Technology-assisted review is by now established as an appropriate way to meet discovery requirements for litigation and regulatory purposes in most jurisdictions. As with predecessor technologies, TAR has incited debate, filled conference schedules, and appeared in court judgments and opinions. The eDisclosure pilot in England and Wales refers expressly to technology-assisted review and, although the rule’s wording may need a little tidying up, it is clear that the concept is accepted there.
That does not mean that it is easy to make choices. The market has been confused by competing terminology, by rival solutions and, not least, by the development of a second phase of TAR technology called TAR 2.0.
The main perceived benefits of TAR 2.0 put briefly, is that it does not require the training stage needed by the original iterations of this technology. That, however, does not necessarily mean that TAR 1.0 is dead. Or does it?
OpenText has an on-demand webinar called Is TAR 1.0 dead? in which OpenText TAR experts Tom Gricks and Walker Hartz discuss the benefits and pitfalls of TAR 1.0 and TAR 2.0 workflows, and consider the factors to weigh up when selecting the right approach to meet specific review objectives.