Law Commons^™

Technology Assisted Review (Tar) Guidelines, Bolch Judicial Institute

Bolch Judicial Institute Publications

In the winter of 2016, more than 50 e-discovery experts volunteered to develop and draft guidelines providing guidance to the bench and bar on the use of technology assisted review (TAR).

This document explains the TAR process and offers “best practices,” which are intended to provide a protocol on whether and under what conditions TAR should be used. It provides a strong record and roadmap for the bench and bar, which explain and support the use of TAR in appropriate cases.

As with any group product of this nature, where some consensus must be reached, the drafters and other participants …

The Challenge Of Seeing Justice Done In Removal Proceedings, Jason A. Cade

Scholarly Works

Prosecutorial discretion is a critical part of the administration of immigration law. This Article considers the work and responsibilities of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) trial attorneys, who thus far have not attracted significant scholarly attention, despite playing a large role in the ground-level implementation of immigration law and policy. The Article makes three main contributions. First, I consider whether ICE attorneys have a duty to help ensure that the removal system achieves justice, rather than indiscriminately seek removal in every case and by any means necessary. As I demonstrate, trial attorneys have concrete obligations derived from statutory provisions, …

Decision Making And The Public Lands, Robert K. Davis

Who Governs the Public Lands: Washington? The West? The Community? (September 28-30)

18 pages.

Contains 3 pages of references.

New Paradigm, Normal Science, Or Crumbling Construct? Trends In Adjudicatory Procedure And Litigation Reform, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

One aspect of a possible new era is the increasing ad hoc activity of various interest groups, including the bench and the organized bar, primarily pursued through official organizations such as the Judicial Conference, the Federal Judicial Center, the American Bar Association (“ABA”), and the American Law Institute. Traditionally, of course, judges and lawyers have lobbied Congress and state legislatures for litigation change, as demonstrated by the saga of the Rules Enabling Act (“Enabling Act” or “Act”). But, the legal profession's more recent “political” activity regarding litigation reform differs from the traditional model in several ways. First, the participation of …