Determining an e-Mail Management Strategy

On an average day in 2008, 785 million people sent 25 billion person-to-person business e-mails worldwide, according to analyst firm IDC. (See, IDC, Worldwide E-mail Usage 2007-2011 Forecast: Resurgence of Spam Takes Its Toll, Doc #206038, March 2007.) In this tumult, information technology professionals are struggling to define the right approach to managing e-mail within their firms. In fact, in the International Legal Technology Association's 2008 Technology Survey, managing e-mail was rated as the most daunting technology issue facing organizations.

Legal IT professionals are challenged with finding the most efficient and appropriate e-mail management model while considering the rising cost of e-discovery and ethical issues surrounding e-mail retention. Against this demanding backdrop, firms must determine which of three potential e-mail management strategies to employ: passive, active or a combination of the two. Passive management utilizes e-mail archiving technologies, while active management is the actual classification of e-mail around a specific matter or project. Deciding which strategy to employ is dependent on two business factors: collaboration and risk management.

Collaboration

With collaboration, the fundamental question is: “How important is the sharing of e-mail?” Sharing correspondence is an important aspect of the practice of law, and its significance relates to the number of people involved in the matter.

Before e-mail, this was done through the classification of letters and faxes into a physical matter file. In today's e-mail-centric world, this is now accomplished through CC-ing other people working on the matter. The challenge with this approach is that it simply inundates a lawyer's inbox with an overwhelming number of e-mails to review, making it difficult to track what is happening across different matters.

An alternative approach is to return to the classification of e-mail in a matter file again. This approach allows lawyers to review what is happening in the matter through reviewing a file instead of tracking content through their inbox. With multiple matters handled by a number of lawyers in different offices and/or continents, the best way to share a matter file is to transform its content to an electronic matter file, making it accessible from anywhere.

Risk Management

Risk management around e-mail can be tied to one issue: e-discovery. All litigators understand that most of the information that will either help or hurt their case is contained in e-mail. This stems from the fact that most people treat e-mail informally instead of as a lasting business record.

e-mail is the primary category of electronically stored information that drives up e-discovery costs. These costs usually include collecting locally stored e-mail, transforming the e-mail into an easily reviewable form, and the amount of time it takes for lawyers to review all of the data ' traditionally the largest cost associated with e-discovery. It is estimated that for every 20 cents in technological expenditure to collect e-mail and prepare it to review, it costs $2.00 to $5.00 in lawyer time to actually review the document.

e-Mail Archiving

A Passive End-User Strategy

e-Mail archival systems enable a firm to centralize all of its e-mail into one central repository and reduce the load on the e-mail system's infrastructure. The advantage is that the end-user does not need to do anything; all of the work is done in the background.

e-Mail archiving involves a modicum of risk management, but offers no team collaboration capabilities. The centralized repository can be leveraged to reduce collection cost and potentially reduce the total amount of e-mail that needs to be reviewed. Most systems enable full-text searching, allowing the identification of relevant custodians and some keyword filtering to occur in response to e-discovery.

With the e-mail archiving model, all content is stored and there is the capability to apply destruction and retention policies in a very gross manner. e-mails can be deleted only by the year or month, but not by the project or matter. However, this can be problematic, as different classes of e-mails may need to be retained for differing amounts of time. e-mail regarding a trust is required to be kept longer than e-mail about a lunch appointment. In essence, these systems require e-mail to be held for the longest retention period.

e-Mail Classification

An Active End-User Strategy

The classification of e-mail through associating it with a matter or engagement can provide the biggest benefits for collaboration and risk management. When e-mail has been classified, it enables a user to:

• Share the e-mail with other people working on the matter;
• Reduce e-discovery costs quickly and efficiently by identifying the potentially relevant data;
• Increase the likelihood of finding the right e-mail that defends an action and wins the lawsuit; and
• Apply granular retention and destruction policies.

If a firm sets a policy that all e-mail not classified is destroyed within a defined period (e.g., 30, 60, 90 days), e-discovery costs can be decreased significantly. Instead of lawyers having to review all of a custodian's e-mail for a year, they only examine the categorized data.

The challenge with the classification of e-mail is that it takes end-user participation. The only way that an end-user will adopt this approach is through software that enables the classification of e-mail within the flow of his or her daily work. If an end-user interprets the steps to classify e-mail as burdensome, e-mail will not get classified and the benefits of e-mail classification will not be achieved.

