LegalTech Day 1

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.

Cloudy Forecast for eDiscovery

The Cloud and social media are hot topics in the tech world. However, a recent study carried out by the eDJ Group last fall indicates that neither have gained widespread adoption within corporations.

It is widely expected that cloud computing and social media will have a significant impact on the way e-discovery is conducted. However, the study showed that it’s not high on corporate IT’s radar quite yet. In fact, it was found that:

• Less than 16% of respondents put an e-discovery plan into place before moving data into the Cloud
• About 26% did not put a plan in place
• A whopping 58% didn’t know if e-discovery was considered when data was moved to the Cloud (which probably means it wasn’t considered)

While the number of players in this area is still quite low, this report should be a wakeup call that organizations need to consider e-discovery in conjunction with the adoption of new technologies.

Wortzman Nickle can help you navigate through the ocean of new technologies and their impact on e-discovery and records management.

e-Discovery Undersized

e-Discovery conjures up visions of millions of documents and cases that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although these are the cases that make the headlines, the average litigation typically involves less than 10,000 records, or about one gigabyte of electronic data.

When law clerks describe “a small document” collection, the usual approach is to either print everything out for review, convert everything to tiff images, or review the native files without any special, e-discovery tools. As anyone who reads this blog (and countless others on the net) knows, these are the least efficient, and most costly methods, regardless of the collection size.

While it will not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to deal with a small volume of electronic information, e-discovery methodologies developed for large document cases, including near duplicate and email thread grouping, statistical sampling, predictive coding, and content analysis, can be equally applied to small cases to ensure that the overall discovery cost is as low as possible.

For example, a 10,000 record collection would require a review of about 400 records in order to apply predictive coding or statistical sampling. Given the current pricing of the various predictive coding solutions, it would cost under $500 to analyse this data. Combine that with about 10 hours of lawyer time to review the 400 documents, and you would have your records all sorted and prioritized. You can then shave off the ones that are likely to be irrelevant, skip the ones you’ve already reviewed, and probably spend another 10 hours or so reviewing the rest. Compare that to the cost to print out 10 bankers boxes of paper, along with the manual (and tedious) lawyer review, and you can clearly see how this approach can save thousands of dollars and millions of brain cells.

Wortzman Nickle can add value to any size case. Call us to find out how.

e-Discovery Technology Enhances the Human Factor, It Doesn’t Replace It

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.

e-Discovery Planning

To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, “If you can keep your head, while all others are losing theirs and blaming it on you – you’ve probably created a good plan”.

In many engagements, Wortzman Nickle is brought into the fray long after work has started. We are asked to take over bits and pieces of what one or more groups of people have been working on. Although we are presented with hard drives, images, backup tapes and paper, very rarely will we be provided with that key ingredient – “The Plan”.

Whether you are in-house counsel, outside counsel or a third party consultant, in many discovery matters, you’ll be brought into a situation and asked to “handle it”. The first daunting challenge that you will face is getting everyone to slow down and reassess.  There’s such a huge desire to keep things moving that no one wants to take the time to sort out exactly what has transpired and try to link that to the eventual desired outcomes.

If you’re put into one of these situations it is important that you’re not pulled in to the overall panic. There are some basic steps to take:

• Take a moment to write down the issues involved and potential outcomes
• Determine how much has been spent already on specific tasks, and whether the results were beneficial to the final goal.
• Set out exactly what human and technical resources are available
• Prepare a written plan of what will be done, when and by whom

To begin, catalogue the issues and resources that are available and to lay out a concise plan for how to track them.

Creating the plan is, however, just the start.  Another important element is in having all the stakeholders sign off on their part of the plan.  Ensure that there is an approval or verification step so that everyone understands their part of the plan.  Insist on getting a response to sending out project files and ensure that there is a single point of contact that will help with tracking all of the affiliated tasks.  A strong project plan needs constant monitoring.

Establish regular updates via email or conference call to ensure that all parties know of project progress. To achieve group collaboration, consider using a shared planning tool. Among other things, this helps cut down the “blame game” emails that tend to work their way around. If you’re sharing project management files, there’s all kinds of great ways using flags and colors (and in some cases even sounds) to alert everyone interested as to who has fallen down on the job, in a timely and constructive manner, so that steps can be taken to bring the project back on track.

Some of these points may seem to be fairly basic or common sense. Nevertheless, as in many areas of life, common sense tends to go out the window when a crisis hits. Taking a moment to assemble a plan, allows you to remain focused on what needs to be done to ensure a successful outcome.

Wortzman Nickle at North America’s Largest e-Discovery Conference!

On Monday, September 19, 2011, Sedona Canada, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario Bar Association, the Advocates Society and the Ontario e-Discovery Implementation Committee collaborated to present “The Ontario e-Discovery Institute: e-Discovery for All Cases and All Lawyers” in Toronto, Ontario. Reported to be the largest e-discovery conference in North America, over 610 people attended in person or by live webinar. It was a very diverse audience from across the country, illustrating a very real interest in all things e-discovery.

Susan Wortzman and Susan Nickle participated on panels on “e-Discovery Negligence” and “Cost Containment and e-Discovery”, respectively. Other panels featured Canadian and American judges and masters, members of the Bar from across Canada and the United States, vendors and litigation support professionals. This multi-perspective approach led to interesting and spirited discussions about privacy, cost-containment, emerging technologies, and other topical e-discovery issues.

