review (technology platform)

Review

Orange Legal Technologies provides you with the ability to define and examine a data set of documents for relevance, responsiveness, privilege, and/or confidentiality.  With the ability to load data files prepared from our own processing platform or processing platform of your choice, our review service is powered by proven OneO® eDiscovery Platform technology.

Our Review Services include:

  • International (Foreign) Language Support (Unicode)
  • Intuitive Web Based User Access
  • Integrated Collaboration and Workflow
  • Integrated Audit and Reporting
  • Inclusive Review Proficiency Training

We support these services with:

To determine exactly how we can help you with your specific review requirements, contact us and we can immediately begin to help you translate your needs into action.

Review

What is “Review”?

In the realm of electronic discovery, “Review” can be defined as the culling process that produces a dataset of potentially responsive documents that are then examined and evaluated for a final selection of relevant and/or responsive documents and assertion of privilege, confidentiality, etc., as appropriate.

Additionally, “On-line Review” enables the culled dataset to be accessed via PC or other terminal device via a local network or remotely via the Internet. Often, the On-Line Review process is facilitated by specialized software that provides additional features and functions which may include: collaborative access of multiple reviewers, security, user logging, search and retrieval, document coding, redaction, and privilege logging.

Why is “Review” important?

The principal objective of review is to determine the relevancy and/or responsiveness of files for efficient and expedient production and subsequent use.   This determination must be accomplished while ensuring that the techniques and processes used are both defensible with respect to clients’ legal obligations and appropriate with respect to cost-effectiveness and expediency.

As the legal review of electronically stored information (ESI) remains the single most financially expensive portion of the electronic discovery process – in fact, depending on one’s source of reference, the cost of review can comprise up to 80% of the total cost of eDiscovery – it is important to understand the major phases of document review, the key characteristics of document review tools, and the key features of document review tools in order to maximize results while controlling costs.

What are the two major phases of electronic discovery document review?

While there are many ways to define, describe, and organize the phases that take place in electronic discovery review, for the purpose of this discussion we will focus on the following two phases of review and how they interrelate:

  • First Level Review
  • Second Level Review

Document review in the context of litigation is done in two levels. The first level of document review is the discovery phase and first part in any litigation. This process is performed after receiving the legal “Request for production of documents”. During this process the objective is to reduce the document set into a workable and responsive data set. Even though it is common for e-discovery best practices to have reduced a data set by almost 70%, there still may remain millions of documents to be reviewed. This is because the total quantity of documents has multiplied several times over the years. In the second level of document review these workable documents are reviewed more seriously by seniors to ensure relevancy, authenticity, accessibility, and to prevent the inadvertent production of privileged documents.

First Level Review

The primary purpose of first level document review typically to review documents and determine whether or not they’re “responsive” or “non-responsive” as they pertain to a specific legal case or issue. In essence, first level document review forms part of the discovery phase of litigation. It is performed prior to producing and after receiving documents pursuant to a legal “Request for Production of Documents.” It’s the initial review phase that helps narrow the document set to a responsive and workable data set for later, more senior review.  Litigation aside, aspects of first level document review are also routinely performed in matters of regulatory compliance and corporate due diligence.

Second Level Review

Second Level Review, sometimes referred to as “Privilege Review”, is one of the most critical and sensitive aspects of the document review process and usually involves the use of senior reviewers and/or review by the litigators actually involved in the matter under review.

In addition to ensuring a “second set of eyes” are involved in the evaluation of documents under review, second level reviewers are key in preventing the inadvertent production of privileged documents – productions that can result in waiver of privilege for the produced materials. If these protections are waived, any privileged documents disclosed may be deemed waived for all purposes, not only as it relates to the current matter but also as a basis for new civil filings. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do provide some structure to resolve the dispute if a party inadvertently produces privileged material–and notifies the adversary–a much safer strategy is to make sure that privileged documents are not produced in the first place.

What are the key characteristics of viable document review tool (product or service)?

Implementation: Review tools should be able to be quickly set up and customized (via secure Internet connection) for immediate use by reviewers in multiple geographical locations.

Scalability: Review tools should allow the client to take full advantage of all available processing power regardless of the size of the data set being reviewed or the complexity of the review queries.   The investment protection provided by a scalable and centralized review architecture ensures that growing capacity requirements do not adversely affect review capability.

Centralization: Review tools should allow for time efficient for complex searches against large volumes of documents from a centralized review architecture.

Security: Review tools should be secured and supported with forensically sound processes and protocols for both physical and digital security,

Usability: Review tools should be able to be easily accessed and intuitively used by multiple reviewers, from multiple locations, potentially on different review teams.

These primary characteristics of review tools serve as the basis for legal professionals to control electronic data, legal teams, and IT spending in the overall review process.   In addition to these characteristics, viable review tools typically share a common set of features that are designed to support these characteristics.   Examples of these features are provided in the following section for your consideration.

What are some of the key capabilities of a viable document review tool (product and/or service)?

While there are many features that are necessary for time efficient and cost effective document review, the following features  are ones that appear to be present in today’s leading review tools:

  • Intuitive to Use
  • Built for Speed
  • Robust Security
  • Workflow Centric
  • Robust Reporting
  • Client Managed
  • Strong Collaboration
  • Document Selection Grid
  • Allows Batch Foldering
  • Allows Batch Printing
  • Provides Tag Rules
  • Conflict Checking and Management
  • Isolates Documents
  • Native/Image Review and Redaction Capabilities
  • Searching Capabilities
  • Message Thread Conversation Grouping
  • Parent/Child Association
  • Duplicate Identification
  • Comment Section
  • Role Management
  • Review Workflow Management
  • Privilege Log Workflow Management
  • Production Workflow Management
  • Simplicity in  Printing
  • Allows Production
  • Allows for Expanded Data Export
  • Allows for Mobile Access

Intuitive to Use

The review tool should be designed for ease of use by everyone from the client administrator to the ultimate end user. Users should be able to quickly navigate through the tool minimizing the time and effort required to learn how to use the application.

Built for Speed

The review tool should be designed to handle large, fast-paced document reviews and any type of litigation or second request reviews.

Robust Security

The review tool should be secure so as to maintain privilege, protect trade secrets and comply with regulations. End user access should be restricted on a by feature, field, document, folder, or tag basis.

Workflow Centric

A workflow process and methodology should be used to coordinate people, documents and technology. The tool should also create an audit trail of activities and access, and enable management of the roles, responsibilities, tasks and processes for each type of user within a review.

Robust Reporting

Various and customizable reports should be able to be generated by the client for nearly every component of the review and production. For example, clients should be able to receive and review custom daily reports, permission reports, detailed project reports by client, case, or database, administrative log reports (big brother), and forecasting reports.

Advanced Review Status Reporting from the OneO Discovery platform includes:

  • Workflow Monitoring:  Allows users to track work done vs. remaining to be completed.
  • User Configuration:  Set user-level preferences to set report style, content and display options.
  • Productivity Tracking:  Ability to export data graphically or as statistical worksheet report.

Client Managed

The review tool should allow the client to perform most functions within the system, including creation of users, assignment of permissions, creation of tag and conflict rules, generation of productions and privilege logs, generation of various reports, management of reviewer assignments, and definition of batch foldering schemes.

Document Selection Grid

The Document Selection Grid provides users with advanced data configuration, sort, and save features that include:

  • A “user-configurable data grid” that allows users to display and sort document collections by extracted metadata, review workflow status, and reviewer work product fields.
  • A “tree-sort” function that allows users to sort documents while maintaining parent/child relationships.
  • A “saved report” enhancement that allows user-defined field layouts for easy generation of Privilege Logs
    and Witness Kit data sheets.

Strong Collaboration

The review tool should provide a shared workspace environment that is accessible anytime, anywhere with an Internet connection. Collaboration support should include the ability to view documents simultaneously and through threaded comment discussions with a chat feature that can be locked down per user.

Allows Batch Foldering

The review tool should allow clients to automatically create folders based on fielded information. For example, a client should be able to folder by Custodian, by Date, by Custodian then by Date, by File Extension, or by original file path of an inbox or network stored files.

Allows Batch Printing

Functionality that provides users additional printing flexibility to include new document control numbering options.

Provides Tag Rules

The review tool should be able to identify errors as they are made. This would allow consistent marking of documents across all reviewers, enabling more accurate and timely production sets.

Conflict Checking and Management

Conflict checking should be able to automatically generate reports on any tagging inconsistencies. The client should have predefined conflict rules built in and the ability to manually create conflict rules. This would support consistent marking of documents across all reviewers, thus allowing for more accurate and timely production sets.

Isolates Documents

Clients should be able to lock down, isolate and restrict access to specific documents so that when users log into the system, they will only see the documents they should have access to. This can reduce costs by limiting specialized reviewers to documents that require their specialty.

