Why Aren’t Lawyers Using PC, or TAR, or PC-TAR, or CAR, or CAR-TAR, or Whatever We Call It?
It’s been a long time—too long—since I have written anything for the eDJ Group. Once of my excuses is that I’ve been spending some time writing for some other sites, or put another way, exercising my inner snark.
Several weeks ago, Greg Buckles posted preliminary results of his survey on analytics usage in eDiscovery. Greg then questioned his own results, or at least the raw statistics generated from his survey, presenting what he saw as the actual results:
"My best estimation is that only 5-7% of matters that reach the review stage . . . actually use some form of PC-TAR."
I’m not surprised at his general conclusion, though I do feel disappointed at those numbers. We all should feel that way; just a few years ago, machine learning technology represented something genuinely new and amazing. Even within the over-hyped, commercial blitz of the eDiscovery industry, predictive coding was genuinely promoted by many as the way that the ever-rising costs of eDiscovery, created by technology, could be solved by technology.
Technology Assisted Review