This webinar is a component of our comprehensive Practice Makes Perfect educational series.
Technology assisted review (TAR) offers immense savings in both time and review costs, but many attorneys hesitate to use it because of concerns about "transparency" in the process.
Specifically, when a party wants to use TAR in litigation, the opposing party often insists as a prerequisite that counsel agree to disclose the TAR process they use and which documents they use for training. If the parties are unable to agree on the transparency issue, they sometimes turn to the court to decide it. Courts are split on how they rule on this issue, sometimes even requiring opposing counsel to directly participate in the training.
Attorneys worry that this kind of transparency will force them to reveal work product, thoughts about problem documents, or even case strategy. Although most attorneys accept the requirement to share keyword searches as a condition of using them, disclosing their TAR training documents in conjunction with a production seems a step too far.
However, by using a TAR 2.0 process that employs Continuous Active Learning, the transparency issue is minimized or even eliminated, as U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck acknowledged in his recent decision in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale SA: “If the TAR methodology uses ‘continuous active learning’ … the contents of the seed set is much less significant."
In this webinar, learn how TAR 2.0 solves the transparency issue. We will discuss:
- The history of TAR and transparency concerns
- Recent case law on transparency
- Why transparency is important in TAR 1.0
- Why transparency is irrelevant with TAR 2.0
- Simple ways to validate with little or no transparency
- What’s in store for 2016
Robert Ambrogi, Esq.
A lawyer and veteran legal journalist, Bob serves as Catalyst’s director of communications. He is also a practicing lawyer in Massachusetts and is the former editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal, Lawyers USA and Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. A fellow of the College of Law Practice Management, he writes the award-winning blog LawSites and co-hosts the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer. He is a regular contributor to the ABA Journal and is vice chair of the editorial board of the ABA’s Law Practice magazine.
John Tredennick, CEO and Founder, Catalyst
John is a former trial lawyer and litigation partner with a large national law firm, and has written or edited five books and countless articles on litigation and technology issues. He was recently named one of the top six e-discovery trailblazers by The American Lawyer. He was also named one of the “Top 100 Global Technology Leaders” by London's CityTech magazine. John served as chair of the ABA Law Practice Management Section and editor-in-chief of its flagship magazine.
Mark Noel, Managing Director, Professional Services, Catalyst
Mark specializes in helping clients use technology assisted review, advanced analytics, and custom workflows to handle complex and large-scale litigations. Before joining Catalyst, Mark was a member of the Acuity team at FTI Consulting, co-founded an e-discovery software startup, and was an intellectual property litigator with Latham & Watkins LLP.
Thomas C. Gricks III, Managing Director, Professional Services, Catalyst
A prominent e-discovery lawyer and one of the nation's leading authorities on the use of TAR in litigation, Tom joined Catalyst in June. He advises corporations and law firms on best practices for applying Catalyst’s TAR technology, Insight Predict, to reduce the time and cost of discovery. He has more than 25 years’ experience as a trial lawyer and in-house counsel, most recently with the law firm Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, where he was a partner and chair of the e-Discovery Practice Group.