Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Federal Pig Andrew J. Peck Ushered In a Brave New World, Law Students!
Predictive Coding Approved by a Federal Court:
If you are considering law school - or worse, currently enrolled - then you should read this Chris Opfer article, which appeared in New York magazine on March 14, 2012. The title is “Rise of the Machines: New Technology May Spell the End for NYC’s Bottom-Rung Lawyers.” Take a look at the future:
“The Southern District of New York recently became the nation's first federal court to explicitly approve the use of predictive coding, a computer-assisted document review that turns much of the legal grunt work currently done by underemployed attorneys over to the machines. Last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck endorsed a plan by the parties in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe — a sex discrimination case filed against the global communications agency by five former employees — to use predictive coding to review more than 3 million electronic documents in order to determine whether they should be produced in discovery, the process through which parties exchange relevant information before trial.” [Emphasis mine]
Later on, the piece continued:
“Using the technology, a senior attorney familiar with the intricacies of a specific case reviews and codes a "seed set" of documents. An algorithm then identifies properties among the manually reviewed documents to code and sort everything else. Each document is assigned a score to indicate the likelihood it's correctly coded.
Proponents say predictive coding is not only more accurate than using human reviewers, but also more efficient. Yet many, including Jason R. Baron who previously co-chaired an influential think-tank called the Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production, argue that human review is also necessary, at least in the short term. "I'm modestly hopeful that contract attorneys will still have a role for some time to come," Baron says. "My glass is half full."
There's no escaping the fact that as predictive coding is used more widely, the technology will reduce the overall number of documents to be reviewed and the attorneys needed to review them. Judge Peck noted the technology will require human review of less than 2 percent of all documents in an average case. His stamp of approval means that the document reviewer ranks may be culled sooner rather than later.” [Emphasis mine]
Personally, I don’t care if the metaphorical glass is half empty or full. I am concerned with the substance in the cup.
Other Coverage of this Development:
Check out this May 5, 2012 blog entry from Walter Russell Mead. The piece was entitled “Attention Young Lawyers: The Grim Reaper Is Here.” He gets straight to the point:
“Every student in America thinking of going to law school on borrowed money needs to read this article in New York magazine. Every dean of every law school in the country, every parent or teacher giving young people career advice needs to read it. Every policy wonk thinking about the future of American society needs to read it, as well.
The legal profession’s John-Henry-meets-steam-drill moment is here: a federal court has approved a computerized document review process that turns huge volumes of legal grunt work over to the machines. The process is said to be cheaper and more accurate than human review of the thousands and even millions of documents that are involved in large, complex legal cases.” [Emphasis mine]
ATL’s Christopher Danzig posted an entry labeled “The Future Has Arrived: For the First Time, Judge Orders Predictive Coding in a Federal Case.” Look at this telling excerpt:
“Just a few weeks ago, Magistrate [Jackass] Andrew Peck (S.D.N.Y.) spoke to several hundred people at LegalTech New York about the importance of predictive coding for the future of electronic discovery. He expressed his hope that a federal court would, sooner rather than later, officially encourage using the technology in a case.
Shortly after participating in the panel, [Cockroach] Peck fulfilled his own wish. Last week, he became what appears to be the first federal judge to order litigants to use the cutting-edge technology in a case.”
One wonders whether this fat bastard owns stock in any of these companies. Too bad, he can't rely on a machine to fix his crooked teeth or to trim his cheesy mustache. By the way, when was the last time you saw someone who appears to have Down syndrome on the federal bench?!?!
Conclusion: This decision will further undermine your chances of practicing law, in any capacity. While no sane person goes to law school with the intent to become a doc review monkey, for many years this route provided TTT grads with the chance to pay the bills and put food in the fridge. Also, most states allow non-lawyers to engage in the limited practice of law. Of course, ABA-accredited trash cans continue to pump out FAR TOO MANY graduates for the available number of attorney positions. Furthermore, the cockroaches and rats keep increasing their tuition to alarming levels. How thoughtful of them, huh?!?!
For $ome rea$on, the “law professors” and deans do not mention these developments in their slick marketing materials - or during orientation. Perhaps, these academic thieves sincerely believe that re-hashing Pennoyer v. Neff is going to adequately prepare their students to represent clients. The commodes can no longer claim to provide students with a mere abstract "education," because law firms and attorneys will train the graduate to practice. Biglaw clients have caught onto the scam, and they are less willing to pay top dollar so that new associates can receive on the job preparation. Plus, with the ABA's "Ethics" Opinion 08-451 in place since August 2008, the pigs now largely rely on foreign lawyers and non-lawyers to engage in U.S. legal discovery. It's a brave new world, lemming! I suppose that you can choose to embrace this new reality.
Posted by Nando at 5:44 AM