The quest to solve the problem of reducing ever-expanding amounts of electronically stored information into manageable and relevant documents for use in litigation has left many casualties along the way — lawyers who underestimated the burden on litigation budgets; contract attorneys who improperly coded privileged documents after 40 straight days of staring at a computer screen; litigants who failed to properly preserve and produce; vendors that underestimated the competition; lawyers who misstated that all responsive documents had been produced.
The next predicted casualty is the search term, as better and smarter technology-assisted review methods stake their claim in the era of the predictively coded document. Thus far, however, no proposed solution is without flaws. The key is accepting imperfection and finding practical ways to handle the problems that come from expanding volumes of data, smaller budgets, and courts’ increasing expectations.
This content has been archived.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
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]
