Protected: Two Law Technology Companies Cooperate
June 20, 2012
The Alleged Received Wisdom about Predictive Coding
June 19, 2012
Let’s start off with a recommendation. Snag a copy of the Wall Street Journal and read the hard copy front page story in the Marketplace section, “Computers Carry Water of Pretrial Legal Work.” In theory, you can read the story online if you don’t have Sections A-1, A-10 of the June 18, 2012, newspaper. Check out a variant of the story appears as “Why Hire a Lawyer? Computers Are Cheaper.”
Now let me offer a possibly shocking observation: The costs of litigation are not going down for certain legal matters. Neither bargain basement human attorneys nor Fancy Dan content processing systems make the legal bills smaller. Your mileage may vary, but for those snared in some legal traffic jams, costs are tough to control. In fact, search and content processing can impact costs, just not in the way some of the licensees of next generation systems expect. That is one of the mysteries of online that few can penetrate.
The main idea of the Wall Street Journal story is that “predictive coding” can do work that human lawyers do for a higher cost but sometimes with much less precision. That’s the hint about costs in my opinion. But the article is traditional journalistic gold. Coming from the Murdoch organization, what did I expect? i2 Group has been chugging along with relationship maps for case analyses of important matters since 1990. Big alert: i2 Ltd. was a client of mine. Let’s see that was more than a couple of weeks ago that basic discovery functions were available.
The write up quotes published analyses which indicate that when humans review documents, those humans get tired and do a lousy job. The article cites “experts” who from Thomson Reuters, a firm steeped in legal and digital expertise, who point out that predictive coding is going to be an even bigger business. Here’s the passage I underlined: “Greg McPolin, an executive at the legal outsourcing firm Pangea3 which is owned by Thomson Reuters Corp., says about one third of the company’s clients are considering using predictive coding in their matters.” This factoid is likely to spawn a swarm of azure chip consultants who will explain how big the market for predictive coding will be. Good news for the firms engaged in this content processing activity.
What goes faster? The costs of a legal matter or the costs of a legal matter that requires automation and trained attorneys? Why do companies embrace automation plus human attorneys? Risk certainly is a turbo charger?
The article also explains how predictive coding works, offers some cost estimates for various actions related to a document, and adds some cautionary points about predictive coding proving itself in court. In short, we have a touchstone document about this niche in search and content processing.
My thoughts about predictive coding are related to the broader trends in the use of systems and methods to figure out what is in a corpus and what a document is about.
First, the driver for most content processing is related to two quite human needs. First, the costs of coping with large volumes of information is high and going up fast. Second, the need to reduce risk. Most professionals find quips about orange jump suits, sharing a cell with Mr. Madoff, and the iconic “perp walk” downright depressing. When a legal matter surfaces, the need to know what’s in a collection of content like corporate email is high. The need for speed is driven by executive urgency. The cost factor clicks in when the chief financial officer has to figure out the costs of determining what’s in those documents. Predictive coding to the rescue. One firm used the phrase “rocket docket” to communicate speed. Other firms promise optimized statistical routines. The big idea is that automation is fast and cheaper than having lots of attorneys sifting through documents in printed or digital form. The Wall Street Journal is right. Automated content processing is going to be a big business. I just hit the two key drivers. Why dance around what is fueling this sector?
Predictive Coding Wins Major Case
June 18, 2012
We’ve heard before how data analysis will change how we view and use information, but it will have a huge impact on the legal system. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has the following headline, “Pittsburgh Lawyer Wins Landmark Case Involving Use of Predictive Coding In Discovery Process.” Thomas Gricks III, a partner at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, filed to have predictive coding useable in circuit court for ten suits his firm represented. Gricks had more than 2 million documents to sift through and he used predictive coding to characterize the files, so he would only have to review a smaller portion. His strategy worked and has set a precedent for the legal system.
