82,891
edits
E-discovery: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
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 | ===[[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 excellence of the technology on hand to conduct litigation. Therefore, efficiencies afforded by legaltech such as e-discovery tools accrues entirely to the practitioner and never to the client.'' | |||
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''? | ||
| Line 21: | Line 23: | ||
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? | 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? | ||
Consider commercial litigation from a perspective rarely mentioned in the acres of [[Thought leader|thought-leadership]] on the topic: the [[customer]]’s. A commercial dispute has, from a plaintiff’s perspective,<ref>It may be different from a defendant’s perspective, but we doubt it: the univariate consideration is simply “should I immediately settle, or engage lawyers to commence the pantomime of driving down the settlement?”</ref> a reductively simple complexion. | |||
“I believe I am entitled to value X, and I have received value Y”.<ref>Thought leaders and amateur psychologists will cavil at this and tell us that, no, sometimes the aggrieved just want their day in court. Not, I fancy, when they realise how much they will pay for the privilege.</ref> | |||
This is, in the vernacular, a [[univariate]] calculation. There is an amount to be claimed — ''X - Y'' — and a maximum amount one is prepared to pay to recover that amount — ''(X - Y)/n'' — where ''n'' will vary depending on the strength of customer’s original conviction, but logically must be greater than 1. | |||
From the perspective of those engaged to help resolve the dispute, however, the problem is decidedly [[multivariate]]: how reasonable is your client’s assessment of its own chances; how solvent is the defendant; how likely is it to defend, how vigorously, and how skilfully, which forum is most convenient to resolve that dispute; how sympathetic is that forum liable to be — each of these factors one can assign a probabilistic assessment at best. They are [[known unknown]]s. The great skill of the advocate is to assess them: should the assessment come inside the customer’s calculation, there is a livelihood to be made. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Innovation paradox]] | *[[Innovation paradox]] | ||