3 steps to becoming a "predictive coding guru"
National Public Radio recently said that predictive coding could let "one attorney do the work of 500."
June 18, 2012 at 04:30 AM
12 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
National Public Radio recently said that predictive coding could let “one attorney do the work of 500.” Despite the apparent hyperbole, it's still easy to get excited about new technological advances. Perhaps more important, though, is to divine what this tectonic shift might mean for practicing attorneys in reality. Several questions naturally arise, including what will the face of document review look like over the next decade, and how will this new landscape affect the practice of law?
More than a decade ago, even before electronic discovery became mainstream, many in the legal field saw another development underway: a gradual shift away from using hard copy documents for managing discovery toward converting those same documents into electronic images. The trend developed because converting paper documents to searchable image files with scanning and optical character recognition software was simply far more cost-efficient and manageable than dealing with paper. While this paradigm shift dramatically impacted the litigation playing field, it didn't threaten to steal billable hours like the type of automation seen on the horizon with new technology like predictive coding.
Predictive coding is a type of machine learning technology that enables a computer to automatically predict how documents should be classified based on a limited, but significant, level of human input. The technology is exciting for legal departments attempting to manage skyrocketing litigation budgets because the ability to automatically rank and then “code” or “tag” electronic documents based on criteria such as relevance and privilege has the potential to save companies millions in e-discovery costs.
The potential cost savings of predictive coding technology are so great that corporate legal departments inevitably will expect the law firms that represent them to learn how to use the technology. Much like the shift from paper to electronic file conversion was driven by the potential for cost savings, so too is the buzz surrounding predictive coding technology.
While the days of “brute force,” linear document review are rapidly disappearing, the role of savvy e-discovery practitioners is still vital, and predictive coding provides a land of opportunity for those eager to capitalize on the trend. The emerging body of case law (Da Silva Moore, Kleen Products and Global Aerospace) shows that there is no shortage of work required to negotiate and craft protocols for the use of this new technology, even before the review process begins.
After protocols for sampling and training are sorted out, there's still a need for skilled attorney reviewers (likely billing at higher hourly rates) to tag and code documents so the system can be accurately trained. Similarly, the role of attorneys in evaluating the quality of the computer's decisions is increasingly important since most believe that the documents designated as highly relevant by the computer should undergo a final human review prior to production.
In order to capitalize on new technology trends like predictive coding, though, it's important to embrace the new changes instead of taking an ostrich approach. While the task might seem daunting, the complexity surrounding early predictive coding tools has created an opportunity to learn a new method that many less-enterprising practitioners may foolishly pass up. That means the area is still ripe with opportunity—and the good news is that becoming an organization's go-to person for predictive coding does not necessarily require obtaining an advanced degree in statistics or computer science.
For a simpler approach to reaching “predictive coding guru” status start with these three basic steps:
1. Read up on the topic
There is a tremendous amount of information available on the Internet that covers everything from predictive coding 101 to recent case law. Reading articles from trusted sources will help you understand predictive coding at a high level, particularly surrounding the role of inside/outside counsel.
These resources provide a good primer:
- “Search, Forward: Will manual document review and keyword searches be replaced by computer assisted-coding?”
- “2012: Year of the Dragon – and Predictive Coding? Will the eDiscovery Landscape Be Forever Changed?”
- “Technology-Assisted Review in Electronic Discovery Can Be More Efficient And More Cost Effective Than Exhaustive Manual Review”
2. Understand the market dynamics and tools
The predictive coding software market is flooded with numerous companies claiming to provide “leading” predictive coding solutions. The challenge with any burgeoning market is to separate the players from the poseurs.
The good news is that independent industry analysts like Gartner prepare several reports annually that evaluate e-discovery market trends, so there's no need to start from scratch. Gartner's 2012 “Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software” report is a particularly good starting point for understanding current e-discovery trends like predictive coding, as well as the major players in the broader e-discovery and information governance space.
3. Test drive the software
The next step for gathering information about predictive coding technology should include observing live product demonstrations. Specific things to look for in any predictive coding product include transparency and ease of use for end users, recommended workflow, chain of custody reporting and broader integration with other important e-discovery modules. Finally, be wary of e-discovery providers suggesting that predictive coding technology tools will replace all other e-discovery technologies. Providers belittling the broader e-discovery and information governance picture probably don't offer much beyond predictive coding technology, so they may try to focus the conversation exclusively on document review and analysis.
Other valuable steps in the e-discovery process that must be accounted for (in addition to document review) include proactively establishing an internal records retention schedule, legal hold notification, data identification and collection, early case assessment and data filtering.
Conclusion
For some outside law firms and contract attorney service bureaus, it's been all too easy to become addicted to the high utilization associated with e-discovery document review projects. But, for inside counsel, those massive numbers of e-discovery hours have become an easy target, at which the latest predictive coding technology is squarely aimed.
And yet, the demise of attorneys in the review process has been vastly overstated. Savvy legal professionals interested in advancing their careers and being on the cutting edge of something new will invest time in understanding the future of predictive coding or risk becoming less relevant.
National Public Radio recently said that predictive coding could let “one attorney do the work of 500.” Despite the apparent hyperbole, it's still easy to get excited about new technological advances. Perhaps more important, though, is to divine what this tectonic shift might mean for practicing attorneys in reality. Several questions naturally arise, including what will the face of document review look like over the next decade, and how will this new landscape affect the practice of law?
