At last count, over 15 million lawsuits are filed annually in the U.S., giving us the dubious distinction of generating more lawsuits than any other country in the world. eDiscovery, is naturally a big deal, to say the least. Now, the legal profession has embraced, or at least talks about the importance of Information Governance, or lack thereof. At the heart of the issue is an overabundance of content and the inability to manage it. Once again, search is the real culprit and apparently unable to find the needles in the haystack, specifically in the legal profession.
In a recent study by Exterro, ‘In-House Legal & IT’s Biggest E-Discovery Challenge’, “36.4 percent of respondents found locating potentially responsive data to be the biggest challenges in e-discovery. Controlling the amount of data sent to review was the second most common challenge at 14.4 percent, and managing multiple e-discovery projects came in third as the most commonly cited at 13.6 percent. Defensibly deleting data that was on legal hold and tracking legal holds rounded out the top five at 12.9 and 7.9 percent respectively.”
I don’t feel any sympathy for the legal profession, who as far as I know, are well compensated, nor do I feel sorry for the ‘sue happy’ individuals in the U.S. I do though, occasionally experience some amusement with the legal profession. While reading this article, I happened across another article that made the assertion that an IBM ‘Watson’ would be the future for solving these eDiscovery dilemmas. Not sure if this is professional arrogance, lack of understanding technology, stupidity, or perhaps a future truth. In the interim, perhaps they should proactively manage content and evaluate tools that can greatly improve the search process, until Mr. Watson is available for prime time. From what I have read, Watson is their silver bullet. Considering their profession, it may be unwise to put all your eggs in one basket.