The Law’s “Reasonable Man,” Judge Haight, Love, Truth, Justice, “Go Fish” and Why the Legal Profession Is Not Doomed to be Replaced by Robots

June 29, 2016

Reasonable_guageReasonability is a core concept of the law and foundation of our system of justice. Reason, according to accepted legal doctrine, is how we judge the actions of others and determine right from wrong. We do not look to Truth and Love for Justice, we look to Truth and Reason. If a person’s actions are reasonable, then, as a general matter, they are good and should not be punished, no matter what the emotional motives behind the actions. It is an objective standard. Actions judged as unreasonable are not good, no matter the emotional motive (think mercy killing).

Irrational actions are discouraged by law, and, if they cause damages, they are punished. The degree of punishment slides according to how unreasonable the behavior was and the extent of damages caused. Bad behavior ranges from the barely negligent – a close question – to intentionally bad, scienter. Analysis of reasonability in turn always depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the actions being judged.

Reasonability Depends on the Circumstances

Justice_scaleWhenever a lawyer is asked a legal question they love to start the answer by pointing that it all depends. We are trained to see both sides, to weigh the evidence. We dissect, access and evaluate degrees of reasonability according to the surrounding circumstances. We deal with reason, logic and cold hard facts. Our recipe for justice is simple: add reason to facts and stir well.

The core concept of reasonability not only permeates negligence and criminal law, it underlies discovery law as well. We are constantly called upon the evaluate the reasonability of efforts to save, find and produce electronically stored information. This evaluation of reasonability always depends on the facts. It requires more than information. It requires knowledge of what the information means.

Perfect efforts are not required in the law, but reasonable efforts are. Failure to make such efforts can be punished by the court, with the severity of the punishment contingent on the degree of unreasonability and extent of damages. Again, this requires knowledge of the true facts of the efforts, the circumstances.

justice_guage_negligenceIn discovery litigants and their lawyers are not permitted to make anything less than reasonable efforts to find the information requested. They are not permitted to make sub-standard, negligent efforts, and certainly not grossly negligence efforts. Let us not even talk about intentionally obstructive or defiant efforts. The difference between good enough practice – meaning reasonable efforts – and malpractice is where the red line of negligence is drawn.

Bagely v. Yale

Yale Law Professor Constance Bagley

Professor Constance Bagley

One of my favorite district court judges – 86-year old Charles S. Haight – pointed out the need to evaluate reasonability of e-discovery efforts in a well-known, at this time still ongoing employment discrimination case. Bagely v. Yale, Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1890 (CSH). See eg. Bagley v. Yale University, 42 F. Supp. 3d 332 (DC, Conn. 2014). On April 27, 2015, Judge Haight considered Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order.

The plaintiff, Constance Bagley, wanted her former employer, Yale University, to look through the emails of more witness to respond to her request for production. The defendant, Yale University, said it had already done enough, that it had reviewed the emails of several custodians, and should not be required to do more. Judge Haight correctly analyzed this dispute as requiring his judgment on the reasonability of Yale’s efforts. He focused on Rule 26(b)(2)(B) involving the “reasonable accessibility” of certain ESI and the reasonable efforts requirements under then Rule 26(b)(2)(C) (now 26(b)(1) – proportionality factors under the 2015 Rules Amendments). In the judge’s words:

Yale can — indeed, it has — shown that the custodians’ responsive ESI is not readily accessible. That is not the test. The question is whether this information is not reasonably accessible: a condition that necessarily implies some degree of effort in accessing the information. So long as that creature of the common law, the reasonable man,[6] paces the corridors of our jurisprudence, surrounding circumstances matter.

[6] The phrase is not gender neutral because that is not the way Lord Coke spoke.

Bagley v. Yale, Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 108) (April 27, 2015) (emphasis added).

The Pertinent e-Discovery Facts of Bagley v. Yale

kiss_me_im_a_custodian_keychainJudge Haight went on to deny the motion for protective order by defendant Yale University, his alma mater, by evaluation of the facts and circumstances. Here the plaintiff originally wanted defendant to review for relevant documents the ESI that contained certain search terms of 24 custodians. The parties later narrowed the list of terms and reduced the custodian count from 24 to 10. The defendant began a linear review of each and every document. (Yes, their plan was to have a paralegal or attorney look at each any every document with a hit, instead of more sophisticated approaches, i.e. – concept search or predictive coding.) Here is Judge Haight’s description:

Defendants’ responsive process began when University staff or attorneys commandeered — a more appropriate word than seized — the computer of each of the named custodians. The process of ESI identification and production then “required the application of keyword searches to the computers of these custodians, extracting the documents containing any of those keywords, and then reading every single document extracted to determine whether it is responsive to any of the plaintiff’s production requests and further to determine whether the document is privileged.” Defendants’ Reply Brief [Doc. 124], at 2-3. This labor was performed by Yale in-house paralegals and lawyers, and a third-party vendor the University retained for the project.

Go FishIt appears from the opinion that Yale was a victim of a poorly played game of Go Fish where each side tries to find relevant documents by guessing keywords without study of the data, much less other search methods. Losey, R., Adventures in Electronic Discovery (West 2011); Child’s Game of ‘Go Fish’ is a Poor Model for e-Discovery Search. This is a very poor practice, as I have often argued, and frequently results in surprise burdens on the producing party.

This is what happened here. As Judge Haight explained, Yale did not complain of these keywords and custodian count (ten instead of five), until months later when the review was well underway:

[I]t was not until the parties had some experience with the designated custodians and search terms that the futility of the exercise and the burdens of compliance became sufficiently apparent to Defendants to complain of them.

go fishToo bad. If they had tested the keywords first before agreeing to review all hits, instead of following the Go Fish approach, none of this would have happened. National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 877 F.Supp.2d 87 (SDNY, 2012) (J. Scheindlin) (“As Judge Andrew Peck — one of this Court’s experts in e-discovery — recently put it: “In too many cases, however, the way lawyers choose keywords is the equivalent of the child’s game of `Go Fish’ … keyword searches usually are not very effective.” FN 113“); Losey, R., Poor Plaintiff’s Counsel, Can’t Even Find a CAR, Much Less Drive One (9/1/13).

After reviewing the documents of only three custodians, following the old-fashioned, buggy-whip method of looking at one document after another (linear review), the defendant complained as to the futility of their effort to the judge. They alleged that the effort:

… required paralegals and lawyers to review approximately 13,393 files, totaling 4.5 gigabytes, or the equivalent of about 450,000 pages of emails. Only 6% of this data was responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery request: about 300 megabytes, or about 29,300 pages of emails. In excess of 95% of this information, while responsive to the ESI request, has absolutely nothing to do with any of the issues in this case. Thus, defendants’ lawyers and paralegals reviewed approximately 450,000 pages of material in order to produce less than 1,500 pages of information which have any relationship whatsoever to this dispute; and the majority of the 1,500 pages are only marginally relevant.

ShiraScheindlin_sketchI do not doubt that at all. It is typical in cases like this. What do you expect from blind negotiated keyword search and linear review? For less effort try driving a CAR instead of walking. As Judge Scheindlin said in National Day Laborer back in 2012:

There are emerging best practices for dealing with these shortcomings and they are explained in detail elsewhere.[114] There is a “need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or `keywords’ to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information.”[115] And beyond the use of keyword search, parties can (and frequently should) rely on latent semantic indexing, statistical probability models, and machine learning tools to find responsive documents.[116] Through iterative learning, these methods (known as “computer-assisted” or “predictive” coding) allow humans to teach computers what documents are and are not responsive to a particular FOIA or discovery request and they can significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of searches. In short, a review of the literature makes it abundantly clear that a court cannot simply trust the defendant agencies’ unsupported assertions that their lay custodians have designed and conducted a reasonable search.

National Day Laborer Organizing Network, supra 877 F.Supp.2d at pgs. 109-110.

Putting aside the reasonability of search and review methods selected, an issue never raised by the parties and not before the court, Judge Haight addressed whether the defendant should be required to review all ten custodians in these circumstances. Here is Judge Haight’s analysis:

Prior to making this motion, Yale had reviewed the ESI of a number of custodians and produced the fruits of those labors to counsel for Bagley. Now, seeking protection from — which in practical terms means cessation of — any further ESI discovery, the University describes in vivid, near-accusatory prose the considerable amount of time and treasure it has already expended responding to Bagley’s ESI discovery requests: an exercise which, in Yale’s non-objective and non-binding evaluation, has unearthed no or very little information relevant to the lawsuit. Yale’s position is that given those circumstances, it should not be required to review any additional ESI with a view toward producing any additional information in discovery. The contention is reminiscent of a beleaguered prizefighter’s memorable utterance some years ago: “No mas!” Is the University entitled to that relief? Whether the cost of additional ESI discovery warrants condemnation of the total as undue, thereby rendering the requested information not reasonably accessible to Yale, presents a legitimate issue and, in my view, a close question.

