In defense of keywords in e-discovery

If we can use keywords to filter out 70 percent of the collection, that is well worth the eight hours of effort

BY ANDY KRAFTSOWAPRIL 4, 2014

Share on linkedinShare on twitterShare on facebookShare on emailMore Sharing Serimer: You are about to read an article championing the much-maligned process of filtering documents using keywords — not au courant in an era when excitement over algorithms rules the day. Nevertheless, it is my strong belief that the concept of using keywords as a tool to help locate the documents that matter is spot-on; it is the execution and the expectations that are spotty.

Undoubtedly the typical method for developing keywords (a thesaurus, a yellow pad and a cup of coffee) has become outdated. Today’s document collections are just too big for this approach. When volumes are large, precision and completeness matter. It is too easy to sweep in a load of nonrelevant documents or, even worse, exclude a substantial number of relevant documents. But these shortcomings are related to the method of developing keywords, not to the efficacy of the underlying theory.

Conceptually, the theory of keywords is sound. During review, especially first-pass review, we are looking for documents that are about the issues of the case. For a document to be about a case issue, it must contain language (words) that communicates specific concepts. For example, for a document to be about meetings with competitors where price was discussed, the document must contain language that communicates the concept of a meeting, the attendance of a competitor and the concept of price. Given that conceptual precision, it is perfectly reasonable to use keywords to help identify documents about this topic.

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/04/04/in-defense-of-keywords-in-e-discovery?ref=nav