With technology-assisted review (TAR) gaining judicial support, practitioners now face the next hurdle: defending its accuracy and reliability.
TAR is something of a misnomer, however. Left to its own devices, the TAR algorithm would remain a black box that yields inexplicable results. The best way to achieve transparency is to leverage the know-how of experienced lawyers and other experts who can establish sound processes and work with opposing counsel to preempt disputes. As Judge Andrew Peck stated in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, such transparency “allows the opposing side to be more comfortable with computer-assisted review and reduces fears about the so-called black box of the technology.”
2. Establish a review methodology.
In any TAR undertaking, lawyers most familiar with the case first review a sample data set for responsiveness and privilege. The software then applies the coding from the sample across the entire population, applying statistical sampling and quality control techniques to refine its algorithm, which improves the responsiveness score given to each document. The document scores can then be used to prioritize review. Establishing sound processes and a defensible methodology requires a team of appropriate experts, including: