e-discovery 2.0

Since I’ve finished off the last of the Halloween candy and tossed out the moldy, squirrel ravaged pumpkins, it occurred to me that now might be a good time to think about what 2010 will hold for the electronic discovery industry.  My 2009 list seems to have been fairly prescient and many of those notions still hold true since the legal industry (as we know) doesn’t move at the most blistering pace.

Again, doing my best Nostradamus impersonation, here are my top ten trends for 2010:

1. Early case assessment (ECA) moves from a “nice to have” to a “must have” requirement for any matter involving electronically stored information (ESI).  In 2009, we saw ECA move into the mainstream as a methodology to quickly understand case facts, assess risk and lower both review and data processing costs.  But, in 2010, with the advancement of the tools and the increased socialization within the bar and the litigation support community, ECA will graduate into a core methodology for savvy litigators regardless of matter type or size.
2. Appetites for broad information lifecycle management initiatives diminish as organizations realize these programs are far too complex to solve specific pain points, and they often take too much time (measured in years) to execute.  The economic reality is that these holistic, cross data, cross enterprise pipe dreams really can’t demonstrate the ROI that’s needed in today’s challenging economy.
3. Staffing roles continue to evolve with a newfound focus on project management. The role of an in-house e-discovery coordinator will emerge as more of a project management and analyst versus pure legal or IT. This shift will become increasingly necessary as e-discovery evolves from an ad-hoc fire drill to a standard business process that is repeatable, measurable, and defensible.
4. Data analytics and statistical methodologies gain traction to augment the type of subjective decision making approaches that have historically formed the backbone of the e-discovery search and review processes.  These objective methodologies have long been called on as best practices by the likes of the Sedona Working Group. In 2010, they now will start to move from theoretical to practical task as e-discovery tools increasingly move in-house and departments enhance defensibility and add elements such as sampling into the workflow.
5. Platform e-discovery solutions finally become a reality as customers finally graduate from painfully stitching point solutions together, thus requiring less physical document hand-offs (i.e., exports and imports) between applications, cutting costs and lowering the risk of data loss.
6. Associate-based review gradually goes extinct, as both clients and law firms tire of expensive, linear review processes.  More review work becomes either insourced or is managed with specialized contract attorneys, who are both cheaper and better trained for this type of work.
7. Similarly, FRE 502 and “clawback” agreements will be increasingly used to reduce the need for any manual, eyes-on review, although many litigators will resist this trend because of the fears of “un-ringing the bell” when privileged information is disclosed in any context.
8. While perhaps anathema, alternatives to the much lauded EDRM model will gain traction, as practitioners strive to find an even better, and perhaps more practical, project management framework, in many cases acknowledging the role that the EDRM has taken in forming *the* lingua franca of the e-discovery industry.
9. The push for cooperation in the e-discovery process, will make incremental progress despite reticence by old school litigators.  Increasingly, this type of cooperation, as strongly advocated by the Sedona Working Group, will be ironically forced by judges and local rules.
10. “Cloud” computing starts to really impact how e-discovery data preservation/collection is done, both in terms of social media and traditional ESI.  More and more companies block social media applications and file types in the workplace because of fears surrounding the inability to preserve and collect.

Recently, I moderated a panel at the Masters Conference with John Loveland, Sonya Thornton, and Bruce Markowitz entitled: How Defensible is Your E-Discovery Process? (Click here to read a summary of the panel.) It was well attended, and I think that the draw (aside from the esteemed panel) was that this topic still remains very vexing for most practitioners.

Initially, we started at ground zero with the notion that defensibility is in most instances equated with the “reasonableness” standard, which is pervasive across many areas of the EDRM spectrum… from preservation to production.  Instances include:

• Preservation — “[a]s soon as a potential claim is . . . identified, a party is under a duty to preserve evidence which it knows, or reasonably should know, is relevant to the future litigation.”
• FRE 502 (b) – the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a Federal or State proceeding if the (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure;
• General Privilege Waiver — In SEC v. Badian, 2009 WL 222783 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2009)(link), “there is no basis … to conclude that there were precautions [to prevent the disclosure], let alone whether they were reasonable.”
• FRCP 37(e) — Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

While the foregoing isn’t exhaustive it does highlight the persistent nature of the reasonableness standard as practitioners seek a defensibility sanctuary.  The good news is that the law doesn’t require perfection and there are also a number of ways to obtain reasonable defensibility:

• Demonstrable acceptance by the opposition – here the notion is that collaboration with the opposition allows the parties to comfortably move ahead with their discovery process and even if it’s not objectively reasonable, the parties consent to the protocol will in most instances carry an imprimatur of reasonableness.
• Auditing / process transparency.  Similar to the first bullet, auditing the process and giving the opposition visibility into the process steps will often make it hard for them to lodge successful downstream challenges.
• Adherence to Local Rules (See 7th Circuit Pilot Program) or judicial order.  Another avenue than can provide some degree of safety is compliance with a discovery protocol mandated by local rules, although that compliance may ultimately be challenged.
• Statistical confidence intervals / sampling – the use of statistics as a way to bolster process defensibility is starting to come to maturity and in the future I think that detailed precision, recall and other statistical indicates will play a large role in e-discovery defensibility.

None of these steps can be guaranteed to really get you off the hook from a rapid opposing party calling foul, but using them in a “belt and suspenders” fashion will certainly help buttress any discovery process.

For more illumination on the topic please see the following video of my interview with John Loveland, who’s waxing poetically about discovery defensibility.

Part I of this series discussed a number of approaches for reducing electronic discovery costs.  One of the approaches is to implement a document retention policy.  The popularity of document retention policies increased in the early part of the decade with the passage of new financial regulation, such as Sarbanes-Oaxley.  Data retention policy popularity has now increased again with the passage of the FRCP and the recognition of the challenge of electronic discovery costs.  How effective, though, are document retention policies in reducing electronic discovery costs?  Do they solve the electronic discovery cost problem?

It is certainly true that any policy that enforces the deletion of documents that might otherwise be discoverable should reduce electronic discovery costs.  Thus, document retention policies, just like enforced mailbox size limits, can absolutely help reduce e-discovery costs.  However, implementing a retention policy is not easy.  A recent article in the New York Law Journal by Adam Rosman is very insightful in this regard when he says, “the rub is implementation.”   Mr. Rosman outlines a conversation between a hypothetical company’s Associate General Counsel and the CTO that demonstrates that the major challenge with retention policies is not designing one.  Rather, the challenge is implementing a policy that effectively balances the needs for litigation readiness and e-discovery, regulatory compliance and knowledge management and can be cost-effectively enforced throughout a company’s IT organization and user community.  Given this, it’s not surprising that a 2006 study by Nextpage and CXO research found that “while two-thirds of the companies surveyed have a document retention policy in effect, almost half of them don’t actively enforce it” and why 39% of respondents cited implementing a standard policy and 34% percent said user compliance were major weaknesses in implementing retention policies.

Because of these implementation challenges, retention policies are not a quick way to reduce your e-discovery costs.  They are also not going to reduce enough data to solve an organization’s e-discovery cost “problem.”  First, due to the implementation challenges, retention policies are not going to delete all the electronically stored information (ESI) they should.  Second, HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oaxley (SOX) and FINRA regulations require that many documents must be retained for several years.  Finally, business users will demand many exceptions: emails, loose files, collaboration content, financial records, contracts, etc. that they want to save beyond the retention period for important business reasons.  As a result, even companies with retention policies are going to have a substantial and growing amount of discoverable ESI and the electronic discovery costs that go with that.

Document retention policies thus are a bit like taking vitamins.  They are likely going to help reduce the amount of time you are sick – although you’ll probably find some “studies” that say they do help and some that don’t.  But when you get sick, they aren’t going to make you better.  For that, you need a remedy that directly targets the specific problem.  Similarly, document retention policies, and you can say the same thing about all information management solutions to e-discovery, will help reduce e-discovery costs, but they won’t solve the e-discovery cost problem.  Specific e-discovery solutions are necessary to do that.  We’ll discuss many of these specific e-discovery solutions in the next set of posts in this series.

Maybe this will show my age, but I’ve been around the electronic discovery business since the days when pricing was both simple and very expensive. Terabytes were at the mythical high-end of the spectrum and gigabytes of “e-docs” (not “ESI”) cost $3,000 – $4,000 to process. Understandably (and fortunately for most), pricing models have evolved, thanks in part to more educated consumers and initiatives such as Sedona’s RFP + Vendor Panel.

