Pros and Cons of Using Search Terms or Analytics in eDiscovery

There is a long-running debate in the eDiscovery world about whether search terms or analytics is the best technique. According to an article by Epiq Global, both methods offer distinct advantages and drawbacks.

Search terms have long been a staple tool for legal teams, as they foster transparency and maintain a high degree of certainty. Yet the reliance on predefined keywords poses challenges. The process may have to be redone multiple times due to a lack of preciseness. In addition, vagueness, context-specificity, and the inability to account for typos or variations in spelling are notable limitations.

Analytics offer a more nuanced approach, leveraging advanced algorithms to parse through data based on substance, syntax, and spelling and are advantageous to legal teams with their increased use of active learning tools, AI portable models, and concept searching. Some resulting benefits are the ability to jumpstart review, integrated quality checks, ease of use, speed, defensibility, and reduced risk. 

While some legal teams may hesitate to fully embrace machine-driven processes, analytics promise enhanced speed, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. However, concerns about the opacity of algorithms persist, hindering widespread adoption. 

Ultimately, the choice between search terms and analytics in eDiscovery depends on various factors, including the scale of the case, available resources, and organizational preferences. Legal teams will need to strategize with stakeholders to determine the most suitable approach for their needs.

For those opting for search terms, thoughtful selection of keywords, consideration of gaps, and sample testing are guidelines to follow. Meanwhile, maximizing the potential of analytics entails meticulous preparation, training, and awareness of potential weaknesses.

As the eDiscovery market continues to expand, with human document review constituting a significant portion of costs, informed decision-making becomes imperative. Legal teams must stay abreast of technological advancements and allocate resources appropriately to optimize their document review processes effectively.