MT>3
  • Home
  • About
  • People
  • Services
    • e-Discovery
    • Managed Review
    • Information Governance
    • Due Diligence
  • Blog
  • News
  • Contact

Getting More for Less...In Document Review

20/7/2016

 
It is no surprise to anyone who has performed a  linear review of documents that there is a better way.  By better, we mean cheaper and more accurate.  However, moving clients from the comfort of knowing that a lawyer has looked at every document to accepting a process that only puts eyes on a portion of the documents is, at times, difficult.   Why?  Because they trust lawyers and are skeptical about trusting the computer’s “black box”.
 
A recent comparative case study “Iterative Legal Analysis & Sampling (“ILAS”) vs. Linear Document Review” by Anne Kershaw, Esq. at the Columbia University School of Professional Studies,  will help clients to see the light. Ms. Kershaw and her team answer the question "Can lawyers conducting iterative data analysis and sampling,  identify relevant documents more efficiently than legal teams undertaking linear review?” The answer is yes: by using software and highly trained legal and technical resources, document review is more efficient.
 
The study is interesting for a few reasons.  First, it is not a lawyer vs. machine evaluation. Rather, it is a comparison of skilled lawyers working with strong technical support and using litigation support software effectively vs. lawyers just going through documents in a linear fashion. The study shows that by combining  legal insight with an appropriate use of technology, review can be cheaper. Second, the study only evaluated the assessment of relevance - no issue coding or privilege identification was conducted. One might think that a linear review would be at least as accurate in a binary assessment, however, the linear review missed 11.95% of the relevant documents, whereas the iterative analysis review only missed 4.28%.  Pause and reflect on this - linear review missed almost 12% of relevant documents! Third, and to give humans some credit, the linear review had a much lower false positive rate - only 23 documents marked relevant were incorrectly coded. Contrast this to the 974 false positives coded by the iterative analysis team. From a risk management perspective, many clients will be much more comfortable with an error rate that includes too much, rather than misses too much. Further, these false positives can be purged in later steps in the disclosure process. Finally, the total number of hours invested in linear review was 98, compared with only 14 by the iterative analysis team. The differential more than justifies the higher hourly rate for the iterative analysis team.
 
Overall, this study provides a ringing endorsement for the use of multi-disciplinary teams with experience on the use of litigation support software.  And, rather than suggesting that computers will replace lawyers in document review, it provides a strong rationale for paying higher hourly rates for skilled and trained lawyers.  If your document review outsourcing decisions are based upon getting the lowest hourly rate, this study shows that you may not be getting good value.  With a skilled team using the right processes, the result will be both better and cheaper. 
David Sharpe link
22/7/2016 01:16:40 pm

Having worked for years with the Relativity and its suite of capabilities, as well as EDT, and having read the Kershaw piece, I wholeheartedly agree. There is so much that can be done to enhance the speed and quality of review (over KW + linear) when good people use these tools to the full.


Comments are closed.

    Categories

    All
    Artificial Intelligence
    Blockchain
    Cyber Security
    E Discovery
    Information Governance
    Privacy
    Social Media
    Technology


    Archives

    January 2019
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    September 2017
    August 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    December 2008
    March 2008
    November 2007
    October 2007

130 Adelaide Street West Suite 2020
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3P5
​ ​
t: 416-642-2220  
tf: 1-877-642-2220  
f: 416-642-9021

Contact MT>3
@MT>3 2018. All Rights Reserved
Picture

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

  • Home
  • About
  • People
  • Services
    • e-Discovery
    • Managed Review
    • Information Governance
    • Due Diligence
  • Blog
  • News
  • Contact