Illustrative scenario

Cut Per-Document Review Cost With a Managed TAR/CAL Workflow

For the Litigation Support Director at an AmLaw-50 firm, per-matter eDiscovery costs between $200K and $2M are driven largely by document review volume — and Technology-Assisted Review is only as efficient as the workflow orchestrating it. When ESI collection, seed-set management, and Active Learning batch decisions run manually, the cost savings promised by TAR often don't materialize in full.

Up and running in ~8 wkFor: Litigation Support Director, AmLaw-50 firm
Estimate your payback
~3 mo
Payback period
$1.4M
Est. savings / year
+$1M
Year-1 net

Rough estimate — change the numbers to match your business. We scope the real figures with you on a call.

Why TAR Implementations Underdeliver on Cost

The theoretical cost reduction from TAR/CAL is well-documented. The practical gap between theory and billing reality comes from the operational layer: coordinating custodian collections across O365 and Google Vault, managing seed-set quality, configuring relevance thresholds, and batching review decisions all require human coordination time that adds up. At $200K–$2M per matter, a significant portion of that spend is funding process management, not legal judgment.

How an AI Agent Runs the TAR/CAL Cycle

An AI Labor Company agent learns the Technology-Assisted Review workflow from your prior ESI protocol negotiation records and historical TAR seed-set review logs, then operates within Relativity Active Learning. The agent initiates document collection from O365 and Google Vault custodians, runs the CAL protocol against the approved seed set, applies the relevance thresholds set by the supervising attorney, and surfaces batch-review decisions for attorney approval before any production document set is generated. The reviewer controls the thresholds; the agent handles the collection, batching, and protocol execution. Full deployment typically runs about eight weeks.

The Revenue and Cost Case for a Managed TAR Agent

The direct metric is per-document review cost reduction — typically 70% when the agent is handling collection coordination and CAL protocol execution rather than a manual team. That translates to margin expansion per matter and the ability to take on higher document volumes without proportional staffing increases. For a firm running multiple concurrent matters with overlapping eDiscovery demands, an agent-managed TAR cycle means the litigation support team's capacity scales with matter intake rather than headcount. The 60–80% reduction in cycle time also means production timelines compress, which reduces the clock-is-running exposure on large, time-sensitive matters.

Questions

Does the agent make production decisions autonomously?

No. The supervising attorney reviews and approves batch-review decisions before any production is generated. The agent executes the CAL protocol and surfaces decisions for human sign-off — production gates stay with counsel.

How does the agent handle custodians who use both O365 and Google Vault?

The agent can initiate collection from both environments in a single matter. Cross-custodian deduplication is handled as part of the collection workflow, and the agent flags any collection gaps or access errors for the litigation support team before processing begins.

What happens when the ESI protocol is renegotiated mid-matter and the TAR parameters change?

Protocol changes are fed back into the agent's configuration by the litigation support team. The agent can re-run the CAL protocol against updated parameters without restarting the collection cycle from scratch, which preserves the work product already generated.

Related use cases

Illustrative scenario for legal & compliance. Figures are example ranges, not guarantees — we scope real numbers with you on a call.

Want this running in your business?

We'll scope an agent for this on a free 15-minute call.

Book a free call