Canadian Lawyer InHouse

THE DATA DILEMMA Everyone wants to believe they have document retention under control but the test is making sure it works when you need it to. By Charlotte Santry G etting management buy-in for an in-house document management system "wasn't a slam dunk," says Sierra Systems general counsel Robert Piasentin. But there was a "strong will" among senior management for change, driven by the risk of "heft y" fines for failing to respond fully to e-discovery requests — particularly for those parts of the business dealing with the U.S., he adds. Across the border, sanctions can run into millions of dollars. While Canadian courts have traditionally been less punitive, experts are predicting an increasingly strict regime more akin to that in the U.S. Tightening legal budgets and the rising complexity of IT systems are adding to concerns about the risks of high ediscovery costs. In a survey of 350 lawyers in Canada and the U.S., published in March by Robert Half Legal, 22 per cent said their company had started handling more e-discovery projects in-house within the past year. Managing documents in-house and, in some cases, customizing systems to fit particular sectors and processes, is seen as a way of recapturing some control over an area that has strong implications for finances and business efficiency. But such a project should not be rushed into, advises Piasentin, who introduced a system three years ago that centralized document management across seven offices in Canada, three in the U.S., and several satellite offices. "It took us a lot of time at first. We had to get an understanding of what was already happening," he says. 26 • a u gu st 2013 "We had a policy about document retention but we didn't have any actual policies in place to make sure it was being done." A point person took responsibility for finding out how processes worked in each location, as well as providing feedback on the centralization plans. Piasentin investigated the different software options on the market, testing out demos before selecting a tool. It has proven to be an ongoing project. "It's been working reasonably well," he says. "I wouldn't say we're 100 per cent perfect there — we're investigating a potential upgrade, or getting something else." Dominic Jaar, KPMG partner and national practice leader, information management services, agrees it's best to take things slowly to ensure the best longterm outcomes. "This is an incremental process," he says. "It's not as easy as people might think — [it doesn't involve] picking the management system and bang it's done. "It's about reviewing the existing processes. You really need a three-year plan, rather than an overnight approach." StArtIng froM SQUAre one As a first step, he recommends developing a taxonomy and classification scheme, setting out conventions for naming files that ensure all titles are structured in exactly the same way. This should enable anyone to find a file saved by someone else, and will help to migrate files to a new system. INHOUSE Failing to standardize document processes before introducing a new piece of technology is doomed to fail, says Jaar. "The technology is there to support existing procedures. "Trying to roll out technology from the top down is a recipe for disaster." Taking a slower approach means that smaller firms, in which budget holders may take some persuasion to invest upfront, can start preparing their files for when sign-off is eventually granted, he adds. Morgan Borins, director of business operations at CounselQuest, agrees on the need for gradual change, to allow time to achieve buy-in from those who will be using the software. CounselQuest, acting as an intermediary, matches companies with software vendors offering suitable solutions for document management. Borins says people are generally averse

• Cover