In this post, Joe Pirrotta of ProSearch discusses the “Goldilocks Matter” and the pitfalls of waiting for that “just right” case.

In his blog post titled (wait for it!) The Goldilocks Matter (available here), Joe discusses how AI adoption stalls without anyone meaning to stall it. The decision is never really no; it is “not here,” “not yet,” or “after we finish this matter.” Sometimes that is completely reasonable. A population is already scoped. An ESI protocol is already approved. A review team is already moving. No one wants to reopen the plan two weeks before a deadline just to prove a point about innovation. The problem is what happens next: the deferral becomes the operating model.

Joe states that what we are really waiting for is the Goldilocks matter: the right team, with the right knowledge, facing the right amount in controversy, on the right data set. The matter has to be large enough for the result to make a difference, but not so visible that nobody wants to be first. It has to be early enough that the workflow is not already locked, but mature enough that the team understands the population, the issues, and the risk tolerance. By the time the next possible matter opens, one of those variables has usually moved.

So, what are the pitfalls of waiting for the “Goldilocks Matter”? Find out here, it’s only one click! Don’t be caught sleeping! 😉

So, what do you think? Is your organization embracing AI? Or are they waiting for that perfect case to try it? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using DALL-E 3, using the term “robot lawyer that looks like Goldilocks”.

Disclosure: ProSearch is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.