Lawyers: Objecting to Predictive Coding Is Futile

While technology-assisted review isn't for every case, judges are becoming savvy about its advantages.

, Law Technology News

   | 4 Comments

While technology-assisted review isn't for every case, judges are becoming savvy about its advantages.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • not available

    While courts are becoming more accepting of predictive coding as a concept, its use on a given matter is still subject to legal, procedural, technical, and strategic hurdles. As repeated surveys have demonstrated, predictive coding is still rarely used for "predictive coding". The uncertainty and risk associated with the preseent immaturity of predictive coding methodologies have kept this technology largely limited to filtering and QC.

    The potential challenges to the use of predictive coding on a given case are both lengthy and substantive. As someone who has worked to encourage the adoption of advanced decision analytics and optimization in other industries, I‘ve found that acknowledging technical and procedural issues and addressing them directly through methodology is the best approach to accelerate its acceptance. To imply that predictive coding is "mainstream" or applicable to cases involving as few as 10,000 documents leads to unsustainable expectations and industry backlash.

  • not available

    What exactly are judges becoming "savvy" about? There is no mention of judges sitting with programmers or developers. They are just becoming more accepting. I recently sat in a discussion where a judge described how decisions had been made regarding predictive coding thresholds in one of his cases soley using F1, then one of the statisticians that developed F1 told him they had used it incorrectly. Does that sound like "savvy"?

    http://blog.cluster-text.com/2013/05/08/predictive-coding-performance-and-the-silly-f1-score/

  • not available

    But it is also fervent to be “absolutely happy to endorse…predictive coding” and to “require it be used” when it is only described as “a process.”

  • not available

    Yes, it is futile to discuss objecting to Predictive Coding when it is only described as “a process.”

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202644426053

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.