Litigation Support

In a nutshell, yes. That's what the New York Times concluded in a recent article, and I think most experts concur. It won't happen tomorrow, but I think it will happen more quickly than peeple imagine. The cost savings are simply too great to be ignored and clients will be lighting fires under their law firms to get automated review in place.

Human review tends to be accurate about 60% of the time - the machines are simply better, far better. They don't get tired, they don't get headaches and they don't get sloppy in their work product.

The more interesting question is whether we will standardize on a particular form of artificial intelligence. The Times article references several kinds of reviewing software from different companies and I have no idea which is the "best." I'm quite sure they will all claim to be the best, but we tend to have bloodbaths in EDD before winners are declared.

Curiously enough, the article mentioned the infamous "Watson" which so thoroughly trounced Jeopardy's superstars of yore. Truly, it was not until I saw Watson in action that I realized what profound implications he had for e-discovery review. The artificial intelligence currently governing document review is obviously nowhere near as complex as that governing Watson, but time, money and human genius will get us there.

It is my profound hope that our e-discovery Watson will still need his friend Sherlock. I believe Sherlock's function is far harder to replicate - but I'm watching my back all the same.

A tip of the hat to colleague and friend Alan Goldberg for sending the article my way.

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com       Phone: 703-359-0700

www.senseient.com

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq