Firms under volume pressure eventually look outside for help with record review. The market is mixed: offshore review shops, contract attorneys, software vendors, and hybrids. The label matters less than the answers to a short list of questions.
Ask about the data before anything else
- Where is client content stored, and in which jurisdiction?
- Is there a BAA, and does it cover every sub-processor in the chain?
- Who at the vendor can see a file, and is that access logged?
- Is your content used to train anything? Get this in writing.
- On termination, how do you get your data back, and in what format?
Then ask how the work is checked
A support service that returns a summary with no route back to the source page has handed you something you cannot verify and therefore cannot rely on. Citation to source is not a nice feature. It is what makes the output usable on a client matter.
Then ask what happens when it is wrong
Everything that reads a file is sometimes wrong. A serious provider will tell you their failure modes, show you the review step, and explain how corrections propagate. A provider who says it does not happen is telling you they have not measured.
Start narrow
Scope a first engagement to one workflow on a defined set of matters, with a result you agreed how to measure before you began. Broad pilots produce opinions. Narrow ones produce evidence.
You are not buying summaries. You are buying something a licensed attorney is willing to put their name on.