Trimming Legal Costs and Jobs: A Predictive Coding Unintended Consequence?
July 17, 2012
Predictive coding and eDiscovery are circling the legal communities gossip rings about what it means for the future of legal costs and jobs. The Huffington Post addresses the topic in “ ‘Lawyerbots’ Offer Attorneys Faster, Cheaper Assistants.” The US court system has made new regulations when it comes to eDiscovery technology and how it can be used in court cases. Lawyer, legal professionals, and even the companies licensing various programmatic content processing systems are struggling to understand the upside and downside of the algorithmic approach to coding. One-way eDiscovery and predictive coding will be used is to cut down on the many, many hours of post-processing some electronic documents. This new technology is being referred to as “lawyerbots.”
Lawyerbots cut through the man-hours like an electric knife, saving time and clients money. Many are optimistic about the changes. But some clients are ambivalent:
“But how will clients feel about a computer doing some of the dirty work, instead of a lawyer or paralegal manually digging through documents? Some could be concerned that a computer is more apt to make an error, or overlook crucial information. In a recent study in the Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, lawyer labor was tested against lawyerbots with predictive coding software. Researchers found “evidence that such technology-assisted processes, while indeed more efficient, can also yield results superior to those of exhaustive manual review.” In basic terms, the computers had the humans licked.”
Faster and more accurate! It is an awesome combination, but the next question to follow is what about jobs? There are several predictions already out there; the article mentions how Mike Lynch of Autonomy believes the legal community will employ fewer people in the future. Others are embracing the new technology pattern and plan to see changes as the older lawyers retire. Here’s one observation:
“Jonathan Askin, the director of Brooklyn Law School’s Brooklyn Law Incubator and Policy Clinic (BLIP)…said, ‘When I look around at my peers, I see 40-year-old lawyers who are still communicating via snail mail and fax machines and telephones and appearing in physical space for negotiations.’ He said he hopes to better merge the legal sector and technology to serve both lawyers and their clients more efficiently.”
We arrive at yet another crossroads: traditional, variable cost ways vs. new, allegedly more easily budgeted approach to content analysis.
As a librarian, I predict, without having to use predictive analytics that eDiscovery will take some legal occupations. Online wrecked havoc in the special library market. However, I am confident that there will still be a need for humans to keep the lawyerbots and maybe the marketers of these systems in check.
After all, software technology is only as smart as humans program it and humans are prone to error. The lawyerbots will also drive down costs, a blessing in this poor economy, and more people will be apt to bring cases to court, increasing demand for lawyers. In order to get to this point, however, there needs to be an established set of standards on how litigation support software can be programmed, how it can be used, and basic requirements for the processes/code. What’s the outlook? Uncertainty and probably one step forward and one step backwards.
Whitney Grace, July 17, 2012
Sponsored by Polyspot
New eDiscovery Platform Is kCura Contender
July 16, 2012
When a judge recently ruled in favor of predictive coding, it gave many litigation support technology IVPs the change to display their wares on a bigger scale. Law.com reports that “FTI Consulting Unveils Ringtail 8.2 with Attenex Document Mapper.” FTI Consulting is a global business advisory firm and they have caught onto the eDiscovery trend with their Ringtail 8.2 software that has integrated graphical views to facilitate document analysis and review. The newest version of Ringtail makes them a contender for LexisNexis Concordance and Content Analyst partner KCura’s Relativity platform.
FTI Consulting’s director of product marketing, JR Jenkins believes in predictive coding’s power:
“ ‘Asked where’s the “predictive coding,” he said “it’s built in.” The Document Mapper provides a high-level view of a collection, which results from machine learning processes that combine both “supervised and unsupervised” learning. Jenkins believes that the “workflow around predictive coding is more important than the technology.’ The ‘people, processes, and technology from FTI,’ said Jenkins, that results in a Document Mapper view of a collection aims to open the black box covering predictive coding.”
FTI Consulting is on the right track, but what they lack is the smaller, more personal solutions the legal community needs.
Whitney Grace, July 16, 2012
Protected: Habit Changes Boost eDiscovery
July 13, 2012
Protected: Random Sampling Aids Litigation Services
July 12, 2012
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
Protected: Practicing Law is Exciting Again
July 10, 2012
AccessData and dtSearch Team Up for Connectors
July 9, 2012
Market Watch recently published the news release “AccessData and dtSearch Announce New AccessData Offering of Connector Libraries for Developers Using the dtSearch Engine.” The article discusses a new text indexing solution that repackages eDiscovery product lines with robust and flexible data connectors.
According to the article, these connectors are currently available for Microsoft Exchange – any user mailbox; Symantec Enterprise Vault (Exchange) – archived Exchange user mailboxes; Oracle URM – all documents. There are also plans to include other content repositories in the near future.
When discussing the new data connectors, Devin Krugly, VP of Marketing and Business Development at AccessData explains:
“These data connectors are purpose-built to integrate with dtSearch technology and allow for full text indexing of a repository’s content. These indexes can then be used to support a wide variety of business solutions including records management, information governance, internal investigations, audit and e-discovery. The harmony of the AccessData connector packages along with the broad data and fielded search options of dtSearch make this OEM offering a malleable addition for solutions of all sizes.”
Based on the expertise that both companies independently bring to the table, I am excited to see what this product brings to the enterprise search industry.
Jasmine Ashton, July 9, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Protected: The Problems of eDiscovery Costs
July 9, 2012
Tools to Cut eDiscovery Costs
July 6, 2012
Enterprise Communications recently reported on an eDiscovery cost cutting method in the article “Cut eDiscovery Costs with Smarter Tools and Smart Scope.”
According to the article, eDiscovery has become quite the hiccup for people who work in the legal field due to the fact that it creates a headache for attorneys to manage the mass amount of electronic data that is constantly growing. Even more frustrating is the fact that the majority of the data being turned up is irrelevant.
In order to cost effectively and efficiently manage this data, the majority of courts set parameters that lay out the scope of eDiscovery. Once these are reached there are a variety of solutions available to search and manage your data.
When discussing the eDiscovery tools out there, the article states:
“More and more eDiscovery providers are developing software algorithms that in addition to searching your data, can also help you with the collection, review and analysis process. Known as computer-assisted review, and also including predictive coding, it is the latest trend to hit litigation circles and eDiscovery. Tools such as Axcelerate Review & Analysis from leading providers, Recommind, and Zoom from Equivio are examples of comprehensive predictive coding software that is available.”
We enjoy the way that this article simply lays out the eDiscovery tools available. Here are our only questions: Is this the ultimate pitch for search and content processing? and what about risk reduction?
Jasmine Ashton, July 6, 2012
Sponsored by IKANOW
Protected: E-Discovery Standards Are On the Way
July 6, 2012
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
