The press did not cover the one event at LegalTech that may have had the greatest impact on the future of big ideas.
Indicative of the thought leadership that ingenious is delivering to the eDiscovery and Information Governance marketplace, some of the best thinkers looking at the intersection of law and technology gathered in New York for a candid, robust exchange on what is next in this volatile field. Co-sponsored by Special Counsel, iCONECT and Navigant, the evening kicked off with opening remarks by Christopher Gallagher of Special Counsel. Guest speaker Jeffrey Ritter followed with a well-received presentation about the results of his research into how people will come to trust digital information. He shared for the first time in public a preview of his 2014 book on building trust in digital information. His "four cornerstones" directly confront prevailing practices in the legal world to presume the integrity of digital records as evidence of the truth. One of his key points is that machines will soon exceed humans in calculating the trustworthiness of digital records. You can access the audio recording of his full presentation here.
After dinner, Gail Gottehrer of Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider and George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC moderated a roundtable discussion. Bill Dimm of Hot Neuron LLC and Gordon Calhoun of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP offered their insights on the first topic, microdata, macrodata and the future of predictive coding. The group discussed the challenges of bringing "Big Data" into the "small courtroom." Suggestions included going back to basics and using Boolean searches and culling; using graphics to show the relationships between the data and the big picture; building trust through transparency; and explaining to the jury why they should care about the data.
The second topic – whether digital information will eliminate the human witness – generated lively debate among the attendees. Christopher Costello of Winston & Strawn LLP offered his views on this controversial question. Among the views expressed was that the short term answer is "no" but the long term answer is "who knows." The group discussed whether a human witness is needed when you have a videotape showing an accident or a GPS device indicating that a driver was speeding and at what point can we trust the data so that we don't need a person to interpret it or vouch for it. The point was made that recent hacking incidents have diminished public confidence in data and their willingness to trust it. A participant observed that data is making it harder to spin the evidence to fit a story or theory. Others focused on the role of experts and how jurors want someone to contextualize the data for them and explain to them what it means.
At the end of the evening, the consensus was that the first ingenious Think Tank dinner event was a resounding success and that it gave attendees the opportunity to enjoy good company and thought provoking conversation in a collegial setting.
If you would like to discuss the strategic values of these ideas to your company or your clients, please email email@example.com.
Thank you to all of our Sponsors for your continued support.