Judge Charles Haight (“Terry” to his friends) analyzed the facts and circumstances to decide whether Yale should continue its search and review of four more custodians. (It was five more, but Yale reviewed one while the motion was pending.) Here is his summary:

Defendants sum up the result of the ESI discovery they have produced to Plaintiff to date in these terms: “In other words, of the 11.88 gigabytes of information[3](which is the equivalent of more than 1 million pages of email files) that has so far been reviewed by the defendant, only about 8% of that information has been responsive and non-privileged. Furthermore, only a small percentage of those documents that are responsive and non-privileged actually have any relevance to the issues in this lawsuit.” Id., at 4-5.  . . .

[3] 11.88 gigabytes is the total of 4.5 gigabytes (produced by review of the computers of Defendant custodians Snyder, Metrick and Rae) and 7.38 gigabytes (produced by review of the computers of the additional five custodians named in text).

Defendants assert on this motion that on the basis of the present record, “the review of these remaining documents will amount to nothing more than a waste of time and money. This Court should therefore enter a protective order relieving the defendant[s] from performing the requested ESI review.” Id.  . . .

Ruling in Bagley v. Yale

gavelJudge Haight, a wise senior judge who has seen and heard it all before, found that under these facts Yale had not yet made a reasonable effort to satisfy their discovery obligations in this case. He ordered Yale to review the email of four more custodians. That, he decided, would be a reasonable effort. Here is Judge Haight’s explanation of his analysis of reasonability, which, in my view, is unaffected by the 2015 Rule Amendments, specifically the change to Rule 26(b)(1).

In the case at bar, the custodians’ electronically stored information in its raw form was immediately accessible to Yale: all the University had to do was tell a professor or a dean to hand over his or her computer. But Bagley’s objective is to discover, and Defendants’ obligation is to produce, non-privileged information relevant to the issues: Yale must review the custodians’ ESI and winnow it down. That process takes time and effort; time and effort can be expensive; and the Rule measures the phrase “not reasonably accessible” by whether it exposes the responding party to “undue cost.” Not some cost: undue cost, an adjective Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014 at 1759) defines as “excessive or unwarranted.” . . .

In the totality of circumstances displayed by the case at bar, I think it would be an abuse of discretion to cut off Plaintiff’s discovery of Defendants’ electronically stored information at this stage of the litigation. Plaintiff’s reduction of custodians, from the original 24 targeted by Defendants’ furiously worded Main Brief to the present ten, can be interpreted as a good-faith effort by Plaintiff to keep the ESI discovery within permissible bounds. Plaintiff’s counsel say in their Opposing Brief [Doc. 113] at 2: “Ironically, this last production includes some of the most relevant documents produced to date.” While relevance, like beauty, often lies in the eyes of the beholder, and Defendants’ counsel may not share the impressions of their adversaries, I take the quoted remark to be a representation by an officer of the Court with respect to the value and timing of certain evidence which has come to light during this discovery process. The sense of irritated resignation conveyed by the familiar aphorism — “it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack” — does not exclude the possibility that there may actually be a needle (or two or three) somewhere in the haystack, and sharp needles at that. Plaintiff is presumptively entitled to search for them.

As Judge Haight understood when he said that the “Plaintiff is presumptively entitled to search for them,” the search effort is actually upon the defendant, not the plaintiff. The law requires the defendant to expend reasonable efforts to search for the needles in the haystack that the plaintiff would like to be found. Of course, if those needles are not there, no amount of effort can find them. Still, no one knows that in advance (although probabilities can be calculated), whether there are hot documents left to be found, so reasonable efforts are often required to show they are not there. This can be difficult as any e-discovery lawyer well knows.

Faced with this situation most e-discovery specialists will tell you the best solution is to cooperate, or at least try. If your cooperative efforts fail and you seek relief from the court, it needs to be clear to the judge that you did try. If the judge thinks you are just another unreasonable, over-assertive lawyer, your efforts are doomed. This is apparently part of what was driving Judge Haight’s analysis of “reasonable” as the following colorful, one might say “tasty,” quote from the opinion shows:

A recipe for a massive and contentious adventure in ESI discovery would read: “Select a large and complex institution which generates vast quantities of documents; blend as many custodians as come to mind with a full page of search terms; flavor with animosity, resentment, suspicion and ill will; add a sauce of skillful advocacy; stir, cover, set over high heat, and bring to boil. Serves a district court 2-6 motions to compel discovery or for protection from it.”

Yale_pot_boiling

You have got to love a judge with wit and wisdom like that. My only comment is that truly skillful advocacy here would include cooperation, and lots of it. The sauce added in that case would be sweet and sour, not just hot and spicy. It should not give a judge any indigestion at all, much less six motions. That is one reason why Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP.com) puts such an emphasis on skillful cooperation.

EDBP.com You are free to use this chart in any manner so long as you do not chnage it.

What is Reasonable?

Reasonable_man_cloudBagley shows that the dividing line between what is reasonable and thus acceptable efforts, and what is not, can often be difficult to determine. It depends on a careful evaluation of the facts, to be sure, but this evaluation in turn depends on many subjective factors, including whether one side or another was trying to cooperate. These factors include all kinds of prevailing social norms, not just cooperativeness. It also includes personal values, prejudices, education, intelligence, and even how the mind itself works, the hidden psychological influences. They all influence a judge’s evaluation in any particular case as to which side of the acceptable behavior line a particular course of conduct falls.

In close questions the subjectivity inherent in determinations of reasonability is obvious. This is especially true for the attorneys involved, the ones paid to be independent analysts and objective advisors. People can, and often do, disagree on what is reasonable and what is not. They disagree on what is negligent and what is not. On what is acceptable and what is not.

All trial lawyers know that certain tricks of argument and appeals to emotion can have a profound effect on a judge’s resolution of these supposedly reason-based disagreements. They can have an even more profound affect on a jury’s decision. (That is the primary reason that there are so many rules on what can and cannot be said to a jury.)

Study of Legal Psychology

Every good student of the law knows this, but how many attempt to study the psychological dynamics of persuasion? How many attempt to study perceptions of reasonability? Of cognitive bias? Not many, and there are good reasons for this.

First and foremost, few law professors exist that have this kind of knowledge. The only attorneys that I know of with this knowledge are experienced trial lawyers and experienced judges. They know quite a lot about this, but not from any formal or systematic study. They pick up information, and eventually knowledge on the psychological underpinnings of justice by many long years of practice. They learn about the psychology of reasonability through thousands of test cases. They learn what is reasonable by involvement in thousands of disputes. Whatever I know of the subject was learned that way, although I have also read numerous books and articles on the psychology of legal persuasion written by still more senior trial lawyers.

That is not to say that experience, trial and error, is the quickest or best way to learn these insights. Perhaps there is an even quicker and more effective way? Perhaps we could turn to psychologists and see what they have to say about the psychological foundations of perception of reasonability. After all, this is, or should be, a part of their field.

Up until now, not very much has been said from psychologists on law and reasonability, at least not to my knowledge. There are a few books on the psychology of persuasion. I made a point in my early years as a litigator to study them to try to become a better trial lawyer. But in fact, the field is surprisingly thin. There is not much there. It turns out that the fields of Law and Psychology have not overlapped much, at least not in that way.

Perhaps this is because so few psychologists have been involved with legal arguments on reasonability. When psychologists are in the legal system, they are usually focused on legal issues of sanity, not negligence, or in cases involving issues of medial diagnoses.

The blame for the wide gulf between the two fields falls on both sides. Most psychologists, especially research psychologists, have not been interested in the law and legal process. Or when they have, it has involved criminal law, not civil. See eg: Tunnel Vision in the Criminal Justice System (May 2010, Psychology Today). This disinterest has been reciprocal. Most lawyers and judges are not really interested in hearing what psychologists have to say about reasonability. They consider their work to be above such subjective vagaries.

