Previous Document

                                                                        [PP61] 
(xi)    Ability to create synonym lists particular to each matter litigated.
   
The most systematic available discussion of the desirable features of
transcript retrieval software is Staudt and Keane (1992) 8:01 - 8:31. They
distinguish between free text retrieval software which treats transcript as
one long block for each day's transcript ('long text systems'), and that which
automatically breaks up transcript into manageable 'chunks' (usually pages of
transcript or question and answer pairs) and automatically attaches data in
fields such as witness name, testimony date and page number to each 'chunk'
('chunking' systems). Whichever approach is used, they consider that the
performance of 'raw' free text retrieval is inadequate (low recall and lack of
precision) unless the software also has facilities which 'allows users to add
index terms, exhibit cross-references, legal issue codes, event dates and
lawyer's notes to discrete digests or blocks of text'. These features 'improve
search accuracy considerably' and allow more effective screen and printed
displays. In the terms we have used previously (Chapter 2), Staudt and Keane
are arguing for the necessity to use some form of hybrid database and free
text retrieval system.

Reference to Staudt and Keane (1992) indicates the complex issues involved in
the informed choice of transcript retrieval software. For example, it is
difficult to decide what is the most suitable 'chunk' of transcript to regard
as the unit of retrieval. The page-by-page approach and question and answer
pairs approach both have problems with combinations of search terms which
straddle these artificial boundaries (see 8:13). Alternatives such as the
whole evidence of a single witness, or all questions from a single source,
require consideration. Different programs address the question in very
different ways. This is just one illustration of the numerous criteria which
may be used to evaluate transcript retrieval software, criteria which are most
comprehensively collected in the ABA Legal Technology Resource Center's Draft
Guidelines for Litigation Support Software (Staudt and Keane (1992), Appendix
C).


Programs used for retrieving transcript


We list below a number of the more commonly used programs for retrieving
transcript, with an indication of some of their users. We have not attempted
to evaluate the features of these programs against desired features for
transcript retrieval. The information on usage provided here is not
systematic, being drawn from our own discussions with a limited range of users
of the software, and from information provided by only some of the suppliers
of software mentioned. In some cases, it is possible that the organisations
mentioned have purchased the software but do not make active use of it for
litigation support.

ISYS is used by some members of the NSW judiciary, the District Court of
Victoria, the Commonwealth, Victorian, South Australian, NSW, WA and
Queensland DPPs, the Attorney-General's Departments in four States, the NSW
Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Commonwealth, NSW, Victorian
and South Australian Police, the National Crime Authority and the Australian
Securities Commission. It is sold through wide distribution channels and no
doubt has many other users in the legal profession. ISYS may be the most
widely used transcript retrieval program in Australia.

The Corporate Retriever is used by NSW DPP, the Queensland Justice Department,
the Commonwealth, Queensland and NSW Justice Departments, the Police
Departments of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, Victorian legal aid
agencies, and quite a few firms of solicitors. It is also used by the Serious
Fraud Office in the United Kingdom.

                                                            Next Document