In our prior articles (Part 1 and Part 2), we looked at how the market’s collective understanding of predictive coding must shift if the technology is going to continue to gain traction in 2014. But the one issue that we have yet to consider is how the technology must refocus lawyers’ attention on the details. After all, details matter — in litigation or just about any other situation a lawyer confronts.
This was understandable, at first, as everyone initially focused on cheaper and faster review. The oft-cited RAND Study from 2012 makes cost reduction an easy target for e-discovery vendors looking to get in the mix with the same basic claim that their way is the most cost effective. And let’s be clear: Cheaper and faster discovery is certainly a laudable goal. But it also feels like if that continues to be the primary focus of this powerful technology, we are not raising the bar; we are not driving innovation and imagining a better way to practice law. In short, we are resigning ourselves to the fact that good might be good enough.