Skip Page Banner  
Skip Navigation

Okay, I’m Sold on Technology-Assisted Review -- Now What?



Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Product Code - LGN53
Speaker(s): Maura R. Grossman, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Conor R. Crowley, Crowley Law Office; Gordon V. Cormack; University of Waterloo
Add To Cart
View the Brochure
Technology-assisted review – also known as “computer-assisted review” or “predictive coding” – uses computer “machine learning” algorithms to dramatically reduce the amount of human effort necessary to sift through massive volumes of electronic information for responsive documents. Studies have shown that technology-assisted review (TAR) can help lawyers conduct a higher quality and far more cost-effective document review than the traditional alternative of applying search terms followed by manual review.

In Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), a federal court endorsed computer-assisted review of over three million emails and other electronic files for a document production in civil litigation. This decision has paved the way for wider acceptance of the use of TAR. Until now, many litigants have held back from using these tools for fear of being “the first.” Da Silva Moore reassures litigants that their use of TAR should be acceptable as long as their efforts are reasonable and involve “an appropriate process . . . with appropriate quality control testing.”  A more recent case, Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation, No. CL 61040 (Va. Cir. Ct., Loudoun County, Apr. 23, 2012), is instructive on how to successfully argue for the use of TAR when your opponent objects.

So, you are now ready to use TAR on your matters. What are the next steps? How do you select a TAR tool? How do you implement a defensible process?  How do you convince others that what you have done is reasonable and appropriate?

Educational Objectives:

• Learn how to assess vendor claims and how to choose the right TAR tool for your matter.
• Understand how to use TAR tools and how to implement a sound, defensible process that includes appropriate quality assurance and verification.
• Find out how to convince your opponent, the court, or a regulator that what you have done is reasonable and appropriate.

Who would benefit from attending the program?

Litigators, in-house counsel, litigation support professionals, and electronic discovery project managers.

Program Level: Intermediate

Credit Available: CLE. For more information, please click on the “CLE Credit” tab.

Maura R. Grossman, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Conor R. Crowley, Crowley Law Office; Gordon V. Cormack; University of Waterloo

Maura R. Grossman, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Maura R. Grossman is Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, where she advises the firm and its clients on legal, technical, and strategic issues involving electronic discovery and information management both in the U.S. and abroad. Maura is co-chair of the E-Discovery Working Group advising the New York State Unified Court System and coordinator of the Legal Track of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Text Retrieval Conference (TREC), a joint government/industry/academic research project studying the application of automated information retrieval technologies to e-discovery. She also is a member of the Steering Committee of The Sedona Conference® Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production.

Maura teaches electronic discovery at Rutgers School of Law–Newark and Columbia Law School and serves on the Advisory Boards of Bloomberg BNA’s Digital Discovery and e-Evidence Report and the Georgetown University Law Center’s Advanced E-Discovery Institute. In addition to her law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center, Maura also holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in Psychology from Adelphi University. 

Conor R. Crowley, Crowley Law Office
Conor R. Crowley is the founder of Crowley Law Office, which provides corporate and law firm clients with cost-effective, practical advice in the areas of e-discovery readiness and responsiveness, records and information management, international e-discovery and data privacy. Crowley Law Office also partners with litigation counsel to serve as e-discovery counsel in complex litigation matters, and to provide expert testimony on e-discovery issues.

Conor is the Vice-Chair of The Sedona Conference® Working Group on Best Practices for Electronic Document Retention and Production in addition to being the Editor-in-Chief of The Sedona Conference Commentary on Proportionality in E-Discovery, and Senior Editor of a number of The Sedona Conference’s publications including The Sedona Conference Commentary on Legal Holds and The Sedona Principles (Second Edition): Best Practices Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production. He is an inaugural member of both the Advisory Board for Georgetown University Law Center’s Advanced E‐Discovery Institute and the Board of Advisors for Bloomberg BNA’s Digital Discovery & e‐Evidence, and a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Gordon V. Cormack, University of Waterloo
Gordon V. Cormack is a Professor at the David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo. He is a Program Committee member for the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC). From 1997 through 1999, he directed the University of Waterloo's participation in the TREC Legal Track, and from 2000 through 2011 was a coordinator of the TREC Legal Track. Professor Cormack is the co-author of Information Retrieval: Implementing and Evaluating Search Engines (MIT Press, 2010) and more than 100 scholarly articles. Professor Cormack holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Manitoba.

This program is CLE-credit eligible.

If you have further questions regarding a specific state or how to file for CLE credit, please contact Bloomberg BNA customer service at 800-372-1033 and ask to speak to the Legal and Business CLE Accreditation Coordinator.

Hardship Policy
Bloomberg BNA offers a hardship policy for any attorney earning less than $30,000 per year. If an attorney wishes to take advantage of this option, he or she must do so in writing and also provide proof of hardship. If approval is granted, a discount of 50% off the full registration price of the program will be awarded.

Questions
For more information about Mandatory or Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements, visit the American Bar Association website at http://www.abanet.org/cle/mandatory.html.