82,891
edits
E-discovery: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Those in the business of selling e-discovery platforms doubtless are thrilled at this technical revolution. Perhaps, too, court lawyers — though there is an element of an arms race about it. But the question we pose is a different one: how has technology in general, and e-discovery in particular, contributed to ''legal outcomes for clients''? | Those in the business of selling e-discovery platforms doubtless are thrilled at this technical revolution. Perhaps, too, court lawyers — though there is an element of an arms race about it. But the question we pose is a different one: how has technology in general, and e-discovery in particular, contributed to ''legal outcomes for clients''? | ||
In one sense, e-discovery exists to solve a problem that was only created by technology in the first place. As we have remarked [[ | In one sense, e-discovery exists to solve a problem that was only created by technology in the first place. As we have remarked [[Innovation paradox|elsewhere]], before the advent of [[email]] — before lawyers had screens on desktops and were dependent on paying someone to put their words onto paper the very act of generating a document, let alone sending one, was orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive. This provided strong incentive not to create ''unnecessary'' documents and to make sure the documents one did create were ''short and to the point''. These incentives no longer remain. The volume of information that now passes is monstrous; its ''quality'' is dismal. To the extent it is the only means of handling this volume, this is not e-discovery ''solving'' a problem. This is technology ''creating'' one. | ||
We wonder, too, whether the advent of e-discovery has made litigation ''cheaper'', ''faster'' or ''more effective''. Litigation does not, generally, seem to be getting cheaper.<ref> | We wonder, too, whether the advent of e-discovery has made litigation ''cheaper'', ''faster'' or ''more effective''. Litigation does not, generally, seem to be getting cheaper.<ref>As of the date of this article, there were 80,100 Google hits for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22rising+costs+of+litigation%22 “rising costs of litigation”]. There were ''no'' results for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22falling+costs+of+litigation%22 “falling costs of litigation”]. Now, we hope, there will be one.</ref> | ||
Have commercial disputes become intrinsically more complicated since the information revolution, or is the formal convolution a function of how lazy technology has allowed us to become? Are drafting is worse. There are ten times as many documents, but is there any more ''signal'' or is it just a lot more ''noise''? Is e-discovery really just an articulation of [[Parkinson’s law]] for the digital natives? | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Innovation paradox]] | *[[Innovation paradox]] | ||
*[[Queen’s Counsel]] | |||
*[[Writing for a judge]] | |||
*[[Parkinson’s law]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||