Tiff (Paper Image) v. Native Review: Join the Debate
My blog this week is entitled: Plato’s Cave: why most lawyers love paper and hate e-discovery and what this means to the future of legal education. For some reason people keep calling it a rant. I think of it more as an essay on philosophy and e-discovery. Anyway, it has provoked some good debate on education and the future of the legal profession, as I had hoped, but also some debate on the age old issue (yeah, like for months now) of Tiff versus Native review. Check out especially the comments at the end of the Plato's Cave blog.
I know many of the other contributers to EDD have strong opinions on this subject. I'd like to hear them, either here or added to my blog. The vast majority in the e-discovery business still seem to be in love with image reviews, but I think its an extra expense designed primarily to comfort old lawyers used to working with papers. My God, how else can we add a Bates stamp!? Come on. Its usefulness is outlived. I know many vendors make a tidy sum off of those Tiffing charges, but really now, is it necessary to flatten out all of the ESI you get? Or is that primarily a function of outdated software and practices?
In my view, you should only Tiff out a computer file if you need to partially redact it. What do you think? (By the way, in the interest of fairness, I will assume that no response is an indication of total agreement.)