Technology Assisted Review (TAR): Opening, Exploring and Bringing Transparency to the Black Box

Technology Assisted Review (TAR): Opening, Exploring and Bringing Transparency to the Black Box LegalTech 2012 | February 1, 2012 | 1:45 – 3:00 PMThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New Yorkand attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

The content of this presentation is the property of its authors. Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use and attribution information.The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 2and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Speakers • David Horrigan, Esq., Analyst, eDiscovery and Information Governance, The 451 Group • David Leone, Esq., Director of Litigation Support Services, Saul Ewing LLP • Dr. Douglas W. Oard, University of Maryland College of Information Studies • Mike Stringer, Co-Founder & Managing Partner, Datascope Analytics Moderated by: • Doug Stewart, Director of Technology, DaegisThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 3and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Many Things to Many People • What’s in a name?  Predictive Coding  Computer / Machine / Technology Assisted Review  Auto-Classification / Tagging / Categorization  Clustering / Concept Searching / Iterative Search • Is it Defined by the Technology Used? • Is it Defined by a Workflow? • Is it Defined by Human / Computer Division of Labor?The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 4and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

TAR to the Rescue? • Growing consensus that Traditional Exhaustive Eyes-On Old-Fashioned Human Manual Linear Document Review is no longer sufficient  Cost of Review  Increasing Data Volumes  Time Required  Risk / QualityThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 5and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

TAR Acceptance / Adoption Indicators • LTNY 2012 Superstar  9 TAR Sessions and Panels (16% of total) • Research and Studies • Presentations / Webinars /Podcasts • Columns / Articles / Blogs • Vendors and ProductsThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 6and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

TAR Acceptance / Adoption • “Until there is a judicial opinion approving (or even critiquing) the use of predictive coding, counsel will just have to rely on this article as a sign of judicial approval. In my opinion, computer-assisted coding should be used in those cases where it will help "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1) determination of cases in our e- discovery world.”  Judge Andrew Peck, Search Forward, 10/01/2011 Law Technology News, law.comThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 7and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

TAR Acceptance / Adoption Only thing missing seems to be widespread use.The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 8and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Perceived Obstacles to Acceptance • Black Box Technology • Technology can’t be explained (by attorneys) • Is it defensible? • Is it as good as eyes-on review? • Lack of transparencyThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 9and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

What Does “Better” Mean? D “Better” Technique Increasing Success (finding relevant “Baseline” Technique documents) A C y B x Increasing Effort (time, resources expended, etc.)The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 10and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Document ReviewCase Knowledge The Black Box Unprocessed Coded Documents DocumentsThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 11and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Inside Yesterday’s Black BoxCase Knowledge Unprocessed Coded Documents DocumentsThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 12and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Inside Today’s Black BoxCase Knowledge Keyword Search & Linear Review “Reasoning” “Representation” “Interaction” Unprocessed Coded Documents DocumentsThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 13and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Inside Tomorrow’s Black BoxCase Knowledge Technology Assisted Review “Reasoning” “Representation” “Interaction” Unprocessed Coded Documents DocumentsThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 14and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

RepresentationUnitMessage, document, container, etc… “Map” Evidence Many ways to do this Content: what is IN it Context: who SAID it to WHOM (and WHEN) Description: what is SAID ABOUT it Behavior: what is DONE WITH itThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 15and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Reasoning Having a map improves the machine’s abilitySearch to reason about documents.Boolean queries,example documents Similarity in “map” Similar documents receive similar coding Based on content, context, behavior or description Many ways to do thisThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 16and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Interaction User Interface What can the user say? What can the user see? A bridge between human thought and Review Process machine reasoning How does a user move between seeing and saying? Review Workflow How does a review team allocate functions between team members and the systems that they use?The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 17and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

TARgeting Your Firm • Do Your TAR Homework • Know Your Case • Inform Your Legal TeamThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 18and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Do Your TAR Homework • Technology  Demo the different technologies and workflows.  Ethical Rules - Understand impact for attorneys. • Process  Find a process you are comfortable managing.  Does it work within your larger process? • People  Find a vendor who is knowledgeable and competent.  Educate your staff and users.The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 19and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Know Your Case • Client Concerns  Is there a legal budget? Does this fit?  Does the client use review technologies? • Case & Production Timelines  Training the “brain” takes time.  Murphy’s Law - Account for a new workflow. • Document Volumes  Does the volume justify the initial setup time & expense?  Does the content & number of custodians fit? • Review Goals  Responsiveness, Privilege, IssuesThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 20and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Inform Your Legal Team • Approach  Find a champion before you choose a case.  All cases are not equal - wait for the right opportunity. • Position  Use analogies to current technologies.  Develop a terminology and stick to it. • List Risks and Benefits  Explain both the upsides and the downsides.  Have a defensibility plan at the ready. • Expectations  Define TAR’s role within the review workflow.  Be prepared to LOWER their expectations.The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 21and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Is it reasonable? • Yes, if we followed a reasonable process.  Staffing  Training  Quality assurance Linear ReviewThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 22and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Is it reasonable? • Yes, if we followed a reasonable process.  Indexing  Query design  Sampling •Keyword Search Linear Review •Linear ReviewThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 23and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Is it reasonable? • Yes, if we followed a reasonable process.  Rich representation  Explicit & example-based interaction  Process quality measurement •Keyword Search Technology Assisted Linear Review •Linear Review Review (TAR)The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 24and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Lessons Learned • The technology is still evolving  Be flexible to emerging best practices • Recruit an associate expert and ally  Act as a liaison and stay informed in the review • Do not oversell the technology  Manage Expectations • Don’t forget about legacy technologies  Leverage what you pay for in batching and review • Any tool is only as good as the workflow  Develop one before you begin review!The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 25and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

“We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works.” -Douglas Adams The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last TimeThe content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 26and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

The content of this presentation is the property of its authors. Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use and attribution information.The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New York 27and attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Thank you! Questions?The content of this presentation is the property of its authors.Please contact Daegis (info@daegis.com) for acceptable use LegalTech® New Yorkand attribution information. January 30 – February 1, 2012

Technology Assisted Review (TAR): Opening, Exploring and Bringing Transparency to the Black Box

by Daegis

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 109

Statistics