I published an article earlier today called Read the documents and then decide their relevance. What – all of them? about a UK lawyer who had commented on an article about predictive coding, saying:
As lawyers we like to see the documents, read them and then decide their relevance.
I suggested it might be good to have a look at some modern eDiscovery tools so that one could, at the least, engage in the conversation when a client, the opposition, or the court raised the point. By chance, an opportunity arose shortly afterwards to emphasise this point about taking a look at modern eDiscovery tools when FTI Technology tweeted a link to an article about a review which recognised FTI’s Ringtail as the top data visualisation solution.
It may be that the expression “data visualisation” sounds overly techy for some people. We don’t deal in “data”, they say, but in applying our expensive training and well-honed legal minds to deciding whether a document is disclosable or not.
Like it or not, the information provided by your clients and disclosed by your opponents is data. From data you can extract information, and from information you may derive understanding.
FTI is not the only software provider with great visualisation tools, and you will want to see more than one application anyway. As it happens, however, FTI has the best website for setting out what it means by data visualisation with (as you would hope, given the subject-matter) many pictures which explain how data visualisation tools help you with that process of turning data into understanding. They also explain well how their services integrate with their software.
You need information like this and, as I say, from more than one source, in order to comply with the duty to explain to clients, opponents and the court what is the best way of managing disclosure proportionately. Here is what Rule 31.5(5) CPR says:
Not less than seven days before the first case management conference, and on any other occasion as the court may direct, the parties must, at a meeting or by telephone, discuss and seek to agree a proposal in relation to disclosure that meets the overriding objective.
I am not convinced that it sounds very compelling if, in purported compliance with this rule, you say:
As lawyers we like to see the documents, read them and then decide their relevance.
What we really need is to Find Facts Fast, as FTI puts it. You won’t do that by reading through every document from the beginning to the end, from the earliest to the latest, in purported compliance with duty and the rules.
My tweet on the subject read as follows:
eDisclosure Information Project 