As 2017 comes to a close we at RVM are taking stock of the changes we’ve seen this year and honing our strategies to remain on the forefront of analytics and technology application in eDiscovery in 2018. eDiscovery has undergone immense change as technology has evolved to tackle growing data sources and foster the needs of the attorneys wading through them. While that evolution has resulted in improved workflows adoption of these workflows has thus far been slow.
There are myriad technology options – a seemingly unending list of interesting tools that promise to push our industry into the future. It would be easy to race right to artificial intelligence (AI) and push ourselves into the sphere of the futurists. However, as we discussed in our recent webinar “Demystifying Analytics, Automation, and Predictive Coding in eDiscovery” there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the best application of technology and analytics, and the focus should be on the project process and goals – not the technology.
The webinar was designed to make attorneys comfortable with the many ways analytics can be used to accomplish your matter’s goals in the most efficient and — more importantly — defensible way. We also wanted to highlight that the courts are quickly adapting to these changes and embracing counsel’s use of technology up to and including predictive coding. The most pertinent decisions are summarized in our webinar materials. Full versions of those cases can be found in the Sedona Conference TAR Case Law Primer.
Those thoughts were echoed in a recent article for LegalTech News entitled “eDiscovery Leaders Look to Methodology, Not AI, to Update Toolkits.”
Applying the Technology
The article recognizes industry experts who agree that parties have become more comfortable with the technical aspects of eDiscovery and seem more willing to utilize technology to accomplish their goals. They see increased adoption of technology-assisted review (TAR) and predictive coding on the rise, and the courts support this evolution. The continued and thoughtful use of technology will make for better case outcomes, but the process needs to match the goals. The article’s author, Ralph Losey, points out that “Software improvement by vendors should be a constant process, but that is usually beyond the direct control of lawyers. What we can control is the methodology.” We agree with this sentiment.
Our aim for 2018 is to continue to be on the cutting edge of technology application for our clients, by coupling it with strategic consulting in order to leverage the right technology and process to meet a client’s goals. Without the process, the technology will not succeed on its own.