Stay tuned to our blog as we feature some of these issues in upcoming posts!

Predictive Coding Demystified

Predictive coding has received a lot of attention lately as the next great magical wand in the e-discovery bag of tricks. However, as with any new technology, there are a number of different implementations and marketing claims that are confusing the whole picture of how this system can help make the e-discovery process more efficient and ultimately reduce costs.

In a nutshell, predictive coding involves the application of sophisticated artificial intelligence to permit the computer to make suggested determinations based on human interaction and the content of documents.

All predictive coding incarnations basically involve the review lawyer coding a subset of the records in the collection. The system examines the decisions made by the reviewer and identifies properties of the documents that it can use to automatically make determinations. As the reviewer continues to code documents, the system predicts what the reviewer will code. When the system’s predictions and the reviewer’s actually coding coincide (within reason), the system has learned enough to make confident predictions on its own.

Predictive coding is being applied at several stages in the e-discovery analysis and review processes:

Culling: In this mode, a lawyer who is an authority on the matter makes relevance decisions on a subset of the records. Once a sufficient number of records have been reviewed (typically a few thousand), the system applies its predictive analysis to the entire set to cull out the records most likely to be relevant. These records can then be subjected to the normal, manual review process.

Subjective Coding: The predictive coding system examines the subjective coding decisions made by lawyers as they manually review records. When a sufficient number of records have been reviewed, the system will start to make coding suggestions for subsequent records to assist the lawyers.

Review Quality Control: Along the same lines as predictive subjective coding, the system uses the subjective coding decisions made by lawyers to predict how documents should be coded. However, instead of suggesting codes for un-reviewed records, the system will apply the predictions to all manually coded records and identify those records where its predictions and the actually coding diverge. This will enable reviewers to zero in on documents that may not be coded correctly.

Prioritization of Records for Review: Predictive coding can also be used to prioritize records in a review. Once a sufficient number of records have been manually reviewed and coded, the system can group un-reviewed documents based on its coding predictions. The review project manager can then group all documents likely to be coded relevant, for instance, and assign these to be reviewed first.

Predictive coding technology is also being considered in several electronic  records management solutions to permit automatic classification of records, removing the burden from individual users.

This technology is being incorporated into more and more e-Discovery software systems, and may soon become a standard way to cull and review electronic data.

For more information on this technology and other cutting-edge e-discovery solutions, contact us.

Solid State Drives – Delete Does Mean Delete

Solid state drives are gaining in popularity in laptop computers and tablets. Compared to their hard disk drive counterparts, solid state drives are more expensive and offer less storage. However, they are much faster and lack the moving parts that can make HDDs prone to failure, particularly in mobile devices that experience a great deal of movement. Solid state drives also consume much less power, allowing portable devices to be used longer between charging.

As with any digital technology, as they move into the mainstream, the price of solid state drives will fall and the storage capacity will increase. It is expected that solid state drives will virtually replace conventional hard drives in portable devices within the next 3 to 5 years.

All of this sounds great, except when it comes to computer forensics. For years, computer forensic professionals have been claiming that “delete does not mean delete”. When you drag a file into the Windows recycle bin, or delete an email in Outlook, a computer forensic technician can usually recover it. This is because, when you “delete” a record on a computer, all that happens is that the record is hidden from view and is suitably marked so that sometime in the future, the computer can replace it with newer data.

Unlike conventional hard drives, solid state drives are little computers unto themselves. They insulate the main device from all the nitty gritty details about storing and retrieving information. Among other things, the solid state drive automatically purges deleted information after 30 to 60 minutes. This is done to reduce power consumption, as the power is directly related to how much data is stored on the drive. Unfortunately (from a computer forensics perspective) this means that when you “delete” a file or email, after an hour, it is permanently erased from the solid state drive.

Although most e-Discovery matters only involve active data, there are situations such as fraud or harassment, where deleted information may be important. The widespread use of solid state drives will make investigations such as these more difficult.

For more information about the computer forensic implications of solid state drives, refer to the Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, Volume 5, Number 3.

Wortzman Nickle’s Training Sessions – Now Accredited by LSUC

Over the past several years, the Susans have worked with a significant number of Canada’s top law firms. Several of these firms have invited us in-house, to speak to groups of litigators and business lawyers about the perils and opportunities inherent in e-discovery, and the benefits of proper records management. Each session is 90 minutes in length. These presentations have evolved over time to keep pace with the changes in technology and approach to discovery.

We are pleased to announce that these Wortzman Nickle education programs have now been accredited by the Law Society of Upper Canada as follows:

• Our e-Discovery program has been accredited for 1 hour toward the New Member Requirement and 0.5 hours toward the Professionalism Requirement for ongoing members.
• Our 90 minute Records Management program has been accredited for 1.5 hours toward the New Member Requirement and 1 hour toward the Professionalism Requirement for ongoing members.

These time-effective and interactive sessions are ideal for a lunch meeting or firm retreat. Call us to discuss bringing these sessions to your team.

Sophisticated software can help lawyers, not replace them

On March 5^th, 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.