More than a decade ago, even before electronic discovery became mainstream, many in the legal field saw another development underway: a gradual shift away from using hard copy documents for managing discovery toward converting those same documents into electronic images. The trend developed because converting paper documents to searchable image files with scanning and optical character recognition software was simply far more cost-efficient and manageable than dealing with paper. While this paradigm shift dramatically impacted the litigation playing field, it didn't threaten to steal billable hours like the type of automation seen on the horizon with new technology like predictive coding.
Predictive coding is a type of machine learning technology that enables a computer to automatically predict how documents should be classified based on a limited, but significant, level of human input. The technology is exciting for legal departments attempting to manage skyrocketing litigation budgets because the ability to automatically rank and then “code” or “tag” electronic documents based on criteria such as relevance and privilege has the potential to save companies millions in e-discovery costs.
The potential cost savings of predictive coding technology are so great that corporate legal departments inevitably will expect the law firms that represent them to learn how to use the technology. Much like the shift from paper to electronic file conversion was driven by the potential for cost savings, so too is the buzz surrounding predictive coding technology.
While the days of “brute force,” linear document review are rapidly disappearing, the role of savvy e-discovery practitioners is still vital, and predictive coding provides a land of opportunity for those eager to capitalize on the trend. The emerging body of case law (Da Silva Moore, Kleen Products and Global Aerospace) shows that there is no shortage of work required to negotiate and craft protocols for the use of this new technology, even before the review process begins.
After protocols for sampling and training are sorted out, there's still a need for skilled attorney reviewers (likely billing at higher hourly rates) to tag and code documents so the system can be accurately trained. Similarly, the role of attorneys in evaluating the quality of the computer's decisions is increasingly important since most believe that the documents designated as highly relevant by the computer should undergo a final human review prior to production.
In order to capitalize on new technology trends like predictive coding, though, it's important to embrace the new changes instead of taking an ostrich approach. While the task might seem daunting, the complexity surrounding early predictive coding tools has created an opportunity to learn a new method that many less-enterprising practitioners may foolishly pass up. That means the area is still ripe with opportunity—and the good news is that becoming an organization's go-to person for predictive coding does not necessarily require obtaining an advanced degree in statistics or computer science.
For a simpler approach to reaching “predictive coding guru” status start with these three basic steps:
1. Read up on the topic
There is a tremendous amount of information available on the Internet that covers everything from predictive coding 101 to recent case law. Reading articles from trusted sources will help you understand predictive coding at a high level, particularly surrounding the role of inside/outside counsel.
These resources provide a good primer:
- “Search, Forward: Will manual document review and keyword searches be replaced by computer assisted-coding?”
- “2012: Year of the Dragon – and Predictive Coding? Will the eDiscovery Landscape Be Forever Changed?”
- “Technology-Assisted Review in Electronic Discovery Can Be More Efficient And More Cost Effective Than Exhaustive Manual Review”
2. Understand the market dynamics and tools
The predictive coding software market is flooded with numerous companies claiming to provide “leading” predictive coding solutions. The challenge with any burgeoning market is to separate the players from the poseurs.
The good news is that independent industry analysts like
3. Test drive the software
The next step for gathering information about predictive coding technology should include observing live product demonstrations. Specific things to look for in any predictive coding product include transparency and ease of use for end users, recommended workflow, chain of custody reporting and broader integration with other important e-discovery modules. Finally, be wary of e-discovery providers suggesting that predictive coding technology tools will replace all other e-discovery technologies. Providers belittling the broader e-discovery and information governance picture probably don't offer much beyond predictive coding technology, so they may try to focus the conversation exclusively on document review and analysis.
Other valuable steps in the e-discovery process that must be accounted for (in addition to document review) include proactively establishing an internal records retention schedule, legal hold notification, data identification and collection, early case assessment and data filtering.
Conclusion
For some outside law firms and contract attorney service bureaus, it's been all too easy to become addicted to the high utilization associated with e-discovery document review projects. But, for inside counsel, those massive numbers of e-discovery hours have become an easy target, at which the latest predictive coding technology is squarely aimed.
And yet, the demise of attorneys in the review process has been vastly overstated. Savvy legal professionals interested in advancing their careers and being on the cutting edge of something new will invest time in understanding the future of predictive coding or risk becoming less relevant.
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
© 2025 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: Why Relentless Self-Promoters Need Not Apply for GC Posts
Companies' Obsession With Soft Skills Has Made Prized GC Posts Even Harder to Land
4 minute readMeta Workers Aren't of One Mind on Company's Retreat From DEI, Fact-Checking
Private Equity-Backed Medical Imaging Chain Hires CLO, Continuing C-Suite Makeover
Trending Stories
- 1Bar Groups Say IOLA Settlement Protects Civil Litigants' Fund From Future 'Raids'
- 2'Every MAGA Will Buy It:' Elon Musk Featured in Miami Crypto Lawsuit
- 3Pennsylvania Law Schools Are Seeing Double-Digit Boosts in 2025 Applications
- 4Meta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
- 5State Court Rejects Uber's Attempt to Move IP Suit to Latin America
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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