Who Should Own Records Information Management, Legal or IT?
The best approach may be shared responsibility.
July 11, 2010 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Who should own a company's records and information management program (RIM), legal or IT? I am asked this question often, and here is why this is a tricky question. Records and information management programs can encompass records management, regulatory compliance, litigation readiness and e-discovery, knowledge management, data management, as well as paper document storage. For fun also throw in data privacy, information security and data protection. This is a role that clearly requires legal and compliance skills and capabilities. Yet most RIM execution is done against electronic documents using information technology. In addition to good policies and technology tools, good RIM execution also requires employee training and change management.
Those in legal want to hear that IT should own RIM, because they argue that today most records are electronic. IT on the other hand points out that records management is driven by legal and regulatory requirements, and believes it is therefore logical and necessary for the legal department to own RIM. Some companies do have formal records management groups, but many of these are only responsible for paper document warehousing with token responsibility for electronic information. RIM ownership is often a corporate “hot potato” that no one wants to own, with attempts to pass responsibility from group to group.
Current RIM ownership today is fairly mixed. In our research across small to large corporations, RIM reports into legal in 30 percent of organizations, into IT in 25 percent of the time, and 10 percent of organizations have “stand alone” records management organizations with some responsibility for electronic information. In 35 percent of companies no department has direct responsibility for RIM. Furthermore, one can argue that even if RIM historically reported into a particular group, the changing legal and data landscape should prompt organizations to rethink who should own it.
Both legal and IT should take a strong interest in an effective RIM program. A poorly run RIM program can make litigation and compliance very painful, as well as making IT's life miserable. It is not in legal's best interest to throw RIM over the wall to IT and declare it their problem, nor should IT stick its head in the sand and hope these issues go away. They won't. The problems that result from a poorly executed program are much greater than the pain of owning one. If I were a GC or CIO, I would want to own RIM, if only to ensure it were done right.
We have set up RIM programs for a number of organizations, and have had the opportunity to see what works and what doesn't. So back to the main question: Who should own it? (I was counseled by a client that since this column is part of a legal magazine, I should answer IT.) My answer–certain to disappoint some–is that we have seen it work well in either group. If RIM ownership has to be either legal or IT, then the group that cares about it the most should own it. Which group will go to bed every night, and awake the next morning thinking about records? Who can best build and drive consensus across the organization? Who cares about doing this right? If the group that does own it cares, the funding, headcount, authority and execution often take care of themselves. Good things come to those that care about and own RIM.
It does not have to be in either legal or IT. The best approach is to develop shared responsibilities across both legal and IT, with each group responsible for areas within their expertise, and careful coordination between the two. With good planning, this actually works, and with guidance and practice it can work very well.
Nevertheless, I do not expect legal and IT to stop arguing any time soon about who should own RIM.
Read Mark Diamond's previous column. Read Mark Diamond's next column.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1Paxton's 2024 Agenda: Immigration, Climate, Transgender Issues, Social Media, Abortion, Elections
- 2Let’s Hear It One Last Time!: One More Bow for 2024’s Litigators of the Week
- 3Bottoming Out or Merging Up? Law Firms That Shuttered in 2024
- 492 Nursing Homes, Left Out of NYS Funding for Ongoing Capital Expenses, File Federal Lawsuit
- 5Friday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250