Predictive Coding Sparks Some Opposition
July 11, 2012
Editor’s Note: The original write up included observations which we learned were “out of bounds.” We want to make a formal apology to those mentioned in the article.
We wrote about a story in The New York Law Journal. You can find the source document “Judge Rejects Recusal Over Support for eDiscovery Method” at this link. We heard from one of our advertisers that Recommind www.recommind.com, a company known for its work in predictive coding, objected to the summary and the opinions expressed in the source article. We have, based on the statements communicated to us by our advertiser, removed the 256 word summary, quote from the source article, and the opinions of the person who wrote the story for Beyond Search. We deeply regret writing an abstract which offended Recommind.
We are sorry that our approach to creating useful pointers to articles of interest offended Recommind, the other individual referenced in the special letter to our advertiser, and to any of our readers who found our article problematic. We have a procedure in place, and we try to allow writers scope and try to point to useful source articles. We want to help inform people about important articles. The opinion the writers express are designed to add value to the abstract. As we note in the About section to this Web log, we are performing a specific type of abstracting and indexing service. We wrote in January 2008 and updated the statement in November 2011:
The data and information provided on this site are for informational purposes only. I, Stephen E. Arnold, make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, objectivity, suitability, or validity of any information in a write up or on this site. Our content is pegged to source materials which are reachable via a public network. If you read something in Beyond Search, it is not news or “real” journalism. My views and opinions change. Frequently. Expect to find variances when you compare certain essays with my other written work. I started the Beyond Search Web log for myself, promote my studies, capture information that won’t be in my for-fee work, and have a time stamped record of what I was thinking, why, and when. I am human; therefore, I make errors. If you read something and accept it without verifying my information and interpretation, that’s your decision. Got a problem with my approach? Do not read this Web log. The information is provided on an as-is basis and, at this time, without a fee. Just in case: If I say something dumb in the future, it’s better to be able to point out that the error is mine and a mistake should not be a surprise.
We are sorry, apologize, and will make an effort to do an even better job going forward.
Stephen E Arnold, July 16, 2012, 1 30 pm Eastern
[Source article with offending and objectionable comments, statements, and opinions removed by request.]
We have heard the predictive coding and eDiscovery are the legal community’s future, but change is always met by resistance. The New York Law Journal recounts one of the first challenges for predictive coding: “Judge Rejects Recusal Over Support for eDiscovery Method.” The article describes the case Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 11 Civ. 1279 and how Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck refused to recuse himself from the case. We noted this passage.
” ‘Here, my comments at eDiscovery conferences related to the general use of predictive coding in appropriate cases, and I did not express any opinion regarding the specific issues in the case. Consequently, neither my comments nor the fact that Losey was on some panels with me, nor the fact that MSL’s vendor Recommind sponsored different panels at LegalTech, separately or collectively, are a basis for recusal.’ “
Whitney Grace, July 11, 2012 and revised on July 16, 2012
Sponsored by Content Analyst
Comments
One Response to “Predictive Coding Sparks Some Opposition”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
Thanks for this clarification. Our company Content Analyst (www.contentanalyst.com) does not condone any suggestion of impropriety in this case In fact, we believe Magistrate Judge Peck is one of the chief visionaries in the legal community with the courage to foster adoption of technology that improves the eDiscovery process, and we also applaude Recommind (www.recommind.com) for bringing a solution to market that has indeed survived a legal challenge.