While there is continued and increasing adoption of technology-assisted review (TAR) and active learning (AL) integrations, the "eyes-on-paper" is better" argument continues to haunt my conversations. This myth persists despite numerous studies by scientists over decades who specialize in search, studies within the legal community, and recognition of the validity – even demands for its use – by the courts.
When vetting a potential vendor, another area to ask about is quality control
and their use of widely accepted validation methods. The accuracy of such reviews following scientifically valid statistical sampling regimens is eminently defensible.
It should be remembered that technology-based review does not have to be better than "human review" (the traditional linear "eyes on paper" review); it only has to be as good in terms of accuracy to provide exceptional benefits. Namely, significantly reduced time and cost to affect the review. Another point to consider:
Attorneys rightfully want to focus on merits and the issues that help prove (or disprove) their arguments, not relevance and non-relevance to simply meet production requirements. Review technologies help achieve this focus quickly, accurately, defensibly, and cost-effectively.