While the judgment is an important encouragement for litigation lawyers to consider the use of predictive coding technology in the courts of England and Wales, it is not as simple as simply asserting that the judgment is carte blanche for the use of this or any other technology in any case – Master Matthews himself took pains to emphasise this in the closing paragraph of his judgment. It is necessary to consider a range of factors and to be able to weigh and discuss them with clients, opponents and, ultimately and where necessary, the court.
It is equally the case that predictive coding technology has uses which go beyond the purposes set out in the judgment. The examination of incoming disclosure and QA are the two most obvious examples of other uses; these are not, of course, limited to litigation but are applicable in regulatory and other investigations where large amounts of material must be assimilated quickly.
If nothing else, the judgment means that lawyers can no longer ignore the application of advanced technology to UK disclosure. Even if you have no plans to use it yourself, it is important to be able to take part n the discussion when your opponent raises the subject.
Recommind has assembled a London panel to discuss the issues which arise from Pyrrho. It takes place in the Crypt of St Paul’s Cathedral on next Tuesday, 15 March, with breakfast at 8:30am and the panel itself at 9:00am.
Speakers include James Levy of Ashurst, Celina McGregor of Herbert Smith Freehills, Tim Brown of RPC, Damian Murphy of UBS, and Mark Mills of Ofgem, as well as me. The moderator will be Simon Price, Managing Director of Recommind in the UK.
If you are interested in attending (and many others seem to be) please send an email to Amie Rogers email@example.com