I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are,the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorant!
The leading paragraph was provided through the kind permission of attorneys William E. Hoffman and Alex Lubarsky, two of my colleagues on the LPMT Executive Committee.
I attended their excellent presentation about document production Sunday morning at the State Bar annual meeting. Two hours and 100 or so slides later, the attendees walked away with a better understanding of the challenges we face as we try to find the needle in the digital haystack – and how failing to competently undertake these practices may result in serious consequences for the lawyers, their firms and the clients.
Precision is key to what we do; this is one area upon which both lawyers and IT professionals agree. The problem is, in the e-discovery universe, perfection may be imperfect. Luckily, I'm one step ahead – I was never perfect.
…of course, I'd never admit that in public…