Computers Replacing Lawyers In Reviewing Documents?

http://ow.ly/9kSGg

An article by William A. Ruskin posted on the toxic tort litigation blog of the law firm Epstein Becker & Green.

This article discusses the use of technology assisted review, and the attempt to reduce the number of attorneys required to perform an attorney document review.

The article states, "For those of us who work on document-intensive litigations, take note of Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck's (SDNY.) opinion released on February 24, 2012 in Monique Da Silva Moore, et al. v. Publicis Groupe and MSL Group, Case 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC)(AJP). Judge Peck's decision may be the first federal court opinion approving the use of computer-assisted review in place of “eyes on” document review. Citing recent studies, Judge Peck states “while some lawyers still consider manual review to be the 'gold standard,' that is a myth, as statistics clearly show that computerized searches are at least as accurate, if not more so, than manual review….While this Court recognizes that computer-assisted review is not perfect, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require perfection.”"  A link to the case opinion is provided in the article.

The article further discusses how predictive coding and technology assisted review are utilized and what they accomplish.  In addition, the article states in closing, "Predictive coding could provide substantial benefits to clients. On the other hand, law firms whose business models depend on leveraging large teams of associates and staff attorneys to conduct document review will increasingly have to explain to their clients why such costly efforts are necessary. Technology may allow medium sized firms to more effectively compete with large firms in cases with substantial discovery. In short, predictive coding makes good sense for the courts, the clients and the Bar."