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)
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)
Susan Nickle and I have spent a busy week meeting with vendors and assessing litigation support tools on behalf of several clients. The new built-in features to several of these tools allow organizations and law firms to conduct their own early case assessment in-house. This became the focus of many of the meetings we had this week. This really ties into Nickle’s post last week with respect to in-sourcing and how much of the e-discovery process should be conducted in-house by large Canadian organizations. As the tools are developing so rapidly, we see many ways for our clients to put themselves in a position to conduct early case assessment efficiently and in a very cost effective manner.
Despite an initial collection of hundreds of thousands of e-mails for review, early case assessment tools have allowed us to manipulate our searches and the data to cull the collections down to very manageable review sizes. Coupling that with the review tools that allow for clustering, threading, boolean and other types of searches, we are identifying manageable review sets of data that can be triaged in a matter of days. Trial counsels are then able conduct a serious assessment of their case.
Susan and I continue the quest to find the best tools to allow our clients to manage their e-discovery reviews, both in conjunction with external support and in-house. The reaction from our clients has been overwhelmingly positive as they see the results of the early case assessment work
