Q&A talks about technology and the legal profession with Howard Reissner, CEO and co-founder of Planet Data Solutions based in Elmsford, N.Y. Reissner is also a practicing attorney.
Q: What are the implications of a super computer being used in what you call e-discovery? Does it make discovery more expensive or is the hardware and software going to be ultimately cheaper than a bunch of first-year associates poring over documents?
A: It does appear that over time the computer will be able to eliminate most documents — with a high degree of confidence — that have no or low relevance to the key issues. In addition, with the use of concept searching, categorization and clustering technologies, documents will be queued up for more efficient review. With the enormous growth of data creation, these techniques will reduce the unit costs of reviewing information. Nonetheless, there will still be a need for attorneys to review these data sets and to think through the results of iterative searching and sampling to refine the information into a more defined format.
Q: You refer to ‘mind-boggling explosions in electronic data creation.’ Is that an area that only computers can realistically handle? Could human attorneys ever hope to sift through electronic data as efficiently as hardware could?
A: We are well past the point where humans without technological assistance can accurately search through large quantities of data. A typical litigation today can encompass tens of millions of emails, spreadsheets, PowerPoint’s, text messages, social networking information, etc. The key question today is how do we leverage technology to credibly respond to discovery requests in a cost effective manner.
Q: Some educators aren’t against students using calculators on exams as a tool but only if they have the knowledge to know when they made a mistake inputting data. Will computers always be a tool like a calculator in e-discovery?
A: Yes. E-discovery is a process with many steps. It is not an exam. As the complexities of data creation, storage, retrieval, search and review evolve, computers will assist humans in developing more efficient work flow process to assist in solving new problems.
Q: As a follow-up to that, during discovery pieces might be put together that elude the parameters set into e-discovery yet could still advance a case. Will computers become sophisticated enough to find smoking guns so to speak?
A: There is nothing improper with using e-discovery technology to assist in finding information that might not otherwise be found by human searching (e.g. computer decodes cryptic message sent in an email that acknowledges liability). This type of critical data searching and analysis is currently being utilized by Planet Data with its LSI concept searching software, Content Analyst.
Q: Of the three: legal industry, judicial branch and business world, who is going to be most reluctant to embrace this trend? And what makes you think that?
A: Legal. Lawyers have always been several years behind commercial industry in adopting new technologies, etc. The judiciary only requires that any new methodologies utilized or presented can be validated and defended by expert support. As such, lawyers are concerned that new technology will negatively impact the manner in which they practice, or that a technology will be challenged and then not be validated by the judiciary.
Q: Do you believe that Watson, the computer that was made infamous recently on “Jeopardy!” may be the model for a computer that eventually becomes an attorney. How so?
A: No. Watson consists of a series of computers that can find specific types of information and relationships between that information. The practice of law sometimes includes the retrieval of basic issues that can be located and placed into a formulaic program. However, in many instances, the practice of law requires nuanced judgment decisions on variables and human sensitivities that cannot be reduced to an algorithm.
