Are you feeling dazzled and daunted by advanced eDiscovery functionality?
eDiscovery technology is ever-evolving.
While this is exciting, it can be overwhelming to keep on top of advanced functionality. For many litigators, options such as active learning, clusters, email visualisation, concept clouds, mines, and cubes are dazzling, but daunting.
Indisputably, having access to increasingly sophisticated functionality has revolutionised evidence review. As data collections have escalated dramatically in size and complexity, technology has delivered new tools to enhance our capability to analyse potential evidence. In fact, for many large and complex matters, these tools are necessary for effective review and analysis.
However, it can be difficult to know how to best take advantage of the appropriate functionality for your case.
Knowing what, and then how best
The challenge for litigators is two-pronged. First, they must understand the ever-evolving functionality available to meet their review objectives (knowing what). Then they must appreciate how best to use that functionality to expedite defensible review for a specific evidence collection (knowing how best).
Knowing what is relatively straightforward as this can be learned theoretically; knowing how best is more difficult as this relies on experience.
Let’s consider decisions driven by what only. Sometimes, litigators are motivated to use evolving technology by fear of missing out or being left behind, rather than an appreciation that it is the right solution for their eDiscovery challenge. In other instances, litigators treat new functional capabilities as options at a buffet, wanting to select a little bit of everything. In considered and logical utilisation, advanced functionality can be truly transformative in the power it delivers to the review process. However, on a poorly considered basis, that functionality may unnecessarily add complexity and cost.
So what is the right approach? How can litigators know how best to take advantage of available functionality for their review?
The value of expert guidance
The answer lies in expert guidance founded on experience as well as knowledge.
A great consultant will first take the time to understand:
the evidence set; and
With that understanding as their foundation, they will recommend an eDiscovery strategy and a review workflow that leverages their functional know-how together with their considerable experience.
Having worked with myriad evidence collections for all types of review teams and matters, they will understand that knowing how best to use functionality is at least as important as the functionality chosen.
They will appreciate that technology must always serve the needs of the legal team and the matter, no matter how new or impressive specific functionality is.
Of course, litigators can, and do, develop their own functionality ‘experience bank’ from which to draw upon. At elaw, a key objective is to encourage and foster litigator capability and self-sufficiency. However, no two evidence collections are the same, and the savvy litigator will know when to seek support and guidance from those who meet the challenge of how best across all types of evidence collections every day.
Contact us for help
Contact elaw to find out more; we’d be delighted to help you.