Leaving the WABAC machine and moving into present times, we’ve starting to see some variance from traditional pricing models that primarily focus on data “into” the processing machine. More and more companies (such as Kroll Ontrack) are moving to models that price on data “out” of the process. Since that’s a bit nebulous, an example might illustrate:

Traditionally, in a somewhat simplified fashion, an electronic discovery project would be priced by the amount of data in the initial corpus (say 100 gigabytes) and processing would be priced at $500 a gigabyte (for round numbers purposes). Leaving out the sometimes significant caveat that the 100 gigabytes would likely increase due to expansion of compressed files, this would mean that the bulk of the project expenses would be $50,000 ($500 x 100), plus relatively nominal costs for monthly hosting and user access rights.

At the end of the day, after elimination of system files, deduplication and application of search terms (reducing the initial corpus by say 70% collectively) there would be 30 gigabytes remaining for hosting and possible production, both of which are most often priced separately.

Given rampant commoditization there’s an arms race underway among certain service providers where they’re now changing the above model to give away initial processing as a loss leader – pricing only on the data that comes out the end of the processing/search step. In this approach the above workflow would largely stay the same, but the vendor would charge a higher rate for what ultimately is hosted on the back-end. If this back-end fee was $2,000 per resulting gigabyte and the same 30 gigabytes was seen out the back end, then the customer would pay $60,000 for the project. But, if the deduplication, searching, culling, etc. was more effective (at say 80%) then the resulting 20 gigabytes would only cost $40,000.

The question then, as Clint Eastwood would put it, is: “Do you feel lucky?” This pricing model forces attorneys and litigation support managers to guesstimate what culling, search, and de-duplication rates they’ll likely get on the data corpus. Guess right and they save the end client money, guess wrong and they’re way over budget.

The dynamics of this purchasing decision are a bit atypical because the buyer (usually counsel) doesn’t pay the bills, so the decision can often be more vexing than most. When a direct consumer gambles on pricing things will ideally balance out over time, with money being saved in some instances and some being overspent in others. But, when the buyer doesn’t pay the bills the motivation is less clear.

Thoughts run to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to determine which pricing model is ultimately more compelling: (a) price certainty/adherence to budget, or (b) cost variability and the opportunity to save money. While it’s never good to understate the upside of saving money (Esteem), I think ultimately there’s a more fundamental need (Safety) to stay within budget and avoid the painful (sometimes client imperiling) call to discuss how a given e-discovery project has gone way over budget.

This calculation is made further vexing because it not only pits the purchasing party against unknown data culling/searching rates, but it also puts the vendor in an ethical bind where they make less money if they’re supremely effective at data reduction, whereas if they’re either intentionally or accidentally beneficiaries of relatively little data reduction then they stand to make a ton of upside.

It’s like you went to Vegas to gamble your kid’s college fund and on top of the already questionable house odds you knew that the dealer stood to profit by your losses. So, as for myself, no, I don’t feel lucky.

Lately, the electronic discovery blogosphere has been, well, a-twitter about twitter and other social media as they relate to electronic discovery. While twitter struggles to find a business model, enterprises and law firms are racing to understand the implications of this latest boomtown of user-generated content that’s being built in out on the frontier of the World Wide Web (or is that Wild Wild West?).

There’s talk of intellectual property being cast out, irrevocably, onto the Internet for all to see. Or slanderous things being uttered for which your company may be held liable. But, hold on a second: is there really anything new here? Anyone heard of e-mail? Web pages? Peer-to-peer? Google? Instant messaging? As Debra Logan astutely points out in her recent post on the topic, “everything that exists is discoverable (at least pretty much).” If you haven’t already, take a look at the FRCP’s definition of ESI and you’ll get her point. So, yes, it’s obviously important to have a common sense corporate policy around what’s appropriate and what’s not for the public Internet, but it shouldn’t be any different from the policy that you should have already had in place regarding blogs, web pages, and email.

What about the other side of the electronic discovery coin: finding information that’s responsive to a request? If anything, social media are more easily discoverable than just about any other form of user-generated content (though admittedly in some cases they can be more transient, which can post unique challenges). And, while it’s not universally true, the argument can be made that the more easily something can be discovered, the lower the cost and risk of that content to you. Worried if anyone on twitter is stealing your new idea for a router architecture? How about the top-secret approach to making coffee you were thinking about patenting? Well, if anyone twittered about it, tracking it down is a snap. Just keep in mind that because of the public nature of social media, it’s likely that the more important the information is to your company in the context of electronic discovery, the less likely it is to live out on the public Internet. Obviously, there will be exceptions. But when there are those exceptions, tracking down the relevant information will likely be a fairly straightforward and relatively inexpensive process.