Myth of Objectivity

Myth_ObjectivityLawyers and judges consider reasonability of conduct to be an exclusively legal issue. Most lawyers and judges like to pretend that reasonability exists in some sort of objective, platonic plane of ideas, above all subjective influences. The just decision can be reached by deep, impartial reasoning. This is the myth of objectivity. It is an article of faith in the legal profession.

The myth continues to this day in legal culture, even though all experienced trial lawyers and judges know it is total nonsense, or nearly so. They know full well the importance of psychology and social norms. They know the impact of cognitive biases of all kinds, even transitory ones. As trial lawyers like to quip – What did the judge have for breakfast?

Experienced lawyers take advantage of these biases to win cases for their clients. They know how to push the buttons of judge and jury. See Cory S. Clements, Perception and Persuasion in Legal Argumentation: Using Informal Fallacies and Cognitive Biases to Win the War of Words, 2013 BYU L. Rev. 319 (2013)Justice is sometimes denied as a result. But this does not mean judges should be replaced by robots. No indeed. There is far more to justice than reason. Still a little help from robots is surely part of the future we are making together.

More often than not the operation of cognitive biases happen unconsciously without any puppet masters intentionally pulling the strings. There is more to this than just rhetoric and sophistry. Justice is hard. So is objective ratiocination.

Even assuming that the lawyers and judges in the know could articulate their knowledge of decisional bias, they have little incentive to do so. (The very few law professors with such knowledge do have an incentive, as we see in Professor Clements’ article cited above, but these articles are rare and too academic.) Moreover, most judges and lawyers are incapable of explaining these insights in a systematic manner. They lack the vocabulary of psychology to do so, and, since they learned by long, haphazard experience, that is their style of teaching as well.

Shattering the Myth

One psychologist I know has studies these issues and share his insights. They are myth shattering to be sure, and thus will be unwelcome to some idealists. But for me this is a much-needed analysis. The psychologist who has dared to expose the myth, to lift the curtain, has worked with lawyers for over a decade on discovery issues. He has even co-authored a law review article on reasonability with two distinguished lawyers. Oot, Kershaw, Roitblat, Mandating Reasonableness in a Reasonable Inquiry, Denver University Law Review, 87:2, 522-559 (2010).

Herb RoitblatI am talking about Herbert L. Roitbalt, who has a PhD in psychology. Herb did research and taught psychology for many years at the University of Hawaii. Only after a distinguished career as a research psychologist and professor did Herb turn his attention to computer search in general and then ultimately to law and legal search. He is also a great admirer of dolphins.

Schlemiel and Schlimazel

Herb has written a small gem of a paper on law and reasonability that is a must read for everyone, especially those who do discovery. The Schlemiel and the Schlimazel and the Psychology of Reasonableness (Jan. 10, 2014, LTN) (link is to republication by a vendor without attribution). I will not spoil the article by telling you Herb’s explanation of the Yiddish terms, Schlemiel and Schlimazel, nor what they have to do with reasonability and the law, especially the law of spoliation and sanctions. Only a schmuck would do that. It is a short article; be a mensch and go read it yourself. I will, however, tell you the Huffington Post definition:

A Schlemiel is an inept clumsy person and a Schlimazel is a very unlucky person. There’s a Yiddish saying that translates to a funny way of explaining them both. A schlemiel is somebody who often spills his soup and a schlimazel is the person it lands on.

This is folk wisdom for what social psychologists today call attribution error. It is the tendency to blame your own misfortune on outside circumstances beyond your control (the schlimazel) and blame the misfortune of others on their own negligence (the schlemiel). Thus, for example, when I make a mistake, it is in spite of my reasonable efforts, but when you make a mistake it is because of your unreasonably lame efforts. It is a common bias that we all have. The other guy is often unreasonable, whereas you are not.

Herb Roitblat’s article should be required reading for all judges and lawyers, especially new ones. Understanding the many inherent vagaries of reasonability could, for instance, lead to a much more civil discourse on the subject of sanctions. Who knows, it could even lead to cooperation, instead of the theatre and politics we now see everywhere instead.

Hindsight Bias

Roitblat’s article contains a two paragraph introduction to another important psychological factor at work in many evaluations of reasonability: Hindsight Bias. This has to do with the fact that most legal issues consider past decisions and actions that have gone bad. The law almost never considers good decisions, much less great decisions with terrific outcomes. Instead it focuses on situations gone bad, where it turns out that wrong decisions were made. But were they necessarily negligent decisions?

The mere fact that a decision led to an unexpected, poor outcome does not mean that the decision was negligent. But when we examine the decision with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we are naturally inclined towards a finding of negligence. In the same way, if the results prove to be terrific, the hindsight bias is inclined to perceive most any crazy decision as reasonable.

Due to hindsight bias, we all have, in Rotiblat’s words:

[A] tendency to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they actually took place. We over-estimate the predictability of the events that actually happened and under-estimate the predictability of events that did not happen.  A related phenomenon is “blame the victim,” where we often argue that the events that occurred should have been predicted, and therefore, reasonably avoided.

Hindsight bias is well known among experienced lawyers and you will often see it argued, especially in negligence and sanctions cases. Every good lawyer defending such a charge will try to cloak all of the mistakes as seemingly reasonable at the time, and any counter-evaluation as merely the result of hindsight bias. They will argue, for instance, that while it may now seem obvious that wiping the hard drives would delete relevant evidence, that is only because of the benefit of hindsight, and that it was not at all obvious at the time.

Judge_Lee_RosenthalGood judges will also sometimes mention the impact of 20/20 hindsight, either on their own initiative, or in response to defense argument. See for instance the following analysis by Judge Lee H. Rosenthal in Rimkus v Cammarata, 688 F. Supp. 2d 598 (S.D. Tex. 2010):

These general rules [of spoliation] are not controversial. But applying them to determine when a duty to preserve arises in a particular case and the extent of that duty requires careful analysis of the specific facts and circumstances. It can be difficult to draw bright-line distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable conduct in preserving information and in conducting discovery, either prospectively or with the benefit (and distortion) of hindsight. Whether preservation or discovery conduct is acceptable in a case depends on what is reasonable ,and that in turn depends on whether what was done–or not done–was proportional to that case and consistent with clearly established applicable standards.  [FN8] (emphasis added)

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin also recognized the impact hindsight in Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al., 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010 as amended May 28, 2010) at pgs. 463-464:

While many treatises and cases routinely define negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the context of tortious conduct, I have found no clear definition of these terms in the context of discovery misconduct. It is apparent to me that these terms simply describe a continuum. FN9 Conduct is either acceptable or unacceptable. Once it is unacceptable the only question is how bad is the conduct. That is a judgment call that must be made by a court reviewing the conduct through the backward lens known as hindsight. It is also a call that cannot be measured with exactitude and might be called differently by a different judge. That said, it is well established that negligence involves unreasonable conduct in that it creates a risk of harm to others, but willfulness involves intentional or reckless conduct that is so unreasonable that harm is highly likely to occur. (emphasis added)

The relatively well-known backward lens known as hindsight can impact anyone’s evaluation of reasonability. But there are many other less obvious psychological factors that can alter a judge or jury’s perception. Herb Roitblat mentions a few more such as the overconfidence effect, where people tend to inflate their own knowledge and abilities, and framing, an example of cognitive bias where the outcome of questions is impacted by the way they are asked. The later is one reason that trial lawyers fight so hard on jury instructions and jury interrogatories.

Conclusion

Ralph_4-25-16Many lawyers are interested in this law-psych intersection and the benefits that might be gained by cross-pollination of knowledge. I have a life-long interest in psychology, and so do many others, some with advanced degrees. That includes my fellow predictive coding expert, Maura R. Grossman, an attorney who also has a Ph.D. in Clinical/School Psychology. A good discovery team can use all of the psychological insights it can get.

The myth of objectivity and the “Reasonable Man” in the law should be exposed. Many naive people still put all of their faith in legal rules and the operation of objective, unemotional logic. The system does no really work that way. Outsiders trying to automate the law are misguided. The Law is far more than logic and reason. It is more than the facts, the surrounding circumstances.nit is more than evidence. It is about people and by people. It is about emotion and empathy too. It is about fairness and equity. It’s prime directive is justice, not reason.

That is the key reason why AI cannot automate law, nor legal decision making. Judge Charles (“Terry”) Haight could be augmented and enhanced by smart machines, by AI, but never replaced. The role of AI in the Law is to improve our reasoning, minimize our schlemiel biases. But the robots will never replace lawyers and judges. In spite of the myth of the Reasonable Man, there is far more to law then reason and facts. I for one am glad about that. If it were otherwise the legal profession would be doomed.


What Information Theory Tell Us About e-Discovery and the Projected ‘Information → Knowledge → Wisdom’ Transition

May 28, 2016

Ralph_and_LexieThis is an article on Information Theory, the Law, e-Discovery, Search and the evolution of our computer technology culture from Information → Knowledge → Wisdom. The article as usual assumes familiarity with writings on AI and the Law, especially active machine learning types of Legal Search. The article also assumes some familiarity with the scientific theory of Information as set forth in James Gleick’s book, The Information: a history, a theory, a flood (2011). I will begin the essay with several good instructional videos on Gleick’s book and Information Theory, including a bit about the life and work of the founder of Information Theory, Claude Shannon. Then I will provide my personal recapitulation of this theory and explore the application to two areas of my current work:

  1. The search for needles of relevant evidence in large, chaotic, electronic storage systems, such as email servers and email archives, in order to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth needed to resolve competing claims of what happened – the facts – in the context of civil and criminal law suits and investigations.
  2. The articulation of a coherent social theory that makes sense of modern technological life, a theory that I summarize with the phrase: Information → Knowledge → Wisdom. See Information → Knowledge → Wisdom: Progression of Society in the Age of Computers and the more recent, How The 12 Predictions Are Doing That We Made In “Information → Knowledge → Wisdom.”

I essentially did the same thing in my blog last week applying Chaos Theories. What Chaos Theory Tell Us About e-Discovery and the Projected ‘Information → Knowledge → Wisdom’ Transition. This essay will, to some extent, build upon the last and so I suggest you read it first.

Information Theory

Gleick_The_InformationGleick’s The Information: a history, a theory, a flood covers the history of cybernetics, computer science, and the men and women involved with Information Theory over the last several decades. Gleick explains how these information scientists today think that everything is ultimately information. The entire Universe, matter and energy, life itself, is made up of information. Information in turn is ultimately binary, zeros and ones, on and off, yes and no. It is all bits and bytes.

Here are three videos, including two interviews of James Gleick, to provide a refresher on Information Theory for those who have not read his book recently. Information Wants to Have Meaning. Or Does It? (3:40, Big Think, 2014).

The Story of Information (3:47, 4th Estate Books, 2012).

Shannon_ClaudeThe generally accepted Father of Information Theory is Claude Shannon (1916-2001). He is a great visionary engineer whose ideas and inventions led to our current computer age. Among other things, he coined the word Bit in 1948 as the basic unit of information. He was also one of the first MIT hackers, in the original sense of the word as a tinkerer, who was always building new things. The following is a half-hour video by University of California Television (2008) that explains his life’s work and theories. It is worth taking the time to watch it.

Shannon was an unassuming genius, and like Mandelbrot, very quirky and interested in many different things in a wide variety of disciplines. Aside from being a great mathematician, Bell Labs engineer, and MIT professor, Shannon also studied game theory. He went beyond theory and devised several math based probability methods to win at certain games of chance, including card counting at blackjack. He collaborated with a friend at MIT, another mathematician, Edward Thorp, who became a professional gambler.

Shannon_movie_21_SpaceyShannon, his wife, and Thorp travelled regularly to Las Vegas for a couple of years in the early sixties where they constantly won at the tables using their math tricks, including card counting.  Shannon wanted to beat the roulette wheel too, but the system he and Thorp developed to do that required probability calculations beyond what he could do in his head. To solve this problem in 1961 he invented a small, concealable computer, the world’s first wearable computer, to help him calculate the odds. It was the size of a cigarette pack. His Law Vegas exploits became the very loose factual basis for a 2008 movie “21“, where Kevin Spacey played Shannon. (Poor movie, not worth watching.)

Shannon made even more money by applying his math abilities in the stock market. The list of his eclectic genius goes on and on, including his invention in 1950 of an electromechanical mouse named Theseus that could teach itself how to escape from a maze. Shannon’s mouse appears to have been the first artificial learning device. All that, and he was also an ardent juggler and builder/rider of little bitty unicycles (you cannot make this stuff up). Here is another good video of his life, and yet another to celebrate 2016 as the 100th year after his birth, The Shannon Centennial: 1100100 years of bits by the IEEE Information Theory Society.

claude_shannon_bike_juggle

_______

For a different view loosely connected with Information Theory I recommend that you listen to an interesting Google Talk by Gleick.“The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood” – Talks at Google (53:45, Google, 2011). It pertains to news and culture and the tension between a humanistic and mechanical approach, a difference that mirrors the tension between Information and Knowledge. This is a must read for all news readers, especially NY Times readers, and for everyone who consumes, filters, creates and curates Information (a Google term). This video has  a good dialogue concerning modern culture and search.

As you can see from the above Google Talk, a kind of Hybrid Multimodal approach seems to be in use in all advanced search. At Google they called it a “mixed-model.” The search tools are designed to filter identity-consonance in favor of diverse-harmonies. Crowd sourcing and algorithms function as curation authority to facilitate Google search. This is a kind of editing by omission that human news editors have been doing for centuries.

The mixed-model approach implied here has both human and AI editors working together to create new kinds of interactive search. Again, good search depends upon a combination of AI and human intelligence. Neither side should work alone and commercial interests should not be allowed to take control. Both humans and machines should create bits and transmit them. People should use AI software to refine their own searches as an ongoing process. This should be a conversation, an interactive Q&A. This should provide a way out of Information to Knowledge.

Lexington - IT lex

Personal Interpretation of Information Theory

My takeaway from the far out reaches of Information theories is that everything is information, even life. All living entities are essentially algorithms of information, including humans. We are intelligent programs capable of deciding yes or no, capable of conscious, intelligent action, binary code. Our ultimate function is to transform information, to process and connect otherwise cold, random data. That is the way most Information Theorists and their philosophers see it, although I am not sure I agree.

Life forms like us are said to stand as the counter-pole to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law you will remember is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The Second Law is that the natural tendency of any isolated system is to degenerate into a more disordered state. The Second Law is concerned with the observed one-directional nature of all energy processes. For example, heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and never the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system. The result is that entropy always increases with the flow of time.

Ludwig_BoltzmannThe Second Law is causality by multiplication, not a zig-zag Mandelbrot fractal division. See my last blog on Chaos Theory. Also see: the work of the Austrian Physicist, Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) on gas-dynamical equations, and his famous H-theorem: the entropy of a gas prepared in a state of less than complete disorder must inevitably increase, as the gas molecules are allowed to collide. Boltzman’s theorem-proof assumed “molecular chaos,” or, as he put it, the Stosszahlansatz, where all particle velocities were completely uncorrelated, random, and did not follow from Newtonian dynamics. His proof of the Second Law was attacked based on the random state assumption and the so called Loschmidt’s paradox. The attacks from pre-Chaos, Newtonian dominated scientists, many of whom still did not even believe in atoms and molecules, contributed to Boltzman’s depression and, tragically, he hanged himself at age 62.

My personal interpretation of Information Theory is that humans, like all of life, counter-act and balance the Second Law. We do so by an organizing force called negentropy that balances out entropy. Complex algorithms like ourselves can recognize order in information, can make sense of it. Information can have meaning, but only by our apprehension of it. We hear the falling tree and thereby make it real.

This is what I mean by the transition from Information to Knowledge. Systems that have ability to process information, to bring order out of chaos, and attach meaning to information, embody that transition. Information is essentially dead, whereas Knowledge is living. Life itself is a kind of Information spun together and integrated into meaningful Knowledge.

privacy-vs-googleWe humans have the ability to process information, to find connections and meaning. We have created machines to help us to do that. We now have information systems – algorithms – that can learn, both on their own and with our help.  We humans also have the ability find things. We can search and filter to perceive the world in such a way as to comprehend its essential truth. To see through appearances, It is an essential survival skill. The unseen tiger is death. Now, in the Information Age, we have created machines to help us find things, help us see the hidden patterns.

We can create meaning, we can know the truth. Our machines, our robot friends, can help us in these pursuits. They can help us attain insights into the hidden order behind chaotic systems of otherwise meaningless information. Humans are negentropic to a high degree, probably more so than any other living system on this planet. With the help of our robot friends, humans can quickly populate the world with meaning and move beyond a mere Information Age. We can find order, process the binary yes-or-no choices and generate Knowledge. This is similar is the skilled editor’s function discussed in Gleick’s Talks at Google (53:45, Google, 2011), but one whose abilities are greatly enhanced by AI analytics and crowdsourcing. The arbitration of truth as they put it in the video is thereby facilitated.

