M

Muckle LLP

Muckle LLP cuts manual document review workload 95% with technology assisted review

Curated & reviewed by Peter Korpak, Founder & Chief Analyst, 100SignalsHow we verify
95%Manual Review Workload Reduction
Completed 2 weeks ahead of deadlineDisclosure Timeline
~35,000 of 660,000 documentsDocuments Flagged Responsive

Vendor-reported figures — source: bestpractice.ai

The Challenge

Muckle LLP, a commercial law firm based in Newcastle upon Tyne, faced a breach of warranty dispute for an aerospace client involving roughly one million documents and a looming production deadline. The dense mix of complex contracts, financial models, and spreadsheets threatened to overwhelm manual review without compromising quality or straining the client's resources.

The Solution

Muckle engaged Advanced Discovery's eReview service to run Technology Assisted Review (TAR/predictive coding) on the Relativity platform. Advanced Discovery first culled the data set using near-duplicate analysis, domain parsing, and concept clustering to strip out non-responsive files, then trained the TAR model through iterative rounds of Muckle attorney coding decisions, validated by quality-control checks.

Results

After culling, the working set stood at 660,000 documents; TAR identified approximately 35,000 of them as likely responsive, meaning 95% of the set was defensibly excluded from manual review. The Muckle team completed disclosure preparation two weeks ahead of its deadline.

Key Takeaways

  • Predictive coding, paired with iterative QC validation rounds, can defensibly eliminate the vast majority of a document set from manual review without sacrificing quality.
  • Pre-TAR culling (near-duplicate analysis, domain parsing, concept clustering) removes non-responsive volume before predictive coding training even starts.
  • TAR can compress eDiscovery timelines enough to beat court deadlines by weeks, not just reduce review cost.

Share:

Details

Industry
Law Firms
Company Size
MidMarket
Company
Muckle LLP
Quality
Curated
Source published
Apr 12, 2018
Last verified
Jul 28, 2026

Have a similar implementation?

Share your customer's AI results and link it to your vendor profile.

Submit a case study →