However, before we dismiss social media as nothing new and something that can largely be addressed through already-existing policies and discovery techniques, let’s consider one aspect of social media that is on the upswing, but often out of the blogging limelight: enterprise applications.

Increasingly, companies are moving to advanced enterprise social media platforms such as Jive or SocialText as a way of improving internal collaboration and making projects run more smoothly and effectively. Because such enterprise platforms are often used on a company’s most important and strategic projects, having robust e-discovery capabilities to allow internal blog, wiki, and discussion content to be captured and placed into a format that can be seamlessly searched along with other more traditional documents is becoming critical to forward-thinking enterprises.

For example, I recently came across a large financial institution that uses Jive SBS as its wiki and Clearwell as its e-discovery solution. What surprised me is that this company has created its own Jive/Clearwell “adapter” that feeds Jive discussions directly into Clearwell as a conversation thread. This is just one example, but I’m sure more will follow. Over time, it will become a requirement for e-discovery platforms to integrate with enterprise social media products. And, rest assured, as that happens, we’ll be sure to tweet about it!

UPDATE: Whit Andrews of Gartner was kind enough point out his (prescient) research note on the subject of e-discovery and social networking from November, 2007. He points out that there is in fact a very important “new new thing” about social networks, which is that they may be able to be leveraged in an e-discovery context to find out more about the people relevant to an investigation. By tapping these publically-available sources of information, investigators may be able to gain better insight into private (i.e. enterprise) information stores to guide the e-discovery process. More detail on this and other insights can be found at http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=543110&ref=g_forward&call=email.

Over the past 4 years, I have had hundreds of conversations with corporate counsel and “legal IT”, meaning technical folks charged with supporting the legal team. More and more of them are looking to lower their costs by bringing e-discovery in-house. But as they work through that process, there’s one question that consistently comes up, even today – namely, “When [insert name of software company] says they “do” e-discovery, what exactly does that mean?”

There has been progress towards answering this question, thanks mainly to the analyst community. George Socha and Tom Gelbmann’s EDRM framework has been immensely helpful in breaking down electronic discovery into its component steps. Other analysts, like Debra Logan at Gartner, were quick to embrace the framework, prompting every software provider to follow suit. As a result, there is today a common language that everyone uses to describe the e-discovery process.

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) breaks down the e-discovery process into a series of steps. Companies looking to buy e-discovery software to lower costs typically map different software products to each of these steps, to make sure that they cover the entire process.

But having a universally-agreed framework is only half the answer. To eliminate customer confusion, there also needs to be agreement on how different software products fit into the framework. This is especially important since there is no single, end-to-end solution for e-discovery which covers all aspects of EDRM. So customers are forced to think about how different software solutions fit together. And that is where things begin to fall apart.

Many software vendors feel it is advantageous to claim that they do everything, even though they do not. Customers are rightly suspicious of those claims, and so press vendors to provide more detailed information – hence the question, “when you say you do e-discovery, what exactly does that mean?”

In light of that, how can litigation support teams, corporate counsel, or legal IT people figure out which e-discovery solution best meets their needs? From observing this decision-making process hundreds of times, I have found 3 simple steps are incredibly helpful.

Step 1: Read the analyst reports

Two reports in particular make for required reading. One is Gartner’s MarketScope Report, which is available for free at certain sites; the other is the 451Group’s recent e-discovery report, which is summarized in a publicly available presentation. The helpful thing about the 451 Group’s report is that it tells you which software companies do which parts of the EDRM process. You do have to buy the report to get the full picture (it’s well worth it!), but the publicly available presentation will give you a flavor for their analyis, and I have drawn from that presentation in the figure below:

Analyst firms like the 451 Group map software vendors to the EDRM framework according to what they actually do, which is often different from what software vendors claim they do.

