In the five-plus years since predictive coding first entered the vernacular of electronic discovery, the process has received remarkable attention from the e-discovery community. Nevertheless, many clients and their counsel remain cautious of the technology. The following facts and fictions should quell the anxieties of the uninitiated, while also curbing the unbridled enthusiasm of those who expect it to work miracles.
Fiction: A Partner Must Code the Training Set
Without appropriate guidance, predictive coding technologies cannot fulfill their promise to efficiently categorize vast volumes of documents. But consistency in training is just as important as subject-matter expertise, and coding the entire seed set can be a taxing endeavor for a single reviewer, particularly where additional training sets are needed to address shifts in the scope of responsiveness or the introduction of supplemental data sets. Realistically, finding a knowledgeable attorney (perhaps a mid-level to senior associate) with the time to dedicate to the exercise is more important than planting a rainmaker in the review room.
This content has been archived.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]