With the help of computers our abilities to create Knowledge are exploding. We may survive the Information flood. Some day our Knowledge may evolve even further, into higher-level integrations – into Wisdom.

James GleickWhen James Gleick was interviewed by Publishers Weekly in 2011 about his book, The Information: a history, a theory, a floodhe touched upon the problem with Information:

By the technical definition, all information has a certain value, regardless of whether the message it conveys is true or false. A message could be complete nonsense, for example, and still take 1,000 bits. So while the technical definition has helped us become powerful users of information, it also instantly put us on thin ice, because everything we care about involves meaning, truth, and, ultimately, something like wisdom. And as we now flood the world with information, it becomes harder and harder to find meaning. That paradox is the final tension in my book.

Application of Information Theory to e-Discovery and Social Progress

Information-mag-glassIn responding to lawsuits we must search through information stored in computer systems. We are searching for information relevant to a dispute. This dispute always arises after the information was created and stored. We do not order and store information according to issues in a dispute or litigation that has not yet happened. This means that for purposes of litigation all information storage systems are inherently entropic, chaotic. They are always inadequately ordered, as far as the lawsuit is concerned. Even if the ESI storage is otherwise well-ordered, which in practice is very rare (think random stored PST files and personal email accounts), it is never well-ordered for a particular lawsuit.

As forensic evidence finders we must always sort through meaningless, irrelevant noise to find the meaningful, relevant information we need. The information we search is usually not completely random. There is some order to it, some meaning. There are, for instance, custodian and time parameters that assist our search for relevance. But the ESI we search is never presented to us arranged in an order that tracks the issues raised by the new lawsuit. The ESI we search is arranged according to other logic, if any at all.

It is our job to bring order to the chaos, meaning to the information, by separating the relevant information from the irrelevant information. We search and find the documents that have meaning for our case. We use sampling, metrics, and iteration to achieve our goals of precision and recall. Once we separate the relevant documents from the irrelevant, we attain some knowledge of the total dataset. We have completed First Pass Review, but our work is not finished. All of the relevant information found in the First Pass is not produced.

Additional information refinement is required. More yes-no decisions must be made in what is called Second Pass Review. Now we consider whether a relevant document is privileged and thus excluded from production, or whether portions of it must be redacted to protect confidentiality.

Even after our knowledge is so further enhanced by confidentiality sorting, and a production set is made, the documents produced, our work is still incomplete. There is almost always far too much information in the documents produced for them to be useful. The information must be further processed. Relevancy itself must be ranked. The relevant documents must be refined down to the 7 +/- 2 documents that will persuade the judge and jury to rule our way, to reach the yes or no decision we seek. The vast body of knowledge, relevant evidence, must become wisdom, must become persuasive evidence.

Knowledge_Information_Wisdom

In a typical significant lawsuit the metrics of this process are as follows: from trillions, to thousands, to a handful. (You can change the numbers if you want to fit the dispute, but what counts here are the relative proportions.)

In a typical lawsuit today we begin with an information storage system that contains trillions of computer files. A competent e-discovery team is able to reduce this down to tens of thousands of files, maybe less, that are relevant. The actual count depends on many things, including issue complexity, cooperation and Rule 26(b)(1) factors. The step from trillions of files, to tens of thousands of relevant files, is the step from information to knowledge. Many think this is what e-discovery is all about: find the relevant evidence, convert Information to Knowledge. But it is not. It is just the first step: from 1 to 2. The next step, 2 to 3, the Wisdom step, is more difficult and far more important.

The tens of thousands of relevant evidence, the knowledge of the case, is still too vast to be useful. After all, the human brain can, at best, only keep seven items in mind at a time. Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97. Tens of thousands of documents, or even thousands of documents, are not helpful to jurors. It may all be relevant, but is not all important. All trial lawyers will tell you that trials are won or lost by only five to nine documents. The rest is just noise, or soon forgotten foundation. Losey, Secrets of Search – Part III (5th secret).

The final step of information processing in e-discovery is only complete when the tens of thousands of files are winnowed down to 5 or 9 documents, or less. That is the final step of Information’s journey, the elevation from Knowledge to Wisdom.

Our challenge as e-discovery team members is to take raw information and turn it into wisdom – the five to nine documents with powerful meaning that will produce the favorable legal rulings that we seek. Testimony helps too of course, but without documents, it is difficult to test memory accuracy, much less veracity. This evidence journey mirrors the challenge of our whole culture, to avoid drowning in too-much-information, to rise above, to find Knowledge and, with luck, a few pearls of Wisdom.

Conclusion

Ralph_green2From trillions to a handful, from mere information to practical wisdom — that is the challenge of our culture today. On a recursive self-similar level, that is also the challenge of justice in the Information Age, the challenge of e-discovery. How to meet the challenges? How to self-organize from out of the chaos of too much information? The answer is iterative, cooperative, interactive, interdisciplinary team processes that employ advanced hybrid, multimodal technologies and sound human judgment. See What Chaos Theory Tell Us About e-Discovery and the Projected ‘Information → Knowledge → Wisdom’ Transition.

The micro-answer for cyber-investigators searching for evidence is fast becoming clear. It depends on a balanced hybrid application of human and artificial intelligence. What was once a novel invention, TAR, or technology assisted review, is rapidly becoming an obvious solution accepted in courts around the world. Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Pyrrho Investments v MWB PropertyEWHC 256 (Ch) (2/26/16). That is how information works. What was novel one day, even absurd, can very quickly become commonplace. We are creating, transmitting and processing information faster than ever before. The bits are flying at a rate that even Claude Shannon would never have dreamed possible.

The pace of change quickens as information and communication grows. New information flows and inventions propagate. The encouragement of negentropic innovation – ordered bits – is the basis of our property laws and commerce. The right information at the right time has great value.

Just ask a trial lawyer armed with five powerful documents — five smoking guns. These essential core documents are what make or break a case. The rest is just so much background noise, relevant but unimportant. The smoking hot Wisdom is what counts, not Information, not even Knowledge, although they are, of course, necessary prerequisites. There is a significant difference between inspiration and wisdom. Real wisdom does not just appear out of thin air. It arises out of True Information and Knowledge.

The challenge of Culture, including Law and Justice in our Information Age, is to never lose sight of this fundamental truth, this fundamental pattern: Information → Knowledge → Wisdom. If we do, we will get lost in the details. We will drown in a flood of meaningless information. Either that, or we will progress, but not far enough. We will become lost in knowledge and suffer paralysis by analysis. We will know too much, know everything, except what to do. Yes or No. Binary action. The tree may fall, but we never hear it, so neither does the judge or jury. The power of the truth is denied,

There is deep knowledge to be gained from both Chaos and Information Theories that can be applied to the challenges. Some of the insights can be applied in legal search and other cyber investigations. Others can be applied in other areas. As shown in this essay, details are important, but never lose sight of the fundamental pattern. You are looking for the few key facts. Like the Mandelbrot Set they remain the same, or at least similar, over different scales of magnitude, from the small county court case, to the largest complex multinational actions. Each case is different, yet the same. The procedures ties them all together.

Meaning is the whole point of Information. Justice is whole point of the Law.

You find the truth of a legal controversy by finding the hidden order that ties together all of the bits of evidence together. You find the hidden meaning behind all of the apparent contradictory clues, a fractal link of the near infinite strings of bits and bytes.

What really happened? What is the just response, the equitable remedy? That is the ultimate meaning of e-discovery, to find the few significant, relevant facts in large chaotic systems, the facts that make or break your case, so that judges and juries can make the right call. Perhaps this is the ultimate meaning of many of life’s challenges? I do not have the wisdom yet to know, but, as Cat Stevens says, I’m on the road to find out.


What Chaos Theory Tell Us About e-Discovery and the Projected ‘Information → Knowledge → Wisdom’ Transition

May 20, 2016
Ralph and Gleick

Gleick & Losey meeting sometime in the future

This article assumes a general, non-technical familiarity with the scientific theory of Chaos. See James Gleick’s book, Chaos: making a new science (1987). This field of study is not usually discussed in the context of “The Law,” although there is a small body of literature outside of e-discovery. See: Chen, Jim, Complexity Theory in Legal Scholarship (Jurisdymanics 2006).

