The past several years have seen the explosion of machine learning in law, particularly in e-discovery where technology-assisted review (TAR) gave way to an upgraded TAR 2.0, which itself gave way to continuous active learning (CAL) and TAR 3.0. This use of AI looked to introduce speed and cost efficiency to the discovery process by whittling down documents from the beginning, while still maintaining eyes-on final review.

But the next step for some in e-discovery is asking: Why does every litigation need to be different? One way some are looking to save even more time is through the use of AI model libraries—essentially, reusing algorithmic models in multiple matters, with the ability to store and select between different models in future litigations. Those who have reused models across matters say the algorithms need to be narrowly defined to a specific matter type, but if the model fits, it can help jumpstart the review process with less training time.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]