Technology Assisted Review or (TAR) has been available as a tool in the e-discovery marketplace for roughly a decade. In those early days, some attorneys viewed TAR as simply a new label for existing smart review strategies. Other attorneys (particularly with risk-averse clients) were slow to embrace a review method that did not include a set of human eyes on every document before it went to government or opposing counsel in a production. Over time, much of the initial debate about the value of TAR fell away, particularly as more judges in U.S. courts identified TAR as the most sensible, efficient, and accurate process to review documents in the era of Big (and growing) Data. Now the discussion has shifted to TAR 2.0 and creating proposed uniform standards for TAR projects as the Duke Law Conference plans to do later this year.
This discussion, while useful and necessary, overlooks the simple and significant fact that many clients and attorneys are still not employing TAR for e-discovery review projects. Given that multiple studies have demonstrated that a TAR review is more accurate than traditional search term and linear attorney reviews, the question is why. Part of the answer may be unfamiliarity with TAR and how it works. Attorneys who have never used TAR are less likely to recommend it to clients, particularly for high-profile, high-risk matters. This represents a missed opportunity to reduce the burden and cost of discovery and to streamline discovery in matters of all size and scope.