The article begins with a brief, personal recapitulation of the basic scientific theories of Chaos. I buttress my own synopsis with several good instructional videos. My explanation of the Mandelbrot Set and Complex numbers is a little long, I know, but you can skip over that and still understand all of the legal aspects. In this article I also explore the application of the Chaos theories to two areas of my current work:

  1. The search for needles of relevant evidence in large, chaotic, electronic storage systems, such as email servers and email archives, in order to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth needed to resolve competing claims of what happened – the facts – in the context of civil and criminal law suits and investigations.
  2. The articulation of a coherent social theory that makes sense of modern technological life, a theory that I summarize with the words/symbols: Information → Knowledge → Wisdom. See Information → Knowledge → Wisdom: Progression of Society in the Age of Computers and the more recent, How The 12 Predictions Are Doing That We Made In “Information → Knowledge → Wisdom.”

Introduction to the Science of Chaos

Gleick’s book on Chaos provides a good introduction to the science of chaos and, even though written in 1987, is still a must read. For those who have read this long ago, like me, here is a good, short, 3:53, refresher video James Gleick on Chaos: Making a New Science (Open Road Media, 2011) below:

mandelbrot_youngA key leader in the Chaos Theory field is the late great French mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot (1924-2010) (shown right). Benoit, a math genius who never learned the alphabet, spent most of his adult life employed by IBM. He discovered and named the natural phenomena of fractals. He discovered that there is a hidden order to any complex, seemingly chaotic system, including economics and the price of cotton. He also learned that this order was not causal and could not be predicted. He arrived at these insights by study of geometry, specifically the rough geometric shapes found everywhere in nature and mathematics, which he called fractals. The penultimate fractal he discovered now bears his name, The Mandelbrot Fractalshown in the computer photo below, and explained further in the video that follows.

Mandelbrot set

Look here for thousands of additional videos of fractals with zoom magnifications. You will see the recursive nature of self-similarity over varying scales of magnitude. The patterns repeat with slight variations. The complex patterns at the rough edges continue infinitely without repetition, much like Pi. They show the unpredictable element and the importance of initial conditions played out over time. The scale of the in-between dimensions can be measured. Metadata remains important in all investigations, legal or otherwise.

mandelbrot_equation

The Mandelbrot is based on a simple mathematical formula involving feedback and Complex Numbers: z ⇔ z2 + c. The ‘c’ in the formula stands for any Complex Number. Unlike all other numbers, such as the natural numbers one through nine – 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9, the Complex Numbers do not exist on a horizontal number line. They exist only on an x-y coordinate time plane where regular numbers on the horizontal grid combine with so-called Imaginary Numbers on the vertical grid. A complex number is shown as c= a + bi, where a and b are real numbers and i is the imaginary number. Complex_number_illustration

A complex number can be visually represented as a pair of numbers (a, b) forming a vector on a diagram called an Argand diagram, representing the complex plane. “Re” is the real axis, “Im” is the imaginary axis, and i is the imaginary number. And that is all there is too it. Mandelbrot calls the formula embarrassingly simple. That is the Occam’s razor beauty of it.

To understand the full dynamics of all of this remember what Imaginary Numbers are. They are a special class of numbers where a negative times a negative creates a negative, not a positive, like is the rule with all other numbers. In other words, with imaginary numbers -2 times -2 = -4, not +4. Imaginary numbers are formally defined as i2 = −1.

Thus, the formula z ⇔ z2 + c, can be restated as z ⇔ z2 + (a + bi).

The Complex Numbers when iterated according to this simple formula – subject to constant feedback – produce the Mandelbrot set.

mandelbrot

Mandelbrot_formulaThe value for z in the iteration always starts with zero. The ⇔ symbol stands for iteration, meaning the formula is repeated in a feedback loop. The end result of the last calculation becomes the beginning constant of the next: z² + c becomes the z in the next repetition. Z begins with zero and starts with different values for c. When you repeat the simple multiplication and addition formula millions of times, and plot it on a Cartesian grid, the Mandelbrot shape is revealed.

When iteration of a squaring process is applied to non-complex numbers the results are always known and predictable. For instance when any non-complex number greater than one is repeatedly squared, it quickly approaches infinity: 1.1 * 1.1 = 1.21 * 1.21 = 1.4641 * 1.4641 = 2.14358 and after ten iterations the number created is 2.43… * 10 which written out is 2,430,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. A number so large as to dwarf even the national debt. Mathematicians say of this size number that it is approaching infinity.

The same is true for any non-complex number which is less than one, but in reverse; it quickly goes to the infinitely small, the zero. For example with .9: .9.9=.81; .81.81=.6561; .6561.6561=.43046 and after only ten iterations it becomes 1.39…10 which written out is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000139…, a very small number indeed.

With non-complex numbers, such as real, rational or natural numbers, the squaring iteration must always go to infinity unless the starting number is one. No matter how many times you square one, it will still equal one. But just the slightest bit more or less than one and the iteration of squaring will attract it to the infinitely large or small. The same behavior holds true for complex numbers: numbers just outside of the circle z = 1 on the complex plane will jump off into the infinitely large, complex numbers just inside z = 1 will quickly square into zero.

The magic comes by adding the constant c (a complex number) to the squaring process and starting from z at zero: z ⇔ z² + c. Then stable iterations – a set attracted to neither the infinitely small or infinitely large – become possible. The potentially stable Complex numbers lie both outside and inside of the circle of z = 1; specifically on the complex plane they lie between -2.4 and .8 on the real number line, the horizontal x grid, and between -1.2 and +1.2 on the imaginary line, the vertical y grid. These numbers are contained within the black of the Mandelbrot fractal.

Mandelbrot_grid

In the Mandelbrot formula z ⇔ z² + c, where you always start the iterative process with z equals zero, and c equaling any complex number, an endless series of seemingly random or chaotic numbers are produced. Like the weather, the stock market and other chaotic systems, negligible changes in quantities, coupled with feedback, can produce unexpected chaotic effects. The behavior of the complex numbers thus mirrors the behavior of the real world where Chaos is obvious or lurks behind the most ordered of systems.

With some values of ‘c’ the iterative process immediately begins to exponentially increase or fall into infinity. These numbers are completely outside of the Mandelbrot set. With other values of ‘c’ the iterative process is stable for a number of repetitions, and only later in the dynamic process are they attracted to infinity. These are the unstable strange attractor numbers just on the outside edge of the Mandelbrot set. They are shown on computer graphics with colors or shades of grey according to the number of stable iterations. The values of ‘c’ which remain stable, repeating as a finite number forever, never attracted to infinity, and thus within the Mandelbrot set, are plotted as black.

Mandel_Diagram

Some iterations of complex numbers like 1 -1i run off into infinity from the start, just like all of the real numbers. Other complex numbers are always stable like -1 +0i. Other complex numbers stay stable for many iterations, and then only further into the process do they unpredictably begin to start to increase or decrease exponentially (for example, .37 +4i stays stable for 12 iterations). These are the numbers on the edge of inclusion of the stable numbers shown in black.

Chaos enters into the iteration because out of the potentially infinite number of complex numbers in the window of -2.4 to .8 along the horizontal real number axis, and -1.2 to 1.2 along the vertical imaginary number axis. There are an infinite subset of such numbers on the edge, and they cannot be predicted in advance. All that we know about these edge numbers is that if the z produced by any iteration lies outside of a circle with a radius of 2 on the complex plane, then the subsequent z values will go to infinity, and there is no need to continue the iteration process.

By using a computer you can escape the normal limitations of human time. You can try a very large number of different complex numbers and iterate them to see what kind they may be, finite or infinite. Under the Mandelbrot formula you start with z equals zero and then try different values for c. When a particular value of c is attracted to infinity – produces a value for z greater than 2 – then you stop that iteration, go back to z equals zero again, and try another c, and so on, over and over again, millions and millions of times as only a computer can do.

Mandel_zoom_08_satellite_antennaMandelbrot was the first to discover that by using zero as the base z for each iteration, and trying a large number of the possible complex numbers with a computer on a trial and error basis, that he could define the set of stable complex numbers graphically by plotting their location on the complex plane. This is exactly what the Mandelbrot figure is. Along with this discovery came the surprise realization of the beauty and fractal recursive nature of these numbers when displayed graphically.

The following Numberphile video by Holly Krieger, an NSF postdoctoral fellow and instructor at MIT, gives a fairly accessible, almost cutesy, yet still technically correct explanation to the Mandelbrot set.

