “search”, the line between search and browse (either by link or by structure) blurs more every day, as clustering and guided navigation enable new ways for lawyers to facilitate useful access to large repositories. At the end of the day, all three approaches rely heavily on metadata. Clearly, to access information properly, first you need to organize it properly.
Wortzman Nickle has spent considerable resources analysing and employing various information access technologies in an effort to maximize data analysis and review efficiencies. For more information, contact us.
Tags: culling, discovery, Document Review, e-discovery, e-discovery Canada, e-Discovery Costs, e-discovery processes, e-discovery software, e-discovery solutions, early case assessment, Information Management, litigation support tools, managing e-discovery costs, Search Technology, Technology
Blog | admin October 14, 2011 | Comments (0)
e-Discovery software abounds, and more packages are coming on the market weekly. Gartner, an IT research and advisory organization, estimates that the e-Discovery software market in the U.S. will reach $1.5 billion by 2013. With many options to choose from, it seems that the key to running a successful e-Discovery project is to simply select the correct software package. Nothing could be further from the truth.
e-Discovery software is a tool. Like any tool, a skilled craftsman needs to wield it in order to produce a successful result. Given the complex nature and multiple nuances of e-Discovery, the skill level of the project manager is much more important than the software tool or tools selected to accomplish the job.
A case in point – de-NISTing. NIST stands for the National Institute of Standards and Technologies, a U.S. government agency tasked with settings technological standards. Four times a year, NIST releases a library of software signatures (hash values) for system and other common computer files. This library is routinely incorporated into e-Discovery software tools to automatically filter out files that are not likely to be relevant to a matter, in order to reduce the number of records that need to be reviewed (hence the term de-NISTing). Since review costs make up between 60% and 80% of a typical discovery budget, using automated techniques such as filtering with the NIST library can result in significant cost reductions.
This all sounds great. However, a recent examination of the NIST library revealed that it does not include signatures for Windows 7 system files or Microsoft Office 2010 files. Current estimates indicate that over 350 million computers are running Windows 7, and over 100 million run Office 2010. This means that using the common de-NISTing technique on a Windows 7 or Office 2010 machine may not filter very much, leaving a lot of irrelevant records that need to be dealt with some other way.
If a project manager simply relies on e-Discovery software that incorporates de-NISTing to take care of irrelevant system and program files, without a clear understanding of what needs to be accomplished or any means of reviewing the results produced, the number of records subjected to subsequent review may be significantly higher, resulting in dramatic e-Discovery cost overruns.
For more information on the role e-Discovery software plays in the larger e-Discovery process, contact Wortzman Nickle.
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!
