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: | ||
It is no longer practically feasible to prepare lists of documents discovery manually. Now automated tools using [[neural network]]s, [[machine learning]] and other kinds of [[AI]] have emerged to handle discovery analytics. | It is no longer practically feasible to prepare lists of documents discovery manually. Now automated tools using [[neural network]]s, [[machine learning]] and other kinds of [[AI]] have emerged to handle discovery analytics. | ||
===[[Parkinson’s law]] for the digital age?=== | ===[[Parkinson’s law]] for the digital age?=== | ||
''What follows is a needlessly formal argument for the proposition the cost parties will incur to resolve a dispute is a function of the amount at stake and will not be affected by the | ''What follows is a needlessly formal argument for the proposition the cost parties will incur to resolve a dispute is a function of the amount at stake and the commercial merit of the dispute and will not be affected by the tools available to conduct the litigation. In other words, efficiencies afforded by legaltech accrue entirely to practitioners and not at all to 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''? | 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''? | ||