header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Power tool

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
01 September 2018 / Kelly Atherton
Categories: Features , Profession , Technology
printer mail-detail
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll