Why isn’t Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) being used more?  After all, it’s been court approved for over nine years now, thanks to Judge Andrew Peck’s ruling in the Da Silva Moore case.  But, in the eDiscovery Today 2021 State of the Industry report, only 31.1% of respondents said they use TAR in all or most of their cases, while 32.8% of respondents said they use it in very few or none of their cases.  Why don’t more lawyers use TAR?  According to an article by H5, it may be a matter of learning to trust TAR.

The article Why do Lawyers Demand More Transparency with TAR? discusses that one possible reason that lawyers avoid the use of TAR is that requesting parties often demand more transparency with a TAR process than they do with a process involving keyword search and manual review.  That very same Judge Peck – who is now retired as a judge and now Senior Counsel with DLA Piper (and my monthly case law webinar partner to boot) – said this in the State of the Industry report: “Part of the problem remains requesting parties that seek such extensive involvement in the process and overly complex verification that responding parties are discouraged from using TAR.”

So, why do lawyers expect that they are entitled to more transparency with TAR?  Is it a matter of learning to trust TAR?  Perhaps a better question might be: why do they demand less transparency for keyword search and manual review?  Check out H5’s article here to find out and also to see how many of them are already using machine learning technology in their daily lives in many ways.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that most lawyers trust TAR?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclosure: This is a sponsored post by H5

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.