Predictive coding: It's not just for discovery anymore
Predictive coding can be extremely useful and powerful in a discovery context by dramatically reducing the size of review sets. But the tools can be used in many other ways, and law departments would be wise to start considering them.
May 21, 2014 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
If you attended LegalTech in April, you certainly noticed the great number of vendors offering “predictive coding,” typically as part of a “technology assisted review” process intended to reduce the time and cost required for document review.
What is predictive coding? In simplified terms, predictive coding is a technology-based workflow that allows a computer application to “read” and sort or organize electronic documents. In a typical workflow, human reviewers code a limited number of random documents, and the technology applies those decisions to a much larger document set based upon patterns of relevance. Human reviewers then spot check the coded documents, creating a feedback loop that improves results.
Predictive coding can be extremely useful and powerful in a discovery context by dramatically reducing the size of review sets. But the tools can be used in many other ways, and law departments would be wise to start considering them. It's easy to imagine predictive coding engines being used to organize leases, identify key elements of contracts, monitor communications for regulatory compliance and much more.
In fact, some are starting to use predictive coding technology to analyze legal bills to reduce spend and support better decision making about legal strategy, selection of counsel and alternative fee arrangements. This makes a lot of sense.
In the mid-1990s, the Association of Corporate Counsel, the American Bar Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers created a unified electronic billing standard. The idea was to create a series of standard codes that law firms would apply to their bills in order to facilitate analysis of legal spend by corporate clients. These code sets became known as the Uniform Task-Based Management System (UTBMS).
In the mid-2000s, I co-founded and chaired a committee charged with updating the UTBMS. By then the limitations were obvious. Most law departments viewed it as a good starting point but wanted to track slightly different metrics; this caused them to create “custom codes,” which increased the complexity for law firms. Firms must support different rules for each client and also likely have different perceptions about where certain work fits into the code set. The result is not the standard data patterns that we all hoped for.
This is where predictive coding can come in. Rather than counting on busy lawyers to properly apply codes to their billing entries, if they are descriptive about the work performed, then predictive coding tools can classify it after the fact.
“One obvious benefit to utilizing predictive coding to categorize legal activities is that the cost to get better information can be reduced through an automated, versus manual, categorization process,” explains Jack Walker, principal, Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics LLP. “Also, the normal flow of work by the attorney is not disrupted, helping to reduce hard or soft dollar costs associated with change management. With better information, of course, comes the ability to make better strategic decisions, as well as insight to make cost-effective adjustments to improve information quality going forward.”
Such a process can provide law departments with better information to set better strategies and make better decisions.
“Law departments are better able to manage a holistic sourcing strategy by determining what tasks and matter types are better performed by internal versus outside resources,” said David Cambria, director of global operations of law, compliance and government affairs at Archer Daniels Midland Company. “They can also use the information to create meaningful alternative fee arrangements and ultimately to driving better outcomes and value to the corporations we work for.”
The bottom line is that the type of consistency delivered by predictive coding tools is imperative for law departments to achieve optimal performance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
CLOs Still Jazzed About Gen Al, Even as They Realize Successfully Implementing It Is Harder Than It Looks
2 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250