5 Ways Analytics in E-Discovery Drive Better Litigation Outcomes

The modern generation of electronic discovery software products can achieve the promise and potential of analytics throughout the complete electronic discovery workflow. After several years of reiterating the same e-discovery exhortations such as faster processing, cheaper review, and improved managed facilities – the industry discussion has hooked on to some new and advanced territory this year. One such discussion targets on the idea of inspecting primary case valuation as the significant and key aspect to the e-discovery workflow, a prototype swing that is all describing about the necessity to gain a deeper vision into the evidence in a case as quick as possible.

We may well be in the initial phases of risking out one more significant and essential new frontier in our industry: the huge unexploited potential of improved photographic analytics in the e-discovery workflow.

Unquestionably, the use of analytics in e-discovery is not modern, however, indeed in some ways, it is as ancient as the discipline of automated or electronic discovery itself. For instance, in the primary days, analytics were linked with functions such as de-duplication and replication of files within a data set, email threading and, more recently, predictive coding. The consumption of analytics in these particular practices evidenced to be very necessary and valuable to litigation teams.

The five ways Analytics in E-Discovery Can Drive Better Litigation Outcomes are as follows:

  1. Define Outcomes
  2. More Efficiency
  3. Greater Control
  4. Better Case Decisions
  5. Predictability

 

According to an inspection of in-house lawful sectors directed by the Coalition of Technology Resources for Lawyers (CTRL), a big number of lawful departments almost 56% stated that they were consuming data analytics to discourse e-discovery responsibilities. Precisely, the inspection found out that the top three practices for data analytics in e-discovery are:

  • Culling (72%)
  • Early case assessment (72%)
  • Relevancy review (71%)

Although these legal divisions that have contained analytics have stated marvelous and countless benefits to their workflow, however, unfortunately the embracing of analytics has not been swift and broad-based.

Syed Ali:

Syed has impeccable reviewing and strong editing skills with a long track record of writing technical, and management articles that make readers stop and think. As a Copywriter, he provides consultancy, management services at ClayDesk, an e-Discovery and cloud computing consultancy firm, and can be reached at ali@claydesk.com

Please follow and like us:

How Judges Make Decisions?

Law students enrolled in various law schools learn little about the fundamentals of legal jurisprudence as being an elective course. Not only that, professors spend less time on this subject matter and more on the exigencies of law. Among these students become Judges and must decide on cases that range from a simple case to a highly complex legal matter. The fundamentals of jurisprudence being taught is different in various parts of the world. For instance, the teachings of law within the American legal education is different from the common law principles taught in European and Asian countries.

Following predefined learning processes, Attorneys adhere to the notion that traditional law books and materials seldom suffice in determining the outcome of the case. While books and materials provide solid understanding of legal principles, reasoning, and logic, there is a dire need of having greater understanding of how the court interprets and gives its verdict. In most cases, students are taught that the outcome of a case can either be rules in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant. As a result, comparing precedents and various historical cases and patters, students fall victim to various forms of biases.

The Legal Realism entails that typical style of judicial decisions are not quite accurate depiction of the actual process of adjudication by basing itself on the major premise of law itself, followed by facts as its minor premise, and its conclusion follows the logical certainty. This is also known as mechanical jurisprudence.

No matter how the case is decided in the court of law, legal reasons, as implicitly taught within the American legal education, solely by themselves cannot form the basis of why a Judge decided a case as he or she did! On the contrary, the rest of the world, for the most part, follows the norm of:

  • How often an existing law runs out
  • How to fulfill existing gaps within legal reasoning and logic

Some Judges deciding on matters of fact follow a certain pattern such as enforcement of norms of prevalent culture and reaching the best possible decision under the prevalent socioeconomic condition. The main role of Judges should to act as a delegated decision maker and to dig deeper into various Cases, Statutes, Principles, and Jurisprudence.

Unlike classic legal thought, the legal education, largely shaped by the legal Realists in understanding the nature of adjudicating matters, has a distinct way of looking at the law. Judges take on these approaches while deciding cases, and reach to conclusions that may turn out to be good for some people, but bad for others.

Watch a free lesson from my E-Discovery course here:

Syed Raza:

With over 20 years of combined experience in the fields Law, Management, and IT, Syed has impeccable reviewing and strong editing skills with a long track record of writing technical, legal, and management articles that make readers stop and think. Being an entrepreneur, professor, and attorney, he providesconsultancy, management consulting, and project management in e-Discovery issues in complex civil litigation. He is the CEO of ClayDesk, an e-Discovery and cloud computing consultancy firm, and can be reached at ceo@claydesk.com

Please follow and like us: