The Conceptual Search Game is Finally On!!

I have been writing (probably preaching to some) about advanced search technology, the differences between conceptual search and keyword search and the importance of advanced search technology in both the Early Case Assessment (ECA) and document review phases of eDiscovery for the past 3 years.

Concept Search Cash Law Emerging http://ediscoveryconsulting.blogspot.com/2008/06/concept-search-case-law-emerging.html
Concept Search vs. Keyword Search http://ediscoveryconsulting.blogspot.com/2008/12/concept-search-vs-keyword-search-in.html
Litigators Need ESI Analytics – Not Boolean Search Tools http://ediscoveryconsulting.blogspot.com/2010/05/litigators-need-esi-analytics-not.html

However, I have been somewhat disappointed in regards to the level of adoption of true conceptual search technology by the leading Litigation Technology vendors.  That appears to be changing.  As an example, in a June 17, 2010 post by StoredIQ titled, “Email Search: Nowhere to Hide”, the author provides an overview of StoredIQ’s search technology with specific focus on Natural Language Processing (NLP).  The reason that I am pointing this out is that 12 months ago, StoredIQ would not have been spending marketing dollars or Blog space on Natural Language Processing (NLP) because the market didn’t know what it was and didn’t care.

In this Blog post, StoredIQ now contends, “Probably of greatest interest to litigators during the discovery process is StoredIQ’s ability to perform natural language processing (NLP), which is the ability to extract linguistically derived natural language concepts from within email and user files including people, places and things. Legal teams can immediately search using over 250 out-of-the-box concepts and attributes including credit card accounts, social security numbers and stock symbols. NLP identifies word usage based upon context within a sentence. For example, NLP can identify if the word ‘will’ is used to identify a person’s name, a legal document or an auxiliary verb showing intent. StoredIQ has proprietary technology for adaptive sentence boundary disambiguation (ASBD) which substantially increases the precision of Natural Language Processing to address common grammatical deficiencies that are present in many business documents. No other information management technologies have this capability. NLP is a critical capability necessary to accurately perform eDiscovery, records management or risk management as full text indexes alone cannot provide the required level of precision.

Interestingly enough,  in my discussions with General Counsel and their litigation support teams from the Information Technology departments over the past 6 months, I have found a new awareness and appreciation for true conceptual search or semantic search or NLP.    So, StoredIQ is on the right track with their current product  offerings and I would bet that they have a product roadmap with more of the same.

So, I guess the conceptual search game is on and the other litigation technology vendors had better take notice of what their clients are saying in regards to what search technology they need.

The full text of the  StoredIQ Blog post is as follows:

A recent article by Jacob Goldstein, 23 Things Not To Write In An Email, illustrates the type of granularity as well as breadth of keywords that can be used by litigators during the legal discovery process to search for relevant information. He points out some keywords that may raise a legal red flag and should be used carefully when constructing emails. However, today’s technology search capabilities provide such precise, complete and accurate results, that there just isn’t anywhere to hide.
For instance, StoredIQ’s advanced search capabilities can look within compressed files, email archives and email attachments, in addition to the text contained in the email message itself. It can also search non-printable text within a document or email and can search through comments and revisions. In addition to search using keywords, StoredIQ supports many advanced search capabilities including:

• Single term search
• Multiple term search
• Concept-based search
• Boolean operators
• Logical grouping of terms
• Wildcards within search terms or Boolean expressions
• Proximity searches
• Natural language entities
• Regular expressions
• Macro-based searches
• Object level attributes
• By hash value (digital signatures)

Probably of greatest interest to litigators during the discovery process is StoredIQ’s ability to perform natural language processing (NLP), which is the ability to extract linguistically derived natural language concepts from within email and user files including people, places and things. Legal teams can immediately search using over 250 out-of-the-box concepts and attributes including credit card accounts, social security numbers and stock symbols. NLP identifies word usage based upon context within a sentence. For example, NLP can identify if the word ‘will’ is used to identify a person’s name, a legal document or an auxiliary verb showing intent. StoredIQ has proprietary technology for adaptive sentence boundary disambiguation (ASBD) which substantially increases the precision of Natural Language Processing to address common grammatical deficiencies that are present in many business documents. No other information management technologies have this capability. NLP is a critical capability necessary to accurately perform eDiscovery, records management or risk management as full text indexes alone cannot provide the required level of precision.
I know a lot of these terms can be a mouthful, but the underlying take away is that legal teams have the technology to precisely and accurately search electronic data, including email, making it much easier for litigators to discover data that was at one time hidden from them.

Labels: Conceptual Search, Early Case Assessment, ECA, eDiscovery, email, Keyword Search, Natural Language Processing, Seach Technology, Search Terms, Semantic Search, StoredIQ

posted by Charles Skamser @ 11:59 AM 0 Comments

eDiscovery Software Pays for Itself in a Matter of Months

According to a Gartner report from December of 2009, eDiscovery software purchased by the Enterprise can pay for itself with one big case or at least within the first year. This type of ROI is almost unprecedented within the Enterprise for business software and literally provides a “no brainer” for justifying the capital outlay and associated expenses.

According to the Gartner report, eDiscovery is a maturing market with entrants from multiple categories, including storage and archiving, search and information access, content and records management, and workflow, as well as tools designed as end-user applications for legal professionals and forensic data collection tools aimed at security professionals, regulators and law enforcement agencies. All of these categories of software vendors have added e-discovery to existing suites or purport to cover various aspects of the eDiscovery process. There are also pure-play e-discovery vendors to consider.

Enterprises purchasing eDiscovery software can reduce the costs of litigation by improving their control over unstructured content, and semistructured content, most notably e-mail. Our client references consistently report that they have cut costs and risks by taking control of litigation hold, litigation-hold-tracking, file collection, file processing and legal review, instead of outsourcing these functions.

The selection of eDiscovery software is a joint decision and sometimes a joint purchase between the IT department and the legal department. These two groups must work together to determine the needs of the organization and the individual users, and to build the business case for purchase. Although many corporations do not know the true costs of their legal activity, there is evidence that those costs are substantial. Because the work of legal and regulatory response is spread over different departments, and legal matters can span multiple years, traditional cost accounting does not do a good job of tracking the cost of litigation and regulation.

The legal department pays for outside counsel's services and eDiscovery providers; business units pay liability costs if a plaintiff wins a monetary judgment; and the IT department bears the expense of any internal discovery work. That makes it difficult to track costs in a meaningful way. In addition, litigation can go on for years, meaning a single case must be tracked over its lifetime. This, of course, does not follow the way accountants do things, which is on a yearly basis. Legal departments seldom have "budget" allocated to them but, of course, must pay the bills of outside counsel and other providers of legal services, and that money comes out of the legal reserve (see Note 1). Gartner clients that do track "all" legal costs, and that have purchased eDiscovery software, report that the software pays for itself in a matter of months, or is justified by the projected cost of "one big case."

The cost savings as reported by clients for early case assessment, along with in-house collection and preservation, can more than justify the purchase of moderately priced eDiscovery software ($100,000 to $500,000), or even more expensive software (costing more than $500,000). When interviewed for this MarketScope, clients reported a return on investment (ROI) within three to six months or, alternatively, after one big case, particularly intellectual property disputes (see Note 2). The main areas of cost reduction are in processing data by external service providers, as less time and, therefore, money is spent on outside attorney review, as less material is passed to them. These benefits are achieved by defensibly culling the amount of data that is passed on to further steps in the e-discovery process, by allowing in-house attorneys to "go back to the well" and refine their searches, either coming up with more data (to avoid sanctions) or refining existing data sets to the relevant documents to pass on for further consideration.

eDiscovery takes place at the request of outside counsel, or before counsel is retained, at the request of an internal legal department. The amount of material turned over to outside counsel for review has a direct bearing on the cost of litigation or regulatory investigation. Opportunities to reduce spending on both the processes of eDiscovery itself and the subsequent review by attorneys of materials obtained during eDiscovery are the heart of the eDiscovery vendors' value proposition.

Using this report, data center managers, information security officers, information architects, in-house legal personnel and records managers can find information to build a business case, create a list of possible vendors and determine which ones best meet their needs.

To review the full Gartner Report, please visit: http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/ca/vol2/article2/article2.html

Labels: 2010 eDiscovery Predictions and Trends, eDiscovery, Gartner, in-house corporate counsel

posted by Charles Skamser @ 2:53 PM 1 Comments