Legal Updates

ChatGPT and E-Discovery: Match Made in Heaven or Rocky Roads Ahead?

Russell Beets August 7th, 2023
ChatGPT

Previously, I co-authored a two-part post on the advantages and disadvantages of using Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) in E-Discovery document reviews. These articles can be found here and here. TAR helps attorneys during the review phase of E-Discovery by deploying algorithms that can quickly classify documents based on training provided by expert reviewers. TAR can provide statistics, categorizations, and reporting information that a human reviewer simply could not do in a timely manner. The main takeaway from the previous articles was that TAR was not created to replace standard reviewing processes and protocols but instead was intended to streamline those processes so that reviews are more accurate, timely, and efficient. Of course, new technologies are being created and utilized every year. The most significant developments lately are the rise of chatbots - software applications that allow for online chat conversation via text or text-to-speech, without any direct contact with a human operator. Currently, the chatbot garnering the most attention is OpenAI’s ChatGPT program. This article will focus on this technology and how it works either for or against the E-Discovery review process.

What Is ChatGPT?

ChatGPT is a chatbot that is powered by an artificial intelligence (AI)-based language model. The GPT stands for generative pre-trained transformer, which in turn is a group of language models being trained on Large Language Model (LLM) sets. These LLMs are the main difference between it and current E-Discovery TAR programs. This tool is capable of answering complicated questions and responding in a conversational manner. It generates its responses based on predicting the most likely sequence of words based on information that has already been inputted. In fact, ChatGPT has already been trained by analyzing over 350 billion words extracted from the Internet and book collections. ChatGPT’s knowledge is so vast, it reportedly was able to pass an MBA entrance test as well as a medical licensing exam.

As we all know, E-Discovery can be a time-consuming, arduous, and costly process. Finding any way to help streamline this process is welcome. Current E-Discovery practices generally involve some form of keyword searching to decrease the document population for human reviewers to oversee. Also, in certain instances, the use of predictive coding or TAR is employed to further narrow that document population.  Of course, the use of TAR still requires a human being to input documents into the algorithm which takes time and is prone to human error. Could the use of ChatGPT help solve these problems? As with any new technology there are going to be advantages and disadvantages.

Potential Advantages of Using ChatGPT in E-Discovery

While unproven, there are potential advantages of using ChatGPT in E-Discovery.

  • Early case assessment: ChatGPT could potentially be used to quickly go through the relevant document universe and uncover patterns, trends, create timelines, and provide information on the strengths and weaknesses of the case. This information could be useful in determining strategy and perhaps guide settlement negotiations.
  • Organization: There is nothing more frustrating than combing through a sea of documents without having a clear picture of the important themes of the case. ChatGPT could potentially be used to sift through mounds of data and organize and cluster documents according to various patterns, themes, and issues. This aids lawyers in understanding the important issues and gets the most relevant documents in front of their eyes.
  • Streamlining reviews: By separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak, finding the documents that are most relevant to the case helps focus the review team and prioritizes and categorizes the documents. Using ChatGPT could potentially results in less human hours, which means lower review costs as well as an increase in effectiveness and efficiency.
  • Email threading and near-duplicate detection: ChatGPT could potentially be utilized to group all iterations of an email thread together, and with its ability to quickly identify issues, concepts, and themes, can make this process much more efficient. Also, it could potentially group documents that are similar or somewhat similar together as well, helping attorneys to be able to quickly review these sets in a more consistent manner.
  • Continuous Active Learning: ChatGPT could potentially also be used to augment current TAR processes, by providing a more accurate way to train the system to locate and identify important documents based on documents identified by the case team.

Potential Disadvantages of Using ChatGPT in E-Discovery

As with any technology, ChatGPT comes with pros and cons. The pros of using ChatGPT in E-Discovery are theoretical and unproven. However, we can foresee some clear potential disadvantages of the technology as well.

  • Cost: Currently, ChatGPT is not free, and OpenAI is currently charging based on the number of words and punctuation that you submit, which could become cost prohibitive depending on the volume of material.
  • Security concerns: Also currently, ChatGPT is housed at OpenAI and would require the client documents to be sent to OpenAI for processing. This brings up data security issues that many clients would not be willing to risk.
  • Lawyers are still needed: While the technology is certainly impressive in its speed and accuracy, it will still need lawyers to oversee the E-Discovery process. Lawyers will still have to make privilege calls and some relevance calls. ChatGPT may be more suited for a first pass of the documents, leaving the second level review to the attorneys.
  • Ethical concerns: With new technology, attorneys will have to consider the issues of client confidentiality as well as attorney-client privilege. By inputting client information into ChatGPT, there is the real possibility of waiving attorney-client privilege. As with any new technology, it is imperative that attorneys keep their clients well-informed about any risks and get informed consent.

Conclusion

As with current predictive coding processes, these advanced technological advances are designed to help improve the efficiency of certain E-Discovery tasks. By streamlining the processes, technology cuts down the time needed to review and process information, and ultimately cuts down costs. However, even with these advances, these technologies will certainly not replace the need for lawyers. Ultimately, there is no replacement for human expertise and judgment; these tools are merely meant to aid in the process.

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this blog is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. For more information about these issues, please contact the author(s) of this blog or your existing LitSmart contact. The invitation to contact the author is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new attorney/client relationship will be confirmed in writing.

 

Topics: E-Discovery Best Practices KT LitSmart LitSmart KTLitSmart ChatGPT Ethical Duties Data Security Email threading Analytics E-Discovery Technology E-Discovery Document Review Document Review Best Practices Early Case Assessment A.I.

Subscribe to the E-Discovery Newsletter

Related Posts

  • Planting the Seeds of Accountability for Spoliation Sanctions

    When seeking sanctions for spoliated evidence, the nature of the evidence and your jurisdiction can play a pivotal role. Are you in state or federal court? Is the missing evidence electronically stored information or not? The same facts and circumstances could yield vastly different outcomes depending on the answers to those questions. It is important to recognize up front, at the start of your case, how your jurisdiction may impact discovery issues that could arise later down the road so that you can plan accordingly. In the case in this post, while the court did not ultimately affirm the imposition of an adverse jury instruction for spoliation of evidence, it did find a duty to preserve existed based not only on the parties’ contract, but on evidence the party in question had promised to preserve such evidence. By contrast, the insurers failed to demonstrate that same party owed them a duty to preserve. 

  • You’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat: Data Management and E Discovery Strategy

    “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

    This iconic line was uttered by Chief Brody in the 1975 blockbuster film Jaws when he first saw the massive size of the shark they were trying to catch. At that moment, Brody realized they were in completely over their heads, and the boat they had was not big enough to accomplish their task. While Quint’s Orca fishing boat and his traditional methods were capable of handling previous assignments, they were not going to be enough to take on the enormous shark they were chasing. 

    For better or worse, the digital environment we live in has resulted in an explosion in the number of documents and amount of information created and used by companies in their daily operations. A mid-sized company’s internal emails alone can run into the tens of thousands a day, and that is before factoring in reports, meeting minutes, studies, presentations, and other business documents. Adding in external emails and related attachments, you are looking at millions of documents a year. Because of this increased volume of data, companies dealing with potential litigation must adjust accordingly. 

    Like Brody, they need a bigger boat. An effective e-discovery strategy can provide companies with a bigger boat capable of handling even the most massive litigation matters.

Newest Posts

  • Planting the Seeds of Accountability for Spoliation Sanctions

    When seeking sanctions for spoliated evidence, the nature of the evidence and your jurisdiction can play a pivotal role. Are you in state or federal court? Is the missing evidence electronically stored information or not? The same facts and circumstances could yield vastly different outcomes depending on the answers to those questions. It is important to recognize up front, at the start of your case, how your jurisdiction may impact discovery issues that could arise later down the road so that you can plan accordingly. In the case in this post, while the court did not ultimately affirm the imposition of an adverse jury instruction for spoliation of evidence, it did find a duty to preserve existed based not only on the parties’ contract, but on evidence the party in question had promised to preserve such evidence. By contrast, the insurers failed to demonstrate that same party owed them a duty to preserve. 

  • You’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat: Data Management and E Discovery Strategy

    “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

    This iconic line was uttered by Chief Brody in the 1975 blockbuster film Jaws when he first saw the massive size of the shark they were trying to catch. At that moment, Brody realized they were in completely over their heads, and the boat they had was not big enough to accomplish their task. While Quint’s Orca fishing boat and his traditional methods were capable of handling previous assignments, they were not going to be enough to take on the enormous shark they were chasing. 

    For better or worse, the digital environment we live in has resulted in an explosion in the number of documents and amount of information created and used by companies in their daily operations. A mid-sized company’s internal emails alone can run into the tens of thousands a day, and that is before factoring in reports, meeting minutes, studies, presentations, and other business documents. Adding in external emails and related attachments, you are looking at millions of documents a year. Because of this increased volume of data, companies dealing with potential litigation must adjust accordingly. 

    Like Brody, they need a bigger boat. An effective e-discovery strategy can provide companies with a bigger boat capable of handling even the most massive litigation matters.

  • Now You See Me, Now You Don’t: Ephemeral Messaging Challenges

    The emergence of ephemeral messaging applications to communicate with friends, family, and coworkers quickly, securely, and effortlessly has boomed over the past decade. In that time, users of ephemeral messaging apps have risen significantly, from millions to billions of active users! Ephemeral messaging is an integral and evolving part of both individual and company communications with advantages and challenges impacting companies and the legal industry. Companies must consider the ramifications of their employees' use of ephemeral messaging and adopt policies and procedures to best protect themselves and comply with requirements relating to litigation and regulation. Courts have already begun addressing the failure to preserve relevant ephemeral messages and have been issuing sanctions in a myriad of legal challenges. Ephemeral messaging is here to stay, and companies, courts, and attorneys must understand and adapt to evolve with this emerging technology.