Technology-Assisted Review (aka "Predictive-Coding" Review or "Computer-Assisted" Review): A Critical Analysis
April 19, 2013
The conference critically examines the usefulness and effectiveness of "technology-assisted" review as a tool whose proponents assert will substantially reduce ediscovery costs. "Technology-assisted" review is also referred to sometimes as "predictive-coding" review or "computer-assisted" review. Its utility was challenged and upheld in Da Silva Moore (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23350 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012)), a decision rendered by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck and confirmed by U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter (11 Civ. 1279 (ALC)(AJP)). Under the new technology, senior lawyers review a few thousand documents for relevancy and privilege, which provides information for artificial intelligence to do the same for the remainder of the electronically stored information in an iterative process, potentially substantially reducing the costs of manual review.
The conference is by invitation only. It will bring together 60 senior-level practitioners sophisticated in ediscovery, industry experts, scholars, and federal judges in a collaborative environment aimed at informing and developing consensus positions that can guide policy-makers and decision-makers, including the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. All invited are expected to participate in the conference's discussions.
The opening panel of industry experts will explain the technology, clarifying current confusion about different tools all claiming to be technology-assisted review. The second and third panels will examine the technology's advantages, drawbacks, and limitations. A judicial panel will address the challenging management decisions judges must make in reviewing the technology's application. And the final panel will address lawyers' ethical concerns raised by the technology's application. We are requesting a credit of 6.5 CLE hours.