Here’s a prediction for the future:
“Rather than keyword searching of documents, predictive coding uses analytic searching that looks for concepts, said Peter Mansmann, chief executive of Precise Inc., a Downtown-based firm that provides trial consulting, e-discovery and document retention services. ‘It’s kind of new to the legal industry, and though it’s statistically shown to be accurate, people are afraid to use it because they’re not sure if it’s admissible in court,” Mr. Mansmann said. ‘The importance of this case is that now you have a judge who said, ‘Yes. I’m going to accept this as a reasonable approach to handling discovery. It will open the door for this to become a more accepted method. And it’s a huge cost savings. Typically, attorney review is the most expensive part of the process.’ ”
Had Gricks not used predictive coding, he would still have several interns and paralegals sifting through two million documents to find evidence for his clients. He would have had to pay and train those people, but predictive coding takes out man-hours and lowers litigation costs. Content Analyst offers predictive coding technology and solutions as one of the many services it offers their clients. The Content Analyst technology is available for licensing. Worth a look.
Whitney Grace, June 18, 2012
Sponsored by Content Analyst
Protected: Pitney Bowes and iDiscovery Tack on Analytics
June 15, 2012
Clustify 3.0, A Flexible New Way to Analyze and Organize
June 4, 2012
Hot Neuron just introduced a hot new integration tool that’s giving clusters a good name. In some cases people assume a cluster is something jumbled together. Clustify 3.0 has redefined cluster with Clustify into a well-organized, easily accessible group, according to the article, Clustify 3.0 Adds Integration with a Broad Range of Databases and e-Discovery Tools.
According to Bill Dimm, the CEO of Hot Neuron:
“We aim to make Clustify an extremely flexible tool that clients can use in many different ways, rather than a closed system. Version 3.0 furthers that goal by working with a variety of database management systems and data architectures on both Microsoft Windows and Linux. Working directly with the database is not only convenient and powerful, it is also very fast.”
Hot Neuron was founded in February 2000 by Bill Dimm, who has a Ph.D. in theoretical elementary particle physics from Cornell University. Dr. Dimm did mathematical modeling and computer programming before specializing in retrieval software and services.
Clustify will organize documents into labeled clusters and provide an overview. It will allow for user review and categorize related documents for ease of access. This system will make it simple to perform basic calculations with just a point and click format. What a great new way to analyze and organize, as Clustify 3.0 is flexible enough to work with a wide range of document review platforms and e-discovery tools.
Jennifer Shockley, June 4, 2012
ZyLAB Embraces Predictive and Concept Searching
May 25, 2012
The CodeZed blog recently reported on the automated classification of legal documents in the article “Technology Assisted Review, Concept Search and Predictive Coding: The Limitations & Risks.”
According to the article, artificial intelligence and machine learning has been around since the 1980’s but a recent US ruling regarding the use of machine learning technology in legal review has stirred up trouble in the eDiscovery community. As a result of this ruling, one can expect a dramatic increase in Predictive Coding, Concept Search or other terms relating to TAR capabilities being a requirement for eDiscovery software buyers.
When discussing some of the detriments of machine learning and artificial intelligence, the article states:
“Machine-learning requires significant set-up involving training and testing the quality of the classification model (aka the classifier), which is a time consuming and demanding task that requires at least the manual tagging and evaluation of both the training and the test set by more than one party (in order to prevent biased opinions). Testing has to be done according to best practice standards used in the information retrieval community (e.g. see the proceedings of the TREC conferences organized by the NIST). Deviation from such standards will be challenged in courts. This is time consuming and expensive and should be factored into the cost-benefit analysis for the approach.”
So the short of it is, before using Technology Assisted Review make sure that you do your research and figure out what is best for your business.
Jasmine Ashton, May 25, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Myth and Reality about Predictive Coding
May 23, 2012
The myth of a technology can often differ from its reality, especially in one that is still evolving. Predictive coding is currently experiencing controversy regarding its cost versus efficiency according to Will Predictive Coding Live Up to the eDiscovery Hype?.
Predictive Coding has been hailed a technology which provides lower costs with lighter burdens. The unfortunate results that deem it myth fall to the process necessary for it to function. It is an evolving technology.
Its reality is evolving as:
“With the promise of transparency and simpler workflows, predictive coding technology should eventually live up to its billing of helping organizations discover their information in an efficient, cost effective and defensible manner. As for now, the “promise” of first generation predictive coding tools appears to be nothing more than that, leaving organizations looking like the cash-strapped “Monopoly man,” wondering where there litigation dollars have gone.”
Reality is that Predictive Coding can’t exist without human’s providing the data, and then the program optimizes it. The process combines people, technology and workflow to find documents referencing keywords. The three basic components are:
- To predict utilizing predictive analytics.
