Digital White Papers

I L T A W H I T E P A P E R & S U R V E Y R E S U L T S | L I T I G A T I O N A N D P R A C T I C E S U P P O R T & C O R P O R A T E L E G A L D E P A R T M E N T S 6 Review – the market leader for our responders was clearly Relativity from Early Case Assessment through Document Review and Machine Learning Technology. . For these results the RelativityOne responses were so few, that I combined them with Relativity. I expect next year will show a different picture. Otherwise, there was a smattering of programs used for each of those functions. For ECA and Machine Learning under 15% of the responders selected "None" as a response. We purposefully did not specify the type of machine learning used -- the use of analytics was more important than the programs used. That was a theme with the survey this year – a refocus on work flow and not specific tools. I suspect the next survey may differentiate between structured and sentiment / cognitive analytics, but this year did not seem the time. The responses for future ILTA programming included AI workflows - so there is a definite appetite for more knowledge in practical applications of analytics. For document review QC the responses indicate a lack of standardization across the board with the methods used. Evaluation of coding consistency and privilege tagging was about 50% combined. The lack of consistent methodology was interesting with 17% Not Applicable responses being quite frightening. There could be a great appetite and need for best practices programming around document review – it is a challenge as this function does cross over to the attorney review management and away from the tech space, which probably accounts for the lack of standardization. Produce - this year we took a step back and focused on the work flow of running productions rather than the specific formats. As you may recall, last year showed a wide variety of formats that required normalization, so we worded the question differently to determine the most used formats regardless of the form of images, etc. We continue to produce image with natives to follow the traditional paths – or are we? The metadata / searchable text in productions is not maintaining a traditional trend with the split about 50/50 on always producing metadata and searchable text with a production. That supports the image and image / native formats being more PDF-based when taken in context with the format responses. Again the production QC responses were as I would expect – there were 175 quality checks listed by our 82 responders -- so we check in at least a couple ways and the top two answers of family coding and privilege term QC are expected. There were not any surprises other than a 7% not applicable response. Post Discovery - transcript management continues to be an outlier software program. With the specialty nature of features to manage transcripts specifically, the 25% "Not Applicable" response rate does make sense. Because of the specialized nature of transcript programs, the goals in providing these tools are straightforward and simple. Searching within one transcript or over more than one transcript remains the top goal – not by much. It seems that this continues to be an outlier program category – I have noticed that some programs that work with transcripts seem to focus on other features like collaborating and consolidating many data sources rather than dedicating their features to testimony-specific features. In my opinion, the core functions are few but mighty when it comes to organizing testimony and providing this resource to case teams. Other collaboration features are also useful, but (again, to me) the value is evaluating and organizing testimony evidence. Presenting - traditional work flow wins the day with 50% of responders using specialty

• Cover