There has been a recent groundswell of judicial support for the use of technology-assisted review. But TAR’s acceptance as a viable electronic data discovery tool remains fragile. If parties without knowledge of appropriate validation techniques employ TAR irresponsibly, they may obtain questionable results that erode judicial support for TAR. Standards and best practices for the application of TAR would be invaluable for the legal community.
These standards must recognize, however, that TAR is variable; no single formula will deliver optimal results for every case. Indeed, “optimal” must be defined with respect to the specific matter under consideration. Proportionality should be a guiding principle in the evaluation of TAR performance, along with the specific matter’s goals, budgetary constraints, deadlines, and workflow. Additionally, any proposed standards must be sufficiently adaptable to allow for variation in the success criteria for TAR depending on the application — e.g., the application of definitive first-level coding decisions versus simple document review prioritization or targeted quality control applications alone.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
