Technology­ assisted review (TAR) has proven to be a superior alternative to manual, human review for large document sets — in terms of both cost savings and search quality. Studies conducted as part of the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) show TAR produces higher levels of recall and precision as well as better relevancy calibration. For these reasons, courts are seeing the value of TAR, and in some instances, ordering parties to implement TAR methodologies. Most early TAR ­related court opinions commend a high level of cooperation and disclosure between opposing parties. However, the inherent risks associated with over disclosure may discourage litigators from adopting TAR methodologies. A balance must be struck between the duty to cooperate and the duty to zealously represent a client’s interests.