Fractals and the Mandelbrot set are key parts of the Chaos theories, but there is much more to it than that. Chaos Theory impacts our basic Newtonian, cause-effect, linear world view of reality as a machine. For a refresher on the big picture of the Chaos insights and how the old linear, Newtonian, machine view of reality is wrong, look at this short summary: Chaos Theory (4:48)

Anther Chaos Theory instructional applying the insights to psychology is worth your view. The Science and Psychology of the Chaos Theory (8:59, 2008). It suggests the importance of spontaneous actions in the moment, the so-called flow state.

Also see High Anxieties – The Mathematics of Chaos (59:00, BBC 2008) concerning Chaos Theories, Economics and the Environment, and Order and Chaos (50:36, New Atlantis, 2015).

Application of Chaos Theories to e-Discovery

The use of feedback, iteration and algorithmic processes are central to work in electronic discovery. For instance, my search methods to find relevant evidence in chaotic systems follow iterative processes, including continuous, interactive, machine learning methods. I use these methods to find hidden patterns in the otherwise chaotic data. An overview of the methods I use in legal search is summarized in the following chart. As you can see, steps four, five and six iterate. These are the steps where human computer interactions take place. 
predictive_coding_3.0

My methods place heavy reliance on these steps and on human-computer interaction, which I call a Hybrid process. Like Maura Grossman and Gordon Cormack, I rely heavily on high-ranking documents in this Hybrid process. The primary difference in our methods is that I do not begin to place a heavy reliance on high-ranking documents until after completing several rounds of other training methods. I call this four cylinder multimodal training. This is all part of the sixth step in the 8-step workflow chart above. The four cylinders search engines are: (1) high ranking, (2) midlevel ranking or uncertain, (3) random, and (4) multimodal (including all types of search, such as keyword) directed by humans.

Analogous Application of Similar Mandelbrot Formula For Purposes of Expressing the Importance of the Creative Human Component in Hybrid 

4-5-6-only_predictive_coding_3.0

Recall Mandelbrot’s formula: z ⇔ z² + c, which is the same as z ⇔ z2 + (a + bi). I have something like that going on in my steps four, five and six. If you plugged the numbers of the steps into the Mandelbrot formula it would read something like this: 4 ⇔ 4² + (5+6i). The fourth step is the key AI Predictive Ranking step, where the algorithm ranks the probable relevance of all documents. The fourth step of computer ranking is the whole point of the formula, so AI Ranking here I will call ‘z‘ and represents the left side of the formula. The fifth step is where humans read documents to determine relevance, let’s call that ‘r‘ and the sixth step is where human’s train the computer, ‘t‘. This is the Hybrid Active Training step where the four cylinder multimodal training methods are used to select documents to train the whole set. The documents in steps five and six, r and t are added together for relevance feedback, (r + ti).

Thus, z ⇔ z² + c, which is the same as z ⇔ z2 + (a + bi), becomes under my system z ⇔ z + (r + ti). (Note: I took out the squaring, z², because there is no such exponential function in legal search; it’s all addition.) What, you might ask, is the i in my version of the formula? This is the critical part in my formula, just as it is in Mandelbrot’s. The imaginary number – i – in my formula version represents the creativity of the human conducting the training.

The Hybrid Active Training step is not fully automated in my system. I do not simply use the highest ranking documents to train, especially in the early rounds of training, as do some others. I use a variety of methods in my discretion, especially the multimodal search methods such a keywords, concept search, and the like. In text retrieval science this use of human discretion, human creativity and judgment, is called an ad hoc search. It contrasts with fully automated search, where the text retrieval experts try to eliminate the human element. See Mr EDR for more detail on 2016 TREC Total Recall Track that had both ad hoc and fully automated sections.

My work with legal search engines, especially predictive coding, has shown that new technologies do not work with the old methods and processes, such as linear review or keyword alone. New processes are required that employ new ways of thinking. The new methods that link creative human judgments (i) and the computer’s amazing abilities at text reading speed, consistency, analysis, learning and ranking (z).

A rather Fat Cat. My latest processes, Predictive Coding  3.0, are variations of Continuous Active Training (CAT) where steps four, five and six iterate until the project is concluded. Grossman & Cormack call this Continuous Active Learning or CAL, and they claim Trademark rights to CAL. I respect their right to do so (no doubt they grow weary of vendor rip-offs) and will try to avoid the acronym henceforth. My use of the acronym CAT essentially takes the view of the other side, the human side that trains, not the machine side that learns. In both Continuous Active Learning and CAT the machine keeps learning with every document that a human codes. Continuous Active Learning or Training, makes the linear seed-set method obsolete, along with the control set and random training documents. See Losey, Predictive Coding 3.0.

In my typical implementation of Continuous Active Training I do not automatically include every document coded as a training document. This is the sixth training step (‘t‘ in the prior formula). Instead of automatically using every document to train that has been coded relevant or irrelevant, I select particular documents that I decide to use to train. This, in addition to multimodal search in step six, Hybrid Active, is another way in which the equivalent of Imaginary Numbers come into my formula, the uniquely human element (ti). I typically use most every relevant document coded in step five, the ‘r‘ in the formula, as a training document, but not all. z ⇔ z + (r + ti)

I exercise my human judgment and experience to withhold certain training documents. (Note, I never withhold hot trainers (highly relevant documents)). I do this if my experience (I am tempted to say ‘my imagination‘) suggests that including them as training documents will likely slow down or confuse the algorithm, even if temporarily. I have found that this improves efficiency and effectiveness. It is one of the techniques I used to win document review contests.

robot-friendThis kind of intimate machine communication is possible because I carefully observe the impact of each set of training documents on the classifying algorithm, and carryover lessons – iterate – from one project to the next. I call this keeping a human in the loop and the attorney in charge of relevance scope adjudications. See Losey, Why the ‘Google Car’ Has No Place in Legal Search. We humans provide experienced observation, new feedback, different approaches, empathy, play and emotion. We also add a whole lot of other things too. The AI-Robot is the Knowledge fountain. We are the Wisdom fountain.That it is why we should strive to progress into and through the Knowledge stage as soon as possible. We will thrive in the end-goal Wisdom state.

Application of Chaos Theory to Information→Knowledge→Wisdom

mininformation_arrowsThe first Information stage of the post-computer society in which we live is obviously chaotic. It is like the disconnected numbers that lie completely outside of the Mandelbrot set. It is pure information with only haphazard meaning. It is often just misinformation. Just exponential. There is an overwhelming deluge of such raw information, raw data, that spirals off into an infinity of dead-ends. It leads no where and is disconnected. The information is useless. You may be informed, but to no end. That is modern life in the post-PC era.

The next stage of society we seek, a Knowledge based culture, is geometrically similar to the large black blogs that unite most of the figure. This is the finite set of numbers that provide all connectivity in the Mandelbrot set. Analogously, this will be a time when many loose-ends will be discarded, false theories abandoned, and consensus arise.

In the next stage we will not only be informed, we will be knowledgable. The information we all be processed. The future Knowledge Society will be static, responsible, serious and well fed. People will be brought together by common knowledge. There will be large scale agreements on most subjects. A tremendous amount of diversity will likely be lost.

After a while a knowledgable world will become boring. Ask any professor or academic.  The danger of the next stage will be stagnation, complacency, self-satisfaction. The smug complacency of a know-it-all world. This may be just as dangerous as the pure-chaos Information world in which we now live.

If society is to continue to evolve after that, we will need to move beyond mere Knowledge. We will need to challenge ourselves to attain new, creative applications of Knowledge. We will need to move beyond Knowledge into Wisdom.

benoit-mandelbrot-seahorse-valleyI am inclined to think that if we ever do progress to a Wisdom-based society, we will be a place and time much like the unpredictable fractal edges of the Mandelbrot. Stable to a point, but ultimately unpredictable, constantly changing, evolving. The basic patterns of our truth will remain the same, but they will constantly evolve and be refined. The deeper we dig, the more complex and beautiful it will be. The dry sameness of a Knowledgable based world will be replaced by an ever-changing flow, by more and more diversity and individuality. Our social cohesivity will arise from recursivity and similarity, not sameness and conformity. A Wisdom based society will be filled with fractal beauty. It will live ever zigzagging between the edge of the known and unknown. It will also necessarily have to be a time when people learn to get along together and share in prosperity and health, both physical and mental. It will be a time when people are accustomed to ambiguities and comfortable with them.

In Wisdom World knowledge itself will be plentiful, but will be held very lightly. It will be subject to constant reevaluation. Living in Wisdom will be like living on the rough edge of the Mandelbrot. It will be a culture that knows infinity firsthand. An open, peaceful, ecumenical culture that knows everything and nothing at the same time. A culture where most of the people, or at least a strong minority, have attained a certain level of personal Wisdom.

Conclusion

Back to our times, where we are just now discovering what machine learning can do, we are just beginning to pattern our investigations, our search for truth, in the Law and elsewhere, on new information gleaned from the Chaos theories. Active machine learning, Predictive Coding, is a natural outgrowth of Chaos Theory and the Mandelbrot Set. The insights of hidden fractal order that can only be seen by repetitive computer processes are prevalent in computer based culture. These iterative, computer assisted processes have been the driving force behind thousands of fact investigations that I have conducted since 1980.

I have been using computers to help me in legal investigations since 1980. The reliance on computers at first increased slowly, but steadily. Then from about 2006 to 2013 the increase accelerated and peaked in late 2013. The shift is beginning to level off. We are still heavily dependent on computers, but now we understand that human methods are just as important as software. Software is limited in its capacities without human additive, especially in legal search. Hybrid, Man and Machine, that is the solution. But remember that the focus should be on us, human lawyers and search experts. The AIs we are creating and training should be used to Augment and Enhance our abilities, not replace them. They should complement and complete us.

butterfly_effectThe converse realization of Chaos Theory, that disorder underlies all apparent order, that if you look closely enough, you will find it, also informs our truth-seeking investigatory work. There are no smooth edges. It is all rough. If you look close enough the border of any coastline is infinite.

The same is true of the complexity of any investigation. As every experienced lawyer knows, there is no black and white, no straight line. It always depends on so many things. Complexity and ambiguity are everywhere. There is always a mess, always rough edges. That is what makes the pursuit of truth so interesting. Just when you think you have it, the turbulent echo of another butterfly’s wings knock you about.

The various zigs and zags of e-discovery, and other investigative, truth-seeking activities, are what make them fascinating. Each case is different, unique, yet the same patterns are seen again and again with recursive similarity. Often you begin a search only to have it quickly burn out. No problem, try again. Go back to square one, back to zero, and try another complex number, another clue. Pursue a new idea, a new connection. You chase down all reasonable leads, understanding that many of them will lead nowhere. Even failed searches rule out negatives and so help in the investigation. Lawyers often try to prove a negative.

The fractal story that emerges from Hybrid Multimodal search is often unexpected. As the search matures you see a bigger story, a previously hidden truth. A continuity emerges that connects previously unrelated facts. You literally connect the dots. The unknown complex numbers – (a + bi) – the ones that do not spiral off into the infinite large or small, do in fact touch each other when you look closely enough at the spaces.

z ⇔ z2 + (a + bi)

SherlockI am no Sherlock, but I know how to find ESI using computer processes. It requires an iterative sorting processes, a hybrid multimodal process, using the latest computers and software. This process allows you to harness the infinite patience, analytics and speed of a machine to enhance your own intelligence ……. to augment your own abilities. You let the computer do the boring bits, the drudgery, while you do the creative parts.

The strength comes from the hybrid synergy. It comes from exploring the rough edges of what you think you know about the evidence. It does not come from linear review, nor simple keyword cause-effect. Evidence is always complex, always derived from chaotic systems. A full multimodal selection of search tools is needed to find this kind of dark data.

The truth is out there, but sometimes you have to look very carefully to find it. You have to dig deep and keep on looking to find the missing pieces, to move from Information → Knowledge → Wisdom.

_______

______

_____

____

___

__

_

.

Mandelbrot_zoom

.

_

.

blue zoom Mandelbrot fractal animation of looking deeper into the details

.

.


e-Discovery Team’s Best Practices Education Program

May 8, 2016

EDBP_BANNER

EDBP                   Mr.EDR         Predictive Coding 3.0
59 TAR Articles
Doc Review  Videos

_______

TEAM_TRAINING_screen_shot

e-Discovery Team Training

Information → Knowledge → Wisdom

Ralph_4-25-16Education is the clearest path from Information to Knowledge in all fields of contemporary culture, including electronic discovery. The above links take you to the key components of the best-practices teaching program I have been working on since 2006. It is my hope that these education programs will help move the Law out of the dangerous information flood, where it is now drowning, to a safer refuge of knowledge. Information → Knowledge → Wisdom: Progression of Society in the Age of Computers; and How The 12 Predictions Are Doing That We Made In “Information → Knowledge → Wisdom.” For more of my thoughts on e-discovery education, see the e-Discovery Team School Page.

justice_guage_negligenceThe best practices and general educational curriculum that I have developed over the years focuses on the legal services provided by attorneys. The non-legal, engineering and project management practices of e-discovery vendors are only collaterally mentioned. They are important too, but students have the EDRM and other commercial organizations and certifications for that. Vendors are part of any e-Discovery Team, but the programs I have developed are intended for law firms and corporate law departments.

LIFE_magazine_Losey_acceleratesThe e-Discovery Team program, both general educational and legal best-practices, is online and available 24/7. It uses lots of imagination, creative mixes, symbols, photos, hyperlinks, interactive comments, polls, tweets, posts, news, charts, drawings, videos, video lectures, slide lectures, video skits, video slide shows, music, animations, cartoons, humor, stories, cultural themes and analogies, inside baseball references, rants, opinions, bad jokes, questions, homework assignments, word-clouds, links for further research, a touch of math, and every lawyer’s favorite tools: words (lots of them), logic, arguments, case law and precedent.

All of this to try to take the e-Discovery Team approach from just information to knowledge →. In spite of these efforts, most of the legal community still does not know e-discovery very well. What they do know is often misinformation. Scenes like the following in a law firm lit-support department are all too common.

supervising-tipsThe e-Discovery Team’s education program has an emphasis on document review. That is because the fees for lawyers reviewing documents is by far the most expensive part of e-discovery, even when contract lawyers are used. The lawyer review fees, and review supervision fees, including SME fees, have always been much more costly than all vendor costs and expenses put together. Still, the latest AI technologies, especially active machine learning using our Predictive Coding 3.0 methods, are now making it possible to significantly reduce review fees. We believe this is a critical application of best practices. The three steps we identify for this area in the EDBP chart are shown in green, to signify money. The reference to C.A. Review is to Computer Assisted Review or CAR, using our Hybrid Multimodal methods.

EDBP_detail_LARGE

____

Predictive Coding 3.0 Hybrid Multimodal Document Search and Review

Control-SetsOur new version 3.0 techniques for predictive coding makes it far easier than ever before to include AI in a document review project. The secret control set has been eliminated, so too has the seed set and SMEs wasting their time reviewing random samples of mostly irrelevant junk. It is a much simpler technique now, although we still call it Hybrid Multimodal.

robot-friendHybrid is a reference to the Man/Machine interactive nature of our methods. A skilled attorney uses a type of continuous active learning to train an AI to help them to find the documents they are looking for. This Hybrid method greatly augments the speed and accuracy of the human attorneys in charge. This leads to cost savings and improved recall. A lawyer with an AI helper at their side is far more effective than lawyers working on their own. This means that every e-discovery team today could use a robot like Kroll Ontrack’s Mr. EDR to help them to do document review.

Search_pyramidMultimodal is a reference to the use of a variety of search methods to find target documents, including, but not limited to, predictive coding type ranked searches. We encourage humans in the loop running a variety of searches of their own invention, especially at the beginning of a project. This always makes for a quick start in finding relevant and hot documents. Why the ‘Google Car’ Has No Place in Legal Search. The multimodal approach also makes for precise, efficient reviews with broad scope. The latest active machine learning software when fully integrated with a full suite of other search tools is attaining higher levels of recall than ever before. That is one reason Why I Love Predictive Coding.

Mr_EDRI have found that Kroll Ontrack’s EDR software is ideally suited for these Hybrid, Multimodal techniques. Try using it on your next large project and see for yourself. The Kroll Ontrack consultant specialists in predictive coding, Jim and Tony, have been trained in this method (and many others). They are well qualified to assist you in every step of the way and their rates are reasonable. With you calling the shots on relevancy, they can do most of the search work for you and still save your client’s money. If the matter is big and important enough, then, if I have a time opening, and it clears my firm’s conflicts, I can also be brought in for a full turn-key operation. Whether you want to include extra time for training your best experts is your option, but our preference.

Team_TREC_2

__________

Embrace e-Discovery Team Education to Escape Information Overload

____


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,767 other followers

%d bloggers like this: