Document Review System and Method

• US 20090106239A1
• Filed: 10/17/2008
• Published: 04/23/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 10/19/2007
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Huron Consulting Group Incorporated
• Original Assignee: Huron Consulting Group Incorporated
• Inventors: Getner, Christopher E., Rowe, Robert D.
• Application Number:
  US12/253,508
• Publication Number:
  US 20090106239A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/35 Clustering; Classification
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management

Abstract

A system and method for reviewing electronic documents. The method may include the step of using a computing device to rate a document'"'"'s relevancy to a concept. Depending on the document'"'"'s relevancy rating, the document could be routed to either substantive review personnel or relevancy review personnel. If the relevancy rating indicates that the document is likely relevant to the concept, the document is routed to substantive review personnel for substantive analysis. If the relevancy rating indicates that the document is likely irrelevant to the concept, the document is routed to relevancy review personnel to confirm whether the document is irrelevant to the concept. If the relevancy review personnel determine that the document is likely relevant to the concept, the document is rerouted to the substantive review personnel for substantive analysis.

Claims

1. A method for efficiently analyzing electronic data using a processor, the method comprising the steps of:

rating the relevancy of an electronic data collection based on a set of criteria using a processor;

arranging the electronic data collection into a first data set that is rated likely relevant and a second data set that is rated likely irrelevant using the processor;

routing the first data set to one or more substantive review personnel, wherein the substantive review personnel have been trained to substantively review data in the first data set;

routing the second data set to one or more relevancy review personnel, wherein the relevancy review personnel have been trained to verify whether data in the second data set is likely irrelevant to the set of criteria; and

routing a data element in the second data set from the relevancy review personnel to the substantive review personnel in the event that the relevancy review personnel determines that the data element is not likely irrelevant to the set of criteria.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the rating step rates the relevancy of the electronic data collection based on a conceptual search.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the processor clusters conceptually-related data elements in the electronic data collection based on the conception search.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the substantive review personnel are arranged into groups and wherein the first data set is conceptually clustered and routed so that conceptually-related data elements are primarily reviewed by the same group.

5. The method of claim 2, wherein the processor rates a plurality of data elements in the electronic data collection as to a plurality of concepts.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to retrieve one or more data elements in the electronic data collection that have a substantially similar rating as a selected data element.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of monitoring an amount of data elements that are routed from the relevancy review personnel to the substantive review personnel.

8. The method of claim 7, further comprising the step of providing an alert if the amount of data elements that is routed from the relevancy review personnel to the substantive review personnel exceeds a threshold amount.

9. The method of claim 7, wherein the threshold amount is a percentage of data elements routed from the relevancy review personnel to the substantive review personnel as to a total amount of data elements in the second data set reviewed by the relevancy review personnel.

10. The method of claim 7, further comprising the step of adjusting the set of criteria if the amount of data elements routed from the relevancy review personnel to the substantive review personnel exceeds a threshold amount.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one data element in the second data set is routed to relevancy review personnel who are located outside the United States.

12. A data processing system comprising:

means for rating the relevancy of an electronic data collection based on a set of criteria;

means for arranging the electronic data collection into a first data set that is rated likely relevant and a second data set that is rated likely irrelevant;

means for routing the first data set to one or more substantive review personnel, wherein the substantive review personnel have been trained to substantively review data in the first data set; and

means for routing the second data set to one or more relevancy review personnel, wherein the relevancy review personnel have been trained to verify whether data in the second data set is likely irrelevant to the set of criteria;

means for routing a data element in the second data set from the relevancy review personnel to the substantive review personnel in the event that the relevancy review personnel determines that the data element is not likely irrelevant to the set of criteria.

13. A method for efficiently analyzing electronic data using a processor, the method comprising the steps of:

rating relevancy of data elements in an electronic data collection based on one or more issues relevant to an adversarial proceeding;

assigning review of data elements rated as likely relevant to at least one of the issues to one or more substantive review personnel for substantive analysis;

tagging data elements responsive to input received from substantive review personnel as to at least one of;

attorney/client privilege, work product protection, or responsiveness to discovery requests;

assigning review of data elements rated as likely irrelevant to relevancy review personnel for confirmation concerning irrelevancy; and

reassigning review of a data element from the relevancy review personnel to the substantive review personnel responsive to input received from the relevancy review personnel indicating that the data element is not irrelevant.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein the rating step is performed, at least in part, by a concept search engine.

15. The method of claim 13, further comprising the step of training the relevancy review personnel bow to determine whether a data element is irrelevant, wherein the training step includes a requirement that relevancy review personnel accurately determine relevancy of a sample data set.

16. The method of claim 15, further comprising the step of training the substantive review personnel how to code a data element for substantive issues concerning the adversarial proceeding, including a requirement that substantive review personnel accurately determine substantive issues, including attorney/client privilege and work product protection, for a sample data set.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the relevancy review personnel are not trained to detect attorney/client privilege and work product protection of data elements.

18. The method of claim 13, further comprising the step of establishing one or more qualification requirements for the substantive review personnel and the relevancy review personnel, wherein the qualification requirements for substantive review personnel has a higher educational requirement than the relevancy review personnel.

19. The method of claim 18, wherein the qualification requirements for substantive review personnel include a valid license to practice law in a U.S. state, wherein the relevancy review personnel are not required to have a valid license to practice law in a U.S. state.

20. A document review system comprising:

a concept search module configured to rate a document'"'"'s relevancy to a concept;

a work flow module configured to route the document to substantive review personnel if the document'"'"'s relevancy rating exceeds a predetermined relevancy rating and route the document to relevancy review personnel if the document'"'"'s relevancy rating falls below the predetermined relevancy rating; and

wherein the work flow module is configured to reroute the document to the substantive review personnel if the relevancy review personnel determines that the document is likely relevant to the concept.

21. The document review system of claim 20, further comprising an analysis module configured to evaluate a rate at which documents are rerouted by the work flow module.