Can Technology-Assisted Review Co-Exist With Strategic Search?

 http://ow.ly/9QmSb

An article by the editor of Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, consisting of an interview with Amanda Jones, senior search consultant of Xerox.

This article discusses the use of advanced techniques such as predictive coding during the attorney review phase of litigation.

The article states, "We don’t believe that technology-assisted review is a substitute for predecessor technologies and methodologies. Rather, it represents a new alternative that is appropriate for some use cases and most often can be complementary to other established techniques, such as keyword search. Discarding search entirely in favor of technology-assisted review would unnecessarily forfeit the many benefits search has to offer.

The goal in any e-discovery review is to identify as many responsive documents as possible, while reviewing as few non-responsive documents as possible, at a cost proportionate to the value of the case. Review efficacy is measured by the information retrieval metrics known as recall and precision. Recall represents the extent to which all responsive materials are captured in a review. Precision represents the extent to which only responsive documents are captured. Thus, recall is a measure of completeness, while precision is a measure of accuracy. While perfect recall and precision are impossible to attain, a strategic review will strive to attain high scores on both metrics simultaneously in order to ensure that clients maximize the return on their review investment."