Picking a Strategy

All firms are not the same; the need for risk management and collaboration at each firm is different, depending on the practice areas and types of clients serviced. Some lawyers work independently while others work in larger teams, and this difference determines how important collaboration is for that particular firm. When it comes to risk management, some firms face significantly greater risk in their practice based on the clients they service or type of work they perform.

There are four strategies that a firm may use to select the right e-mail management approach. These strategies are intended to balance the needs for risk management versus collaboration.

1. Archivers. Archivers are organizations that have very little risk of litigation or investigation. The need for lawyers to work in teams and collaborate on matters is minimal. An investment in e-mail archiving will reduce collection and response costs in case of e-discovery.
2. Collaborators. These are similar to Archivers in that the organization has a low risk of litigation. However, Collaborators need the ability to share some electronic matter files, including e-mail. They may want to invest in e-mail archiving to address their limited e-discovery risk, but will also need classification technology that enables them to create an electronic matter file. When collaboration is high, it is important that the structure of the matter files be standardized.
3. Personal Filers. This is an organization that has a higher risk of litigation, but requires little team-based collaboration. What is important is that it has technology and a process for effectively and consistently classifying e-mail. However, beyond getting the e-mail to be associated with the correct matter or engagement, nothing else is needed.
4. Risk-aware Collaborators. For these firms, both risk management and collaboration is important. They need to persistently file e-mail and maintain standard organization files in their electronic matter files to enable collaboration.

This can be easily plotted on a 2×2 matrix.

[IMGCAP(1)]

With the cost of e-discovery continuing to balloon and the legal industry in general facing greater risk of litigation, most law firms will select either the Personal Filers or Risk-aware Collaborators strategies.

The fundamental difference between these two is the need for collaboration around a matter. When the need for collaboration is high, lawyers will want to share not just e-mail, but all of the content around the matter, including finished and work-in-process documents. Separating these documents in two separate repositories will require lawyers to look in multiple locations to understand the complete matter. One system for all content around a matter reduces training costs and simplifies technology needs for lawyers and staff.

To be successful, the technology solution for e-mail classification must be easily adopted and integrated into the users' daily work. While e-mail is often used as a communication tool, it also acts as a to-do list for certain users and must be available in the office and on the road. Thus, the technology needs to incorporate the variety of ways that users leverage e-mail, while still enabling them to classify it simply and easily. Ultimately, the key to success lies in the selection of the right technology.

Examples

During the 2008 Legal IT Leadership Summit, a gathering of more than 60 CIOs of large law firms organized by Interwoven, two leading AmLaw 100 law firms reported on how they approach e-mail management. Firm A was a risk-aware collaborator, while Firm B was simply a collaborator. The primary difference between Firm A and Firm B is the mandate from firm management.

Firm A reported that management, particularly general counsel, embraced the concept that all e-mails should be classified with a client-matter number, reasoning that the best way to manage risk to the organization was to have a complete matter file. Firm A has an intensive records management program, defining how all content should be organized throughout the organization. The firm is also planning to implement a policy that all e-mail not classified would be deleted within a certain time period.

In the case of Firm B, management did not feel it was important that all e-mails be classified in the organization at this time, as they believe that the risk management needs do not justify the effort. Instead, Firm B has enabled lawyers to collaborate as needed by implementing an e-mail archive system to better react to any e-discovery requests.

On an average day in 2008, 785 million people sent 25 billion person-to-person business e-mails worldwide, according to analyst firm IDC. (See, IDC, Worldwide E-mail Usage 2007-2011 Forecast: Resurgence of Spam Takes Its Toll, Doc #206038, March 2007.) In this tumult, information technology professionals are struggling to define the right approach to managing e-mail within their firms. In fact, in the International Legal Technology Association's 2008 Technology Survey, managing e-mail was rated as the most daunting technology issue facing organizations.

Legal IT professionals are challenged with finding the most efficient and appropriate e-mail management model while considering the rising cost of e-discovery and ethical issues surrounding e-mail retention. Against this demanding backdrop, firms must determine which of three potential e-mail management strategies to employ: passive, active or a combination of the two. Passive management utilizes e-mail archiving technologies, while active management is the actual classification of e-mail around a specific matter or project. Deciding which strategy to employ is dependent on two business factors: collaboration and risk management.

Collaboration

With collaboration, the fundamental question is: “How important is the sharing of e-mail?” Sharing correspondence is an important aspect of the practice of law, and its significance relