John Tredennick posted an interesting article on SME's last week for Catalysts' "E-Discovery Search Blog" (http://www.catalystsecure.com/blog). The post link is below.
In the world of document review, training the reviewer (attorney team or algorithm) is critical to success. Working with 100's of case teams, I have learned that there is NEVER one SME. At any given point in the life-cycle of a document review, the attorney who is most expert with respect to the substance of a matter may change.
Immediately after collection, the expert may be the fourth year who "managed" the collection. There may be experts who are assigned to individual issues. As a matter progresses, it is more likely that expertise may be found with a senior associate who is charged with managing the production relationship with opposing counsel, organizing depositions or preparing motions as the case develops.
In addition to it being unlikely that you will find one oracle at Delphi for your matter, I worry that the use of one SME encourages a very singular perspective regarding the crux of a case. Even well into a review, I have seen attorneys practically come to blows about review analysis/interpretation. In the realm of TAR, I think that it is most instructive to have 2-3 experts so that debate and consensus is encouraged.
For more detail, please enjoy, Subject Matter Experts: What Role Should They Play in TAR 2.0 Training?;
Comments