What Are We Waiting For?

http://ow.ly/6lAsx

An article by Craig Ball, Esq. posted on his blog Ball in your Court.

This article touches on the use of advanced technology to provide eDiscovery services.  As leading expert Mr. Ball points out, "Students of e-discovery know that keyword search is the worst form of search, and harbor no illusions that it’s better than the others that have been tried from time to time. Whether you call it advanced data analytics, predictive coding, concept search or whatever else leaps from the lips of marketing mavens, there exist techniques that, when implemented with care and judgment, do a better, less costly job than keyword search and linear review."  The writers of this blog applaud this statement, and agree 100%.


As the article goes on to state, "What are we waiting for?
The answer seems to be some sort of authoritative court blessing of alternatives to keyword search. We’ve seen favorable mention of such techniques in footnotes to decisions from the most influential judges writing on e-discovery issues, but nothing opining that use of enhanced search is “court approved.”

Again, what are we waiting for?

It’s not as though we held off using keyword search until a judge gave it the nod. We just did it. And, though keyword search never really got a judicial stamp of approval, neither was it summarily rejected. Again, we just did it, and in time it emerged as a standard."

This comment is similar to those of Judge Peck in a recent speech he made.  Attorneys should not have to wait for the court to approved advanced solutions.  It is the job of the attorney to convince the court that the process they used for eDiscovery was sound.