http://ow.ly/7XLXt
An article by Doug Austin posted on the eDiscovery Daily Blog.
This article discusses advanced technologically enhanced attorney review methods, such as predictive coding, and ponders when such services might be best to utilize.
The article mentions another recent article Ediscovery Production Without Review, written by Albert Barsocchini, Esq., and provides a link to that article. The referenced article states that there are an increasing number of projects where linear review is not being conducted, and advanced technological review methods are being used in conjunction with claw-back agreements.
The author goes on to state, "A colleague of mine sent me an email with a link to the post and stated, “I would not hire a firm if I knew they were producing without a doc by doc review.”
Really? What if:
You collected the equivalent of 10 million pages* and still had 1.2 millionpotentially responsive pages after early data assessment/first pass review? (reducing 88% of the population, which is a very high culling percentage in most cases)
And your review team could review 60 pages per hour, requiring 20,000 hoursto complete the responsiveness review?
And their average rate was a very reasonable $75 per hour to review, resulting in a total cost of $1.5 million to perform a doc by doc review?
And you had a clawback agreement in place so that you could claw back any inadvertently produced privileged files?
“Would you insist on a doc by doc review then?”, I asked."
P.S. What is your position on this issue. Are you willing to be an early adopter of technologically enhanced review? If not, do you think that linear review provides better results? If so, see the article by Ralph Losey, entitled "Secrets of Search: Part One": http://ow.ly/7WvHn
No comments:
Post a Comment