Altlaw takes all possible steps to ensure accurate and consistent coding of documents, however as litigation coding is a subjective process, we strongly advise our clients to undertake their own second pass review, consisting of documents marked as relevant by Altlaw to ensure that they are satisfied with both the relevant and privilege designations.
Detailed below is the methodology that Altlaw follows to maximise the efficiency of the review. If you would like any amendments to this methodology then please communicate this to your review manager in writing.
1. Client provides Altlaw with a briefing note. This note should contain detailed information on which aspects of a document the team should consider when designating a document Relevant, and how Privileged designation is determined, along with any Issue coding which needs to be applied.
2. The Review team work through the note and questions are collated, the reviewers work through this as a team to encourage collaborative work. The client working on the matter will be invited to our offices to work through any questions the team has, if that is not possible then a teleconference is advised.
3. The review team begin the review. Ideally a member of the client’s team would be on-site to address any questions for the first day or so, if not a query log is maintained and example documents are provided to the client to confirm coding decisions and explain why decisions have been made.
4. If the client is on-site for the beginning of the review a query log will be sent through daily after the client leaves.
5. Client feedback is communicated to the team by the way of saved searches within Relativity, with the client expected to make comments on the queried corporate document services.
6. After an initial 2-3 days of review an agreed sample of documents are taken from the documents reviewed to date. Typically this is between 10-20%.
7. This sample is batched out to the Altlaw reviewers within the team and a peer QC is actioned.
8. Feedback and conferring is encouraged between the team to explain why decisions have been made.
9. Once the samples are complete analysis of any changes made is collated.
10. Any ambiguous documents are added to the query log sent to the client at the end of each day for confirmation of designation.
11. Feedback is given to the team of reviewers and if required induvial team members.
12. The process of peer to peer QC continues until requested otherwise by the client.
Disclaimer: the above text outlines Altlaw’s recommended methodology regarding peer-to-peer QC. If any client wishes to depart from this recommended methodology then we require written explicit instructions from the client to this effect. Altlaw take no liability for results produced from any methodology that differs from our recommended process.
Contact us today to find out more about Altlaw’s Managed Review services.
