header-logo header-logo

01 September 2018 / Kelly Atherton
Categories: Features , Profession , Technology
printer mail-detail

Power tool

828267118-1024x1024

Kelly Atherton discusses how TAR works & why it matters for legal professionals

  • Technology-assisted review tools can support legal professionals in achieving significant time and cost savings.

Technology-assisted review (TAR), an algorithm-based method of classifying documents based on coding input from case subject matter experts (SME), is a powerful tool that can save time and significantly cut costs by reducing the amount of human review needed to locate relevant documents in a data set.  

The adoption of TAR is no longer the exclusive domain of large law firms and Fortune 500 companies. The technology is accessible to mid-size and independent legal practices. However, fear surrounding how this technology works and a lack of understanding of how such technologies can be integrated within existing review workflows is still creating a barrier to adoption for some legal professionals.

How TAR works

TAR, also known as predictive coding, computer-assisted review, or supervised machine learning, is an iterative and interactive process between the SME(s) and the TAR software. The SME reviews and codes electronically stored documents as

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
back-to-top-scroll