"It's not like we actually have economic growth today. So we actually need technological breakthrough, we need AI ... Our responsibility is to have the AI augment the human ingenuity and augment the human opportunity." - Satya Nadella, Microsoft CEO
Now imagine everyone in the box with you is either cheering for the opposing team or completely indifferent to the game’s outcome. This is what it’s like to be your team’s sole evangelist for analytics technology in today’s e-discovery landscape.
What’s more encouraging than continued success in these established regions, though, is the technology’s emerging success in other parts of the world. In the last few months, Australia has added its name to the roster of TAR-friendly nations. This week, a formal Practice Note issued by an Australian federal court further validates the technology’s use by case teams who are seeking smarter ways to tackle massive data sets.
Angela, a proud evangelist for analytics, went on to explain how email threading drastically cuts down the amount of time you spend reviewing documents—and she’s right. When review teams use email threading, the results are pretty amazing, from Sheehan Phinney getting a $1.2 million win for their client to Troutman Sanders reducing the number of emails in their data set by 34 percent.
The legal industry is no exception. As we mentioned in a recent look at Only Humans Need Apply: Winners and Losers in the Age of Smart Machines, written by Thomas H. Davenport (who has taught at Harvard Business School) and Julia Kirby (an editor at Harvard University Press), it’s impossible not to see how e-discovery has changed over the last decade as AI and other forms of data analytics hit the legal scene.
e-Discovery professionals rely on analytics tools for cases of all sizes and have celebrated some big wins for clients as a result. As important as it is to share success stories, it’s also important to share close calls, from which we can sometimes learn far more.
In this season’s spirit of gratitude, I wanted to offer up my appreciation to analytics for coming to the rescue in the three near-crises that follow, and pay it forward by sharing my take on our lessons learned—pain and panic not included.
Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, both parties involved in a transaction must file a “Notification and Report Form” with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division to obtain approval for before mergers, tender offers, or other acquisition transactions.
After review of the original notification documents, the FTC or the Antitrust Division may request more information in the form of a “Request for Additional Information and Documentary Materials,” more commonly referred to as a “Second Request.”
From the Panama Papers to the FIFA scandal, we’ve seen technology become imperative when investigating corruption across the globe. Here’s what attendees learned from a Relativity Fest panel, moderated by Control Risks principal David Deusner, and featuring Hogan Lovells litigation project manager Jeremy Burdge, as well as Control Risks partner Terry Chopiuk, director Mason Pan, and principal Daniel Rudder.
Headlines like “How Soon Will You Lose Your Job To An AI Robot?” only make matters worse by constantly pitting man against machine in a Terminator-esque zero-sum game.
A disruptive technology is one that significantly alters the way that businesses operate. It may force a company to change the way it approaches its business, lest it risk losing market share or, worse, becoming irrelevant. Clayton Christensen popularized the idea of “disruptive technologies” or “disruptive innovations” in his book The Innovator's Dilemma in 1997.
In e-discovery, keyword search and manual review have long been staples for exploring the depths of a case. We’ve since developed new technological tools—quite possibly, industry disrupters—that are proving to be fast, accurate means of discovering the truth of a case. Though courts have deemed technology-assisted review (TAR) methods acceptable and even recommended, there’s sometimes a real hesitancy to adopt them. Many cases at their outset are still driven by instinctive selection of keywords before either side has their arms around the matter.