http://ow.ly/aVm4L
An article by Cat Casey posted on the Hudson Legal Blog.
This article looks at the impact of technology upon the legal profession, and discusses the use of predictive coding as opposed to a traditional attorney review process.
The article references the recent cases of Da Silva Moore, and Global Aerospace, and provides links to both opinions. The recent case developments provide insight into the court's willingness to utilize technology assisted review, and advances such as predictive coding.
The article states, "In looking at the cases above, it is clear that there is a willingness of the bench to accept Technology Assisted Review (TAR). The key factor being the word “assisted”. Practitioners must take an active role in the implementation of these tools and use them in conjunction with fact driven case development to reap the rewards offered by predictive coding or any of the litany of other tools. Judicial approval lies insound processes and the intersection of man and machine, not merely in which widget is selected."
The article further looks at established workflows that are utilized during the predictive coding process. The article also mentions that these new developments impacting the attorney review process do not mean that the traditional manual review is dead, "There is no need to figuratively throw the baby out with the bath water, because traditional keyword searches coupled with Attorney Review can be highly effective to examine large amounts of data. The problems noted above arise when ill-conceived searches utilizing broad search terms that are over and or under inclusive lead to massive amounts of data being pushed to traditional manual review."
No comments:
Post a Comment