The quarterly publication of the International Legal Technology Association
Issue link: https://read.uberflip.com/i/230349
Using advanced technology is a slightly different animal but similarly demonstrates the benefits of keeping your eye on the big picture and not on each step of the process. If an email threading solution costs $50,000 but will save the costs of reviewing the information by two-thirds, a traditional $1,500,000 project converts to a $550,000 one, saving $950,000. If processing costs go from $50,000 to $100,000, but reviewer costs go from $2,000,000 to $500,000, you've spent $50,000 to save $1.5 million. When each provider is trying to grab the biggest possible piece for themselves, the overall project becomes inefficient and more expensive. That is why the best practice is to resist the urge to purchase individual service offerings separately and instead advocate for paying a single, fixed all-in price for all the services combined. Technology presents a deliverable that can be validated. Given the variety of technology solutions shown to improve the legal services provided, it seems the decision to rely entirely on the work product of highly erratic humans paid by one side or the other is much riskier than taking advantage of technology solutions. MYTHS BUSTED = NO EXCUSES All of the reasons given against the use of advanced technology have been eroded if not eliminated. Predictive coding and other advanced technology have plenty of legal and practice support. Its expense is much less than the resulting cost savings and its value is not only easy to explain but easy to see once the technology is used. We see no excuse for at least considering using advanced technology in every project. The risks of ignoring the technology far outweigh the risks of embracing it. IT'S TOO HARD TO EXPLAIN Those who don't understand every little detail of how and why the technology works are understandably a little skittish explaining and advocating the technology to the client, the opposing party or even the presiding judge. But it's silly to let that unease lead to clients incurring inflated and unnecessary discovery costs. At the outset, lawyers don't have to explain Bayesian theory or latent semantic indexing when promoting advanced technology. The developers of the software solutions have plenty of people and written materials that can explain the technology. They have their own empirical data to support their technology and can provide plenty of references for those who want to talk to other users of that technology. The only thing lawyers must explain and ultimately demonstrate is that the software works. That is, that the use of the software will result in a reasonable and defensible review process that will lead to a high likelihood that relevant information will be identified and ultimately produced. There are plenty of judicial opinions, articles and white papers that demonstrate using advanced technology provides a far better degree of accuracy than can be achieved in a traditional, all-human review. It's safe to say the vast majority of judges use Google for personal use and LexisNexis or Westlaw to conduct legal research. Do you think any of them insisted on understanding why those technologies worked before taking advantage of them? IT'S TOO RISKY Predictive coding technology not only decreases the overall cost of e-discovery, it increases the overall quality of the project and therefore reduces the risk of sanctions. Technology is not biased. Technology does not get tired and make erratic decisions. Technology results in consistent decision-making regardless of whether those decisions result in the identification of a document that helps or hurts a litigant or is entirely neutral. Peer to Peer 71