The 451 Group’s analysis highlights several important points. First, it shows that there is no single end-to-end solution. Even the products of giants like EMC (SourceOne), HP (IAP), and IBM (CommonStore) only solve one piece of the puzzle, information management. Second, it shows that customers have choices at each stage of the EDRM process. For example, to solve the problem of identification, collection, and preservation of electronic information, customers can choose from solutions as diverse as Guidance EnCase (forensic collection), Index Engines (back-up tapes) and Mimosa NearPoint (email archive). Third, it provides an independent assessment of what vendors do, as opposed to what they may claim. For example, Kazeon claims analysis and review capabilities, whereas the report shows its product does identification, collection, and preservation; Recommind claims its Axcelerate eDiscovery and MindServer products do processing, whereas the report finds that they do not.

Step 2: Evaluate the products prior to purchase

Just as anyone would test-drive a car prior to purchase, it’s critical to test-drive e-discovery software. Any vendor should be willing to provide their software free of charge for an evaluation on-premise. The most effective evaluations are when the customer uses the product themselves, either on a live case or test data. This is far preferable to just sending the data to the vendor who then loads it into their system, as in that scenario there are too many opportunities for the vendor to hide their product’s shortcomings.

Step 3: Check references carefully

The trick with references is to insist on relevant references. It’s not good enough for the vendor to dredge up some random person who says nice things; or even a credible knowledgeable person who is using the product in a completely different way. For example, if a company is happy with Autonomy’s IDOL for enterprise search, that does not tell you much about what Autonomy might be like for e-discovery. What really counts are references from other customers who are using the product for the same application that you are.

All this can sound like a lot of work, but I have seen people go through the process in as little as a month, and be much happier for it. A little work up front can save a lot of time (and heart-ache!) later on.

While we don’t normally report news on the blog, this article seemed important enough to repost in its entirety…

SEEKING NEW AVENUE FOR COST-CUTTING, GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES BOLD NEW RECOVERY EFFORT

WASHINGTON — Senior Administration officials today took the wraps off of their latest effort to stabilize the American economy: The nationalization of the electronic discovery industry. According to a senior official who declined to be identified, “Even before the beginning of the current turmoil, everyone acknowledged that electronic discovery costs were out of control. Now, with litigation accelerating and corporate earnings plummeting, something had to be done. Without this action, a significant number of leading American corporations would be in danger of shutting their doors due to the overwhelming burden of e-discovery.”

A Single Common Portal

Effective immediately, all electronic discovery projects are being centralized under a single authority, the National Electronic Record Discovery Institute (NERDI). The Institute will be launching a nationwide electronic discovery portal on April 1, 2009 at www.ediscovery.gov. The site will build upon the recent success of the government’s economic recovery accountability site, www.recovery.gov. Said one Institute official, “Just drop the ‘r’ and insert a ‘dis’, and you get eDiscovery. It really is the next logical step in the government’s efforts to help the country in a time of profound need.”

Industry experts initially expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to make electronically discoverable information available in an efficient, expedient, and secure manner. Early plans had the government using the U.S. Postal Service and the network of I.R.S. tax return servicing centers as the logistical backbone for managing the collection and processing of documents. However, after negotiations with the National Security Agency, this step was eliminated from the process. Instead, all electronically-generated information in the United States will be instantly processed and made available through the ediscovery.gov site. Commented an NSA spokesman, “We have all the information anyway; why not make it easily accessible, instead of pretending it’s not here?” As for security, officials stated that “individuals can expect the same level of security and identify protection they’ve come to expect from their financial institutions and credit card companies, along with the additional protection and responsiveness they’ve come to expect from the Federal government.”

The Future of the E-Discovery Industry

What will become of the existing electronic discovery industry, made up of hundreds of individual vendors with aggregate revenue estimated to be in the $2-3 billion dollar range? According to a senior-level NERDI director, “One word: toast.” However, a group of industry software vendors and service providers has expressed open skepticism about the ability of a historically incompetent, multilayered bureaucracy to deliver electronic discovery services more effectively than the competitive market.

One vendor pointed out that it will be “difficult for the government to establish itself as a credible player in electronic discovery with millions of White House emails still missing without a trace.” In response, the group of vendors that make up the Top 5 Software and Service Provider lists on the 2008 Socha-Gelbmann survey (Autonomy, Clearwell, Fios, FTI, Guidance, Kroll, and LexisNexis) have announced an immediate consolidation of operations under the name ClearGuideAutoKrolLexFTios. Gloated new incoming CEO Rick Wagoner, “Our expectation is to roll over the government’s efforts like our new name rolls off your tongue.”

One of the more surprising aspects of the recession (at least to me) is the immediate and dramatic impact it has had on litigation support service providers. On one side of the coin, you have large players like SPi, which in 2007 was Attenex’s largest reseller, exiting the business altogether, and several other service providers in obvious difficulty. On the other side, I see a handful of service providers gaining share and attracting new investors. In the past month alone, I have spoken to a handful of investor groups who are either investing or looking to invest in litigation support service providers.

From what I can tell, there seem to be 3 factors that are causing problems for the industry:

1. The credit crunch:

Many service providers rely on “lines of credit” to fund day-to-day operations, meaning they pay their bills by taking debt secured against receivables and other assets. But in the last few months, that’s become much harder to do. Nowadays, banks do not want to give lines of credit to anyone, even if you pay them a higher interest rate. All the banks care about is reducing risk and strengthening their own balance sheets. So it has become harder for service providers to finance their businesses in this way.

2. Paper business is shrinking:

Many service providers started life as copy/scanning operations before expanding to include electronic information, and some still rely on the paper business as a steady source of cash. I have been told by several people in the business that demand for paper-services has fallen dramatically in the past few months. Their stories reminded me of what’s happening in the newspaper business: everyone knows that newspaper and magazine subscriptions are decreasing over time, but it’s happening much faster than anyone thought it would. As a result, it seems that service providers are getting less cash from the paper business than they expected – right at the time when banks are least interested in letting them borrow more to make up the difference.

3. Electronic data discovery is growing more competitive:

In the early days of electronic discovery, companies had little choice but to send out their data to the handful of service providers who had the processing, review and hosting facilities to manage it. Today, data volumes are much larger, making it a bigger market, but there are also lot more options: companies can use software to manage electronic discovery in-house; they can send it to a law firm, many of whom now have internal litigation support teams; or they can choose between larger numbers of service providers offering a much wider array of services.

Given these challenges, how is it that some service providers are able to grow and gain share, while others stumble? From my discussions with many firms – some doing well, others not – I see several common steps that the strongest players are taking to adapt to today’s harsher economic climate. These steps include:

• Strengthen the balance sheet, by raising money from equity investors and/or restructuring debt obligations. This provides more operating flexibility and reduces the risk of tripping over bank covenants.

• Sell or shutter the paper business. Just like making CDs is a distraction to the music business, paper is takes time and energy away from electronic discovery. Shutting down paper operations frees bandwidth and resources to concentrate on the growth part of the business.

• Innovate in service offerings. It is not enough to offer processing, review and hosting like everyone else. The best service providers have become trusted advisors by bringing their clients compelling new services, like for example early case analysis.

• Focus, focus, focus. In a big, competitive industry like litigation support, service providers have to find their niche. This can be a specific geography or an industry. But for the larger, national players it is typically a handful of key services which they get everyone (sales, marketing, project management, etc.) lined up behind selling and delivering.

Compared to many sectors of the economy (e.g., retail, travel, luxury goods), the litigation support services industry is well-positioned to grow through the downturn. But there’s no doubt things have changed, and many of the strategies appropriate in 2007 no longer apply in 2009.

Concept or content search continues to be a hot topic within the e-discovery community.  There’s a continuous stream of articles that discuss it.  Some that point out the positive.  Others that point out the limitations.  The courts have also gotten involved in the discussion.  Judge Grimm refers to concept search in e-discovery in Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2008 WL 2221841 (D. Md. May 29, 2008).  Judge Facciola discusses concept search in Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 242 F.R.D. 139 and other opinions.  Despite (or maybe because of) all the commentary on this topic, I find that while a lot of people think that concept search in e-discovery is good, many are not fully sure of exactly what concept search is, and how it is practically useful in e-discovery.   It’s pretty clear that after several years of commentary and hype, concept search has become something of a buzzword associated with many myths and misconceptions.  In an effort to better understand what concept search is and how it can help in e-discovery, I want to dispel two of the most common myths I have heard.

The “Concept Search is Concept Search” Myth

The first myth around concept search actually revolves around what it is.  In my experience, people tend to lump two different technologies together when talking about concept search: concept search and concept categorization.  It’s very common, for example, to see commentators say concept search even when what they are really talking about is concept categorization.  To make matters more confusing, people also use a plethora of other names including content search, content clustering or concept clustering when what they really mean is concept categorization.

So, what are the differences between concept search and concept categorization?  First, let’s start with concept search.  Concept search technologies find documents containing “concepts”.  I think that the Sedona Conference’s “Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search & Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery“, provides a good definition of “concept” when used in a search context: “the combination of [a] query term and the additional terms identified by the thesaurus.”  In other words, concept search technologies find documents containing a specified term plus additional terms with similar meanings derived from a thesaurus.

Concept categorization, on the other hand, is actually not a search technology at all.  Concept categorization technologies do not “find” documents.  Rather, they categorize or group documents based on their similarity.   There are many different ways to group documents based on similarity.  Techniques include statistical (which assesses similarity based on word frequency), Bayesian classification (which weights words differently depending on factors in addition to statistical frequency, such as where the terms appear in a document), and semantic indexing (which takes into account the fact that many words used in a similar context may have a similar meaning).  It would take more time to describe these technologies in detail but the Sedona commentary has a good summary of these different technologies if you are interested in learning more.

As should now be apparent, these technologies are very different and using the same words to describe them is confusing.  It’s why it’s not surprising that a lot of the users of e-discovery services and software don’t have a strong understanding of what these technologies are or what benefits they can actually provide in practice.  Dispelling the myth that they can be lumped together is a critical first step in any conversation about concept search and how it can help in e-discovery.  This leads us to a second myth, that Concept Search is better than Keyword Search.  I’ll discuss this in my next blog post.

A couple of weeks back, I attended a now-infamous meeting at Sequoia Capital, which has since been widely covered in the press and the blogosphere. For those unfamiliar with Sequoia, it is the world’s leading venture capital firm, with a string of early-stage investments in companies such as Apple, Cisco, and Google as well as, more recently, AdMob, Clearwell, and Loopt. The presentation says it more colorfully, but Sequoia’s point is simple: “We are at the beginning of a global economic slowdown that could last for years, and the cost of capital has sky-rocketed. In light of that, everyone needs to re-evaluate their growth plans and, if necessary, reduce expenses immediately.”

That message sent a chill through Silicon Valley. In the days that followed the meeting, several start-up companies announced layoffs, closely followed by larger companies like eBay and Yahoo, all citing economic conditions in the wake of the financial crisis. So naturally, the meeting and its aftermath got me thinking about what impact our current economic malaise will have upon the e-discovery industry.

If history is any guide, economic downturns lead to more litigation, and more litigation leads to more e-discovery. That’s why e-discovery has often proven to be a counter-cyclical business, and that certainly appears to be the case again now. While traditional technology companies like SAP and Seagate missed their numbers last quarter, the top e-discovery software companies posted strong results. And many lawyers are expecting even better times ahead, if last week’s ACC show or the recent Fulbright & Jaworski 2008 Litigation Trends Survey are any indicator. In particular, the survey results were quite striking, with more than one-third of companies surveyed predicting more lawsuits, and a quarter forecasting more regulatory inquiries. This makes sense in light of the fact that what we are facing is no “normal” recession; rather, it’s a downturn triggered by the sudden and widespread collapse of the banking sector which has left many people wanting legal redress for their grievances.

But, more important than any short-term increase in litigation, I think the real significance of the current crisis is that it will spur a sustained, long-term increase in demand for e-discovery solutions. As revenue growth slows, companies will focus on reducing costs to maintain profit growth. That will prompt many of them to examine the vast amounts of money being spent on e-discovery and accelerate the pace at which they use technology to cut costs by bringing elements of e-discovery in-house. Law firms and litigation support service providers will similarly find their invoices attract greater scrutiny. Their old ways of taking terabytes of data and dumping it into a linear review platform without first removing irrelevant or unresponsive data, will look increasingly profligate.

To learn more about how best to prepare for the coming wave of litigation, and associated increase in e-discovery, I strongly recommend next week’s webinar with Ron Best from Munger, Tolles, and Olson (MTO). Ron is a real innovator in this area, with extensive experience dealing with multi-party, complex litigation. He is also full of practical advice about how best to reign in e-discovery costs and manage with limited resources – skills that will be increasingly important in the coming months.

No industry is an island and, to some extent, we all get impacted by the same economic forces. But the unique thing about the e-discovery industry is that the worst of times can often be the best of times. Consider it a silver lining to the very large cloud hanging over our economy.