We have been filming videos and publishing them in parallel with conventional blog posts for a little over two years now. For some of them I participate as a questioner; for others we simply point a camera at someone with a message and let them talk on a subject which interests them. Both approaches have yielded some crisp, eloquent pieces which bring clarity in a way which is difficult to replicate with the written word.
One of our first videos starred Alex-Dustan-Lee of Navigant whose subject was “Why would you not use predictive coding?”. He was extremely articulate on the subject.
One thing has changed since we shot this video. We have seen the approval of the court for the agreed predictive coding terms in Pyrrho and we have seen predictive coding imposed in the face of objections in BCA Trading. It will, however, take more than two judgments, one of them a consent judgment, to persuade every lawyer to at least consider the use of advanced analytic tools, and Alex Dunstan-Lee’s arguments about articulating to the court the merits of your search strategy remain valid.
Alex Dunstan-Lee’s interview remains the best summary I know of the arguments for using technology-assisted review in England and Wales, and I commend it to you despite the passage of time since it was filmed.
Some time later, we did a further interview at Navigant, this time with Katie Jensen, Director, Legal Technology Solutions at Navigant.
Katie Jensen’s message is that predictive coding should be used on “just about every project”. She talks about how to give comfort to lawyers as to the efficacy of the search and about helping them to articulate the merits to opponents and the court. Her video is below. The original article about it is here.