Are GenAI and TAR competitive or complementary in eDiscovery? Greg Moreman of Level Legal provides his thoughts in this article!

The article in ALM’s Law Journal Newsletters, titled (wait for it!) GenAI and TAR: How Seemingly Competitive Technologies Are Complementary Tools (available here), discusses that, as generative AI (GenAI) gains traction, legal teams face a new challenge: creating a technology stack that offers the best balance of efficiency, cost and usability.

Greg states that GenAI holds enormous promise to reshape eDiscovery and beyond; yet most tools are still in their early stages and require practitioners to carefully consider their value, reliability, defensibility, and cost. In practice, Greg contends that GenAI has yet to surpass Technology Assisted Review (TAR) in efficiency or defensibility. And he states that many platforms are expensive and unproven, with one survey finding that 85% of GenAI initiatives fail, often due to faulty processes and use cases or insufficient validation.

Right now, the decision isn’t an either/or, Greg says. Legal teams should view TAR and GenAI as complementary tools, each with distinct cost and usability profiles. TAR continues to provide a predictable, cost-effective, and defensible foundation, while GenAI holds considerable promise as it evolves and improves rapidly. The smart step moving forward is for attorneys to stay abreast of new technologies and experiment to improve and streamline their work.

So, why does TAR remain a key tool (for now)? How could GenAI disrupt traditional TAR? And what’s the human role in this? Find out here, it’s only one click! The article is complementary to this brief intro! 😉

So, what do you think? Do you agree that GenAI and TAR are complementary? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using GPT-4’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot holding a chocolate and vanilla swirl ice cream cone”.

Disclosure: Level Legal is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

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.