You may have noticed that almost half of my blogs this past year have dealt with predictive coding in one way or another. It has become my new sub-niche practice area. For that reason I decided to add a permanent Page to my blog on the subject. It is shown on the top of this blog with the acronym CAR. (Sorry, Maura and KO, rock sTAR or no, I’m still not buying into the TAR label.) Note that the Six Critical Steps of Predictive Coding graph shown here was just revised today and is further described on the EDBP page for Predictive Coding.
My new CAR page on this blog is a personal, short – 1,700 word – summary of my predictive coding methods and practice. The new CAR Page also includes a list of the thirty articles or so I have written on the subject in the past two years. Please check it out, especially if you are looking for a short summary and reference.
Thank you. Just skimmed it and found it fascinating that the direction the technology (and you) are taking us is the “litigator/associate/e-Discovery attorney & CAR” model of review. Limited need for contract attorneys who may be difficult to motivate to work. Privilege logs prepared by associates or senior-level contractors, I assume. I’m no expert, and it will be interesting to read and learn more. LMB
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:58:18 +0000 To: email@example.com
CAR, TAR, IRT, predictive coding — The ediscovery industry is in a bit of an identity crisis! Hopefully, a year from now, the industry as a whole will settle on a common vernacular! Until then, I am term-agnostic — I love the CAR analogies, Ralph!
For a great case study on the benefits of using TAR/CAR, read: “Intelligent Review Technology Saves Client Almost $200,000 in Review Costs.” http://www.krollontrack.com/library/irtcostsavingcasestudy_krollontrack2012.pdf
[…] choice to make in generating this training data. Should training annotations be performed by an expert, but expensive, senior attorney? Or can it be farmed out to the less expensive, but possibly less reliable, contract attorneys […]