- To code, utilizing a keyword to locate relevant documents.
- To process a proven workflow.
Improvements are possible given the technological advances in the industry. This new technique has potential and may yet evolve into a functional, efficient means to acquire data. For now, Predictive Coding is stuck in between myth and reality.
Jennifer Shockley, May 23, 2012
eDiscovery Costs are Frustrating
April 30, 2012
Here is a not-so-surprising revelation recently reported by Inside Counsel: most users are frustrated with the cost of eDiscovery.
The article, “New Study Says Cost is Most Frustrating Factor in eDiscovery,” reveals the results of a survey by consulting company FTI Technology. The survey covered ways to streamline and reduce the cost of eDiscovery. The company interviewed 31 in-house counsels with eDiscovery responsibilities and asked them for their thoughts. The verdict? Users are not happy. The article reports:
“*94% of respondents found the cost of e-discovery “frustrating”
*87% of respondents used an early case assessment to try to resolve matters earlier
*81% of respondents brought software in house, which helps to cut costs on law firm or service provider fees
*52% of respondents brought staff in house to help reduce fees spent on law firms or service providers
*32% of respondents used clustering or visualization tools to speed review along (down from 34% in 2010)”
A full copy of FTI’s report is available here.
In our view, what matters in search is cost and user satisfaction. There does not seem to be much progress in the last few years, especially considering that the report also comments that most companies are not even aware of their spending habits.
Andrea Hayden, April 30, 2012
Sponsored by Ikanow
Recommind Gets a Boost With Magistrate’s Ruling
April 27, 2012
It is amazing what a difference support from a public figure can do for a company. In the article, Plaintiffs move to recuse Peck in predictive coding case, now suggesting his financial link to Recommind | ACEDS.org we are provided with a fine example of the power of presentation.
Recommind received some fantastic publicity after this:
“On February 8, Peck ordered the parties in open court to adopt an e-discovery protocol devised by Recommind that implements its technology. He memorialized this order by a written opinion two weeks later.
Recommind called the opinion an instant sensation and a game-changer. In one fell swoop, Judge Peck likely had as big an impact as thousands before him who spent years working to lift the eDiscovery industry out of its inefficient, antiquated, overly manual and keyword-centric past.”
Though eDiscovery was initially having some issues, this magistrate’s positive re-enforcement of their policies seems to be providing them with a more solid reputation. Peck has went to bat for them by speaking publically at events and supported their programs without hesitation.
Even though Recommind is also receiving some negative publicity, Peck seems to be evening out the odds. It has been said, no publicity is bad publicity, and that saying rings true concerning the eDiscovery suits. The fact of the matter is Recommind is getting a boost from a magistrate’s ruling.
Jennifer Shockley, April 27, 2012
Sponsored by Ikanow
Clearwell Clicks with Nikon for eDiscovery
April 25, 2012
Nikon, a leading Japanese optical instruments maker, has presumably made its legal team very happy. Symantec announces, “Nikon Corporation Takes Control of eDiscovery Process with Symantec’s Clearwell eDiscovery Platform.” The press release explains:
“The product provides the flexibility necessary for cross-border eDiscovery cases typically faced by Japanese customers, where litigation often demands multi-jurisdictional support and requires data to be processed in Japan and other countries such as the United States. For instance, Symantec’s Clearwell eDiscovery Platform can be deployed on a hosted basis or onsite, which allows eDiscovery to be conducted in Japan without having to send data to the U.S. for processing. This enables customers like Nikon to maintain control over potentially sensitive data and avail themselves of business hour support in-country.”
Strong benefits, indeed. The need for eDiscovery strategies are escalating around the world, and it is important that any company that does business internationally develop a robust plan. Immediately.
Founded back in 1982 and headquartered in Mountain View, CA, Symantec now operates in over 50 countries and employs more than 18,500 souls. The company provides organizations large and small with security, storage, and systems management solutions. Naturally, airtight security is a primary focus, but ease of use is also important to the software giant.
Nikon is not just about quality cameras. The company was founded almost a century ago, in 1917. Perhaps its stated commitment to integrity, along with an enthusiasm for the study of light, have allowed the company to prosper. Their products have become essential to customers in many fields.
Cynthia Murrell, April 25, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