Native/Image Review and Redaction Capabilities

The review tool should provide native support for multiple formats and users should have a single point of access to their documents, regardless of format, from a single, easy-to-use interface. There should be no need to have the native application installed on the client PC, and redactions should be able to be applied to an image or the actual native document, which would eliminate the need for tiff-on-the-fly.

Searching Capabilities

The review tool should support simple and advanced queries, including Boolean or natural language searches. Other search options, such as word stemming, relevance, or fuzzy, should also be definable by the user with the ability to narrow the search to a specific folder or tag. This allows efficient culling, thus reducing time and expense of review. In addition, attorneys and paralegals can use the search to quickly see if the evidence would support a given legal theory.

Advanced Search Relevancy Ranking features of the OneO Discovery Platform include:

  •  Natural language algorithms:  Provides automatic term weighting, following a “plain English” or unstructured indexed search request.
  • Automatic term weighting:  Based on the frequency and density of hits in your files.
  • Positional scoring:  Rank documents more highly when hits are near the top of a file, or otherwise clustered in a file.
  • Variable term weighting:  Positive/Negative term weighting can assign more/less emphasis on one or more words.

Message Thread Conversation Grouping

In support of collaboration, the review application should support message threading, which connects messages that are direct responses to a specific topic or conversation.

Parent/Child Association

The review tool should quickly and easily display the association between emails and their attachments, also known as parent and child association. The feature should be available for both email files as well as scanned paper material.

Duplicate Identification

The review application should quickly and easily display all duplicates in the system on a document level. There should also be a feature enabling users to tag, comment, and redact the original and have all markings transfer to all duplicates. This prevents redundant and inconsistent redactions, which may destroy privilege.

Comment Section

The review application should provide an area where users can share comments and questions regarding specific documents. These comments should be stored as threaded discussions where users can respond to a comment to provide feedback.

These comments should be able to be shared as public or private, and the application should record the user who created the comment, and date/time of when the comment was created.

Role Management

The review application should define multiple roles within the application; for administration, users, expert witnesses, 1st and 2nd reviewers, and privilege reviewers. These roles should be designed to assist with easy categorization of users within a document review. These roles should not be restrictive, meaning that clients should be able to choose not to use them and be able to create custom privileges within the roles. This promotes flexibility in review and ease of setup, thus reducing costs.

Review Workflow Management

The review application should provide a simple interface to manage 1st and 2nd review teams, and allow them to work seamlessly in tandem. The application should assist the client with prioritizing and managing daily workflow tasks, distributing documents to reviewers for action, and generating pre-defined reports to understand the progress of the entire document review. Reviewers should be assigned to specific folders of documents, or be able to pull from the entire population of documents. The reviewers should receive the documents in batches.
The numbers of documents in the batches should be determined by the client and should be completely customizable. This allows review management teams to remain flexible, to add or remove reviewers as necessary, and monitor their progress.

Privilege Log Workflow Management

Clients should be able to easily manage one or more privilege logs in a centralized location with the application. This workspace would allow clients to manage and edit the privilege log, select the fields that need to be on the privilege log, and export the log to a desired delimited format. Furthermore, there should be ability to define privilege log rules and include privilege families so privileged information is not produced by mistake.

Production Workflow Management

Clients should be able to easily manage one or more productions in a centralized location with the application. There should be the ability to define production rules and run conflict checks to only produce what is intended to be produced. This workspace would allow clients to store the production specifications, and review the overall production summary. By doing this, litigation teams can efficiently allocate resources, even across multiple law firms.

Simplicity in Printing

Clients should be able to print reports in a variety of formats including Excel, Word, HTML, XML and several delimited formats and also print documents in PDF with custom headers and footers, watermarks and separator sheets containing fielded information from the database.

Allows for Production

Clients should be able to produce in any standard format with labels, watermarks and bates numbers and deliver the production over the Internet (secure FTP) or on CD, DVD or other magnetic media.

Allows for Expanded Data Export

Functionality that allows users to download metadata, reviewer work product, and reviewer production history information directly into an Excel delimited format.

Allows for Mobile Access

OneO® Mobile Access provides eDiscovery professionals fast, secure, and convenient access to the full functionality of the OneO® Discovery Platform directly from today’’s most popular mobile computing devices.

Why is “Review” Important?  Reprise

As stated earlier, the principal objective of review is to determine the relevancy and/or responsiveness of files for efficient and expedient production and subsequent use.   Through this high level overview of electronic discovery review, the hope is that you will have enough information to ask the right questions and to evaluate review phases, characteristics, and features, so as to ensure that the techniques and processes used in your specific electronic discovery review are effective, efficient, and defensible.

To learn more, contact us.

Share