Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C a n a D I a n L a w y e r m a g . c o m J a n u a r y 2 0 1 5 19 assume other electronic systems that hold information poten- tially required for litigation have been designed the same way. They haven't. For example, searching in Google works a lot differently than searching in Westlaw. Choose a Boolean search and try it in both and explore the difference. More- over, most other applications, including computer operating systems, e-mail systems, and other common productivity applications, are not really designed for keyword search, or may have very limited keyword search capabilities. Test this yourself, for example, on Facebook. You'll see search works differently there than in Google or Outlook. It follows that it is risky to assume you can perform key- word searches in a client's particular computer system and that collection or e-discovery within that system that relies on keywords may yield inaccurate results. I am frequently surprised that lawyers agree opposing counsel can have their clients do keyword searches in on-site computer systems as a way of locating potentially responsive documents without understanding what systems those are, how they search, and the limitations of the search capabilities. A series of questions need to be asked by lawyers before collection by keywords is validated as good strategy. The search functionality within enterprise systems is improving, and some systems are quite good, but understand what you are dealing with before you implement any collection or cull- ing strategy based only on keywords. The best news? Lawyers should understand search need no longer be limited to keywords within a curated population. Now, various forms of search are available within e-discovery applications if the data is processed (treated and prepared to be used in e-discovery platforms). There are great tools avail- able now, all bundled under the term "analytics." For example: E-mail threading takes e-mails and pulls related conversa- tions in a string together. Threading is very helpful in seeing how an e-mail conversation unfolds, who was copied and blind copied on e-mails, whether there was any splintering in the conversation, and who might have been forwarded any or part of the string. E-mail threading will work even when people are dropped off chains, or where the subject line was changed. Domain searching or alias searching quickly pulls out every e-mail address and every domain, so you can quickly see whose e-mails you have. This can be very helpful in rec- onciling the identity of a person to a single e-mail address. Alternatively: want to search for any person or e-mail from a certain domain, like @yahoo.com or a particular law firm? Easy: just search on the domain field for the domain you are looking for. Domain search features can really help on privi- lege review. Concept searching is a search feature that pulls up related concepts to a word or phrase. It is more powerful than a synonym detector. For example, suppose your case was about dogs. Searching for dog or its variants will get you some good results, but a concept search will pull together dog-themed things, such as walks, ball, and kibble. Those additional con- cepts could prove helpful. Concept searching does not work exactly like keywords though, so make sure you get properly and fully trained on its use, or you might get frustrated the first time you use it. Finally, near-duplicate detection can pull together related documents. This feature can help to quickly locate similar documents, for example drafts or versions of documents. Many applications also have a redline function that can show you the difference between near duplicates. I have also used this feature to find standard forms for mass or bulk tagging. Some technologies have variants of near duplication where you can highlight a paragraph or word snippet and find related items in other documents; when combined with con- cept searching, these search features can be very effective at locating hot documents. My advice to lawyers embarking on e-discovery is this: don't needlessly narrow your search tools. Educate yourself on options and be smarter about how you find information related to your case. Search does not need to be limited to keywords and the brute force of reviewing all the hits gener- ated by a keyword search. Understanding search can help you recover some of the elegance of yesteryear, but with the com- puter returning the hot documents, so you can get on with the job of building your case. Dera J. Nevin is the director of e-discovery services at Proskauer Rose LLP. The opinions in this article are entirely her own. CONNECT WITH IN-HOUSE COUNSEL COLLEAGUES AT LEXPERT.CA/CCCA Check out in-house counsel's best networking tool! The 2014/15 Lexpert CCCA/ACCJE Directory & Yearbook online edition is a user-friendly, outstanding key resource for all in-house counsel. Access more than 4,000 listees, more than RUJDQL]DWLRQV´QGIUHVKHGLWRULDOFRQWHQW and information on deals and links to important resources. ANYWHERE. ANYTIME. ON ANY DEVICE. COMING SOON ntitled-2 1 2014-12-16 1:05 PM

• Cover