Technology-Assisted Review: Leverage Technology, not Bodies


Published on

Explore the “what” and “why” behind technology-assisted review, and the ever-important “how” that takes this technology from myth to reality in the eyes of those who still are unsure about the true power associated with computer-assisted document review.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Technology-Assisted Review: Leverage Technology, not Bodies

  1. 1. 2
  2. 2. Discussion Overview  Why Discuss Alternative Document Review Solutions?  What is Technology-Assisted Review?  Adopting Technology-Assisted Review (TAR)  Parting Thoughts 3
  3. 3. Why TAR? 4 As ediscovery budgets shrink and data volumes continue to increase, TAR can help you save time and reduce costs by solving these key problems: Sorting and grouping documents more efficiently Finding the right documents as fast as possible Validating the reviewer’s work before production Responsive Non-responsive Train PredictEvaluate
  4. 4. Goal: Leverage Technology, not Bodies 5 Train Predict
  5. 5. 6 » Humans develop TAR methodology » Technology and humans identify document subset for training » Human subject matter experts review document subsets The TAR Lifecycle by Kroll Ontrack
  6. 6. 7 » Technology learns from human input » Technology elevates documents most likely to be responsive » Technology predicts categorization of non-reviewed documents The TAR Lifecycle by Kroll Ontrack
  7. 7. 8 » Humans review predictions provided by technology » Humans correct or validate machine predictions » Humans assess technology output and decide whether to continue training or proceed with results The TAR Lifecycle by Kroll Ontrack
  8. 8. Technology Assisted Review: What It Will Not Do Will not replace or mimic the nuanced expert judgment of experienced attorneys with advanced knowledge of the case Will not eliminate the need to perform validation and QC steps to ensure accuracy 9 Will not provide a magic button that will totally automate document review as we know it today
  9. 9. Technology Assisted Review: What It Can Do  Reduce: »Time required for document review and administration »Number of documents to review; if you choose an automated categorization or prioritization function »Reliance on contract reviewers or less experienced attorneys  Leverage expertise of experienced attorneys  Increase accuracy and consistency of category decisions (vs. unaided human review)  Identify the most important documents more quickly 10
  10. 10. TAR Case Law Developments 11  Da Silva Moore (Feb. 2012) » First federal court endorsement of TAR  Kleen Products (Mar. 2012) » Significant TAR expert witness testimony  Global Aerospace (Apr. 2012) » First state court endorsement of TAR  In re Actos (July 2012) » Plaintiff and defendant agree to use TAR  Recent Developments » EOHRB (May 2013) (lifting previous order requiring use of TAR) » In re Biomet (Apr. 2013) (endorsing pre-TAR key word cull in very large case) » Gordon v. Kaleida Health (May 2013) (raising seed set disclosure issues)
  11. 11. Parting Thoughts  Automated review technology helps lawyers focus on resolution – not discovery – through available metrics » Complements human review, but will not replace the need for skillful human analysis and advocacy  At this point, it’s no longer a question of “how can you use TAR,” but instead “how can you not use it” » Benefits are spreading and well-known throughout the industry » No one is “twisting your arm” or making you use TAR; you can leverage smaller components and see results for yourself  Not all Technology Assisted Review solutions are created equal » Thoroughly vet the technology before adopting 12