By Greg Buckles
Extract: So here are my Top Ten Reasons Why NOT [To Use] PC-TAR:
- Perception that PC-TAR costs front load the discovery cost for matters that WILL settle before trial.
- High resistance to analytic upcharges. Have to justify them on every matter, so go with path of least resistance.
- Complexity of systems and fear that counsel will not be able to defend what they do not understand.
- Customers on information overload. Marketing fatigue and growing customer indifference.
- Perception that PC-TAR reinforces known relevant selection and misses unknown/new documents.
- Rumors of SEC/DOJ in some areas fighting PC-TAR proposals.
- Realization that 95-99% recall in PC-TAR training will result in 300-500% production size. Exposure of large volumes of non-relevant ESI a serious concern for companies facing serial plaintiffs that are on fishing expeditions.
- Mature corporate customers already cull and optimize during collection or processing. If they can achieve substantial savings prioritizing/clustering review sets, why pay for actual PC-TAR analytics?
- Counsel does not want to operate PC-TAR systems. Wants Litsupport or provider to run it.
- PC-TAR takes money from the firm. Takes away associate jobs.
Do I believe that most of these market perceptions are true. No, I do not. However, they all contribute to the slow adoption rates for actual use of machine learning technology in traditional discovery review for production.