Posted on: April 21, 2016in Blog
The Development of Document Review: Why Lawyers Continuously Need to Adapt
In the last five years document review technology has undergone significant growth and development. For some that has meant that review platforms have added “bells and whistles” that add little value or have real world application. For others, the introduction of technologies like, email threading, concept search, clustering and data visualization have changed not just how they review documents, but how they identify the documents included in that review. Add the changes in technology and the rapid expansion of data volumes, case teams are left wondering how to make sense of it all and are scrambling to keep their heads above water.
There is still a real resistance to applying the new methods to a repository of several million documents. Many simply continue to rely on the time-tested practice of applying search terms and promoting the hits to be reviewed by an army of contractors. It is what they know, and in this approach the attorneys and review leads remain the experts. Even for those willing to tryout the newest approaches, there are still many concerns. They are ceding power and expertise to a either vendor or litigation support professional who may or may not have a full understanding of analytics. This leads to concerns about whether the hosting provider can appropriately administer the database to ensure that analytics doesn’t jeopardize the review specifically and the case in general. Still, there is no denying that analytics has taken a hold on the market, and its adoption rates continue to grow month by month. The success stories are plentiful.
By taking 24-48 hours before the review to dive into the data and understand what you have, you can craft a review strategy tailored to your specific case. Who knows, in doing so, maybe you’ll stumble on to the smoking gun and avoid the review altogether.
But what good is this new technology, if the attorney overseeing the review doesn’t understand it and isn’t willing to make the time to learn? We’ve all heard it before, half a million documents to review by a week from Friday. We can start reviewing tomorrow and then figure out where we are when all the data is in the database. This is the way so many reviews start out. It’s a race to the beginning and a slog to the end. In between, there is a winding path strewn with abandoned workflows, multiple iterations of search terms, and an incomplete production that you are waiting on some vendor to rebuild from several different responsiveness tags. Does it have to be this way?
In today’s average litigation, document review is going to be the most expensive outlay. So why not go into it with a solid review plan? A review plan is going to provide a documented course of action for the life of the review, not just for the right now. Perhaps even more important than a review plan, is a pre-review analysis of the case data. When combined together this pre-review analysis and a well-informed, review plan can make even the most daunting review seem like a reasonable endeavor. By taking 24-48 hours before the review to dive into the data and understand what you have, you can craft a review strategy tailored to your specific case. Who knows, in doing so, maybe you’ll stumble on to the smoking gun and avoid the review altogether.
D4 Weekly eDiscovery Outlook
Power your eDiscovery intellect with our weekly newsletter.
Posted June 21, 2017
Control Litigation Costs by Making the Most of Your Internal Capabilities
Posted June 15, 2017
Shanghai OSAC Quarterly Meeting
Posted June 15, 2017
5 Ways to Reduce eDiscovery Costs Before and During Litigation
Posted June 07, 2017
Defensible Deletion Strategy: Getting Rid of Your Unnecessary Data
Posted May 31, 2017
How Does the EU-US Privacy Shield Affect Cross-Border Discovery?
Posted May 24, 2017
Unique eDiscovery Challenges with Mobile Device Data and How to Solve Them
Posted May 17, 2017
How to Comply with 21 CFR and HIPAA Data Retention Requirements
Posted May 11, 2017
4 Key Advantages of Conducting Remote Depositions
Posted May 03, 2017
eDiscovery in International Dispute Resolution: What Experts Want You to Know
Posted April 27, 2017
China Expands Data Transfer Requirements for its Cybersecurity Law