With several million documents to be included in the company’s highly-contentious and fast-approaching litigation, the company's Assistant General Counsel (AGC) knew there had to be a better, faster way to complete the review process. A review of this magnitude would come with a hefty price tag and open the company up to additional risk. To further complicate matters, several members of the legal team, including the general counsel, acted in both a legal and business role within the company, and this “dual role” was a nuance often missed by human reviewers who were conducting the privilege review.
After hearing reports of the sophistication of artificial intelligence (AI) platforms now and their ability to reduce costs by over 50% and reduce risk to near zero, she was very intrigued by Text IQ. On one hand, she wasn’t sure if the company's outside counsel would be up for testing out a new process leading up to a high-stakes litigation - they made it clear they strongly preferred their traditional methods. But on the other hand, this was exactly the situation where her company would incur the biggest benefit from AI. She did know that even the most risk averse legal teams couldn't argue with proven results.
“I knew there had to be a more efficient, reliable way than our current process, which can take up to 8 reviews. But I needed proven results.”
Counsel with Dual Roles
The company and Text IQ agreed that a proof of concept (POC), which ran the AI technology on a sample of data, would be the best way to objectively determine the accuracy gains, as well as the time and cost savings relative to the traditional approach.
The results of the POC astonished the whole team. Not only did the AI prove that it could save thousands of hours and millions of dollars, but the AI was also able to solve the previously intractable problem of distinguishing between when somebody was playing a legal role versus a business role.
After seeing this undeniable evidence, the pharma company and their outside counsel added Text IQ's AI solution to their litigation due to its increased accuracy and ability to tease apart the legal and business roles. With the risks and costs associated with litigation continuing to rise, they could not afford to continue using their traditional review process.