Explainable Text Classification Techniques in Legal Document Review: Locating Rationales without Using Human Annotated Training Text Snippets

US corporations regularly spend millions of dollars reviewing electronically-stored documents in legal matters. Recently, attorneys apply text classification to efficiently cull massive volumes of data to identify responsive documents for use in these matters. While text classification is regularly used to reduce the discovery costs of legal matters, it also faces a perception challenge: amongst lawyers, this technology is sometimes looked upon as a "black box". Put simply, no extra information is provided for attorneys to understand why documents are classified as responsive. In recent years, explainable machine learning has emerged as an active research area. In an explainable machine learning system, predictions or decisions made by a machine learning model are human understandable. In legal 'document review' scenarios, a document is responsive, because one or more of its small text snippets are deemed responsive. In these scenarios, if these responsive snippets can be located, then attorneys could easily evaluate the model's document classification decisions - this is especially important in the field of responsible AI. Our prior research identified that predictive models created using annotated training text snippets improved the precision of a model when compared to a model created using all of a set of documents' text as training. While interesting, manually annotating training text snippets is not generally practical during a legal document review. However, small increases in precision can drastically decrease the cost of large document reviews. Automating the identification of training text snippets without human review could then make the application of training text snippet-based models a practical approach.

CNN Application in Detection of Privileged Documents in Legal Document Review

Protecting privileged communications and data from disclosure is paramount for legal teams. Legal advice, such as attorney-client communications or litigation strategy are typically exempt from disclosure in litigations or regulatory events and are vital to the attorney-client relationship. To protect this information from disclosure, companies and outside counsel often review vast amounts of documents to determine those that contain privileged material. This process is extremely costly and time consuming. As data volumes increase, legal counsel normally employs methods to reduce the number of documents requiring review while balancing the need to ensure the protection of privileged information. Keyword searching is relied upon as a method to target privileged information and reduce document review populations. Keyword searches are effective at casting a wide net but often return overly inclusive results - most of which do not contain privileged information. To overcome the weaknesses of keyword searching, legal teams increasingly are using machine learning techniques to target privileged information. In these studies, classic text classification techniques are applied to build classification models to identify privileged documents. In this paper, the authors propose a different method by applying machine learning / convolutional neural network techniques (CNN) to identify privileged documents. Our proposed method combines keyword searching with CNN. For each keyword term, a CNN model is created using the context of the occurrences of the keyword. In addition, a method was proposed to select reliable privileged (positive) training keyword occurrences from labeled positive training documents. Extensive experiments were conducted, and the results show that the proposed methods can significantly reduce false positives while still capturing most of the true positives.

A Framework for Explainable Text Classification in Legal Document Review

Companies regularly spend millions of dollars producing electronically-stored documents in legal matters. Recently, parties on both sides of the 'legal aisle' are accepting the use of machine learning techniques like text classification to cull massive volumes of data and to identify responsive documents for use in these matters. While text classification is regularly used to reduce the discovery costs in legal matters, it also faces a peculiar perception challenge: amongst lawyers, this technology is sometimes looked upon as a "black box", little information provided for attorneys to understand why documents are classified as responsive. In recent years, a group of AI and ML researchers have been actively researching Explainable AI, in which actions or decisions are human understandable. In legal document review scenarios, a document can be identified as responsive, if one or more of its text snippets are deemed responsive. In these scenarios, if text classification can be used to locate these snippets, then attorneys could easily evaluate the model's classification decision. When deployed with defined and explainable results, text classification can drastically enhance overall quality and speed of the review process by reducing the review time. Moreover, explainable predictive coding provides lawyers with greater confidence in the results of that supervised learning task. This paper describes a framework for explainable text classification as a valuable tool in legal services: for enhancing the quality and efficiency of legal document review and for assisting in locating responsive snippets within responsive documents. This framework has been implemented in our legal analytics product, which has been used in hundreds of legal matters. We also report our experimental results using the data from an actual legal matter that used this type of document review.

Evaluation of Seed Set Selection Approaches and Active Learning Strategies in Predictive Coding

Active learning is a popular methodology in text classification - known in the legal domain as "predictive coding" or "Technology Assisted Review" or "TAR" - due to its potential to minimize the required review effort to build effective classifiers. In this study, we use extensive experimentation to examine the impact of popular seed set selection strategies in active learning, within a predictive coding exercise, and evaluate different active learning strategies against well-researched continuous active learning strategies for the purpose of determining efficient training methods for classifying large populations quickly and precisely. We study how random sampling, keyword models and clustering based seed set selection strategies combined together with top-ranked, uncertain, random, recall inspired, and hybrid active learning document selection strategies affect the performance of active learning for predictive coding. We use the percentage of documents requiring review to reach 75% recall as the "benchmark" metric to evaluate and compare our approaches. In most cases we find that seed set selection methods have a minor impact, though they do show significant impact in lower richness data sets or when choosing a top-ranked active learning selection strategy. Our results also show that active learning selection strategies implementing uncertainty, random, or 75% recall selection strategies has the potential to reach the optimum active learning round much earlier than the popular continuous active learning approach (top-ranked selection). The results of our research shed light on the impact of active learning seed set selection strategies and also the effectiveness of the selection strategies for the following learning rounds. Legal practitioners can use the results of this study to enhance the efficiency, precision, and simplicity of their predictive coding process.