In the early stages of litigation, it’s common to hear a familiar phrase: “We’ll fix it in review.”
- Maybe the data collection was broad.
- Maybe scope wasn’t fully defined.
- Maybe custodians were added late.
The assumption is that once everything is loaded into a review platform, the team can sort it out there.
https://sodiscovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Why-Well-Fix-It-in-Review-Is-a-Risky-Discovery-Strategy.mp3
On the surface, that sounds practical. Review is where documents are examined, tagged, and prepared for production. But in reality, pushing unresolved decisions into the review phase often creates more cost, more confusion, and more risk than expected.
At Sovereign Discovery, we’ve seen how small shortcuts early in the process quietly multiply once review begins.
Review Is the Most Expensive Place to Solve Problems
Document review is typically the most resource-intensive phase of discovery. It involves attorney time, quality control, and often tight deadlines. When issues that should have been addressed earlier land in review, they become harder – and more expensive – to fix.
For example:
Over-collection leads to unnecessary volume.
Poor data filtering inflates review populations.
Unclear custodial decisions create inconsistent tagging.
Incomplete preservation results in gaps reviewers cannot explain.
Review teams are then asked to compensate for upstream uncertainty. They may need to interpret unclear scope, reconcile inconsistent document sets, or revisit earlier assumptions.
The result is often rework. Re-reviewing documents. Revisiting privilege decisions. Reassessing responsiveness standards. All under time pressure.
Review works best when it operates within a well-defined structure. When that structure is missing, review becomes reactive instead of controlled.
Early Decisions Shape Everything That Follows
Discovery is not a straight line. It’s a series of connected steps.
Collection influences processing.
Processing influences culling.
Culling influences review.
Review influences production.
If early decisions are rushed or loosely defined, those weaknesses travel forward. One common issue we see is unclear scoping at the outset. Without clearly defining what matters in the case, review teams may struggle to apply consistent standards.
Another issue is late adjustments. If new custodians or data sources are added mid-review, workflows must be recalibrated. Timelines shift. Budgets expand. None of this usually stems from bad intent. It comes from trying to move quickly without fully mapping the path.
The strongest discovery processes are intentional from the beginning. They include:
Thoughtful scoping
Data mapping before collection
Clear documentation of decisions
Ongoing reassessment as facts develop
When those elements are in place, review becomes a confirmation process – not a correction process.
Closing
Review is a critical phase of discovery. But it cannot repair every earlier gap. When teams rely on review to fix unclear strategy or rushed planning, they often pay for it later – in cost, time, or defensibility.
At Sovereign Discovery, we focus on strengthening the early stages of discovery so review operates efficiently and predictably. Because in complex litigation, the work you do before review often determines how smoothly review will run.
And in discovery, smooth processes reduce more than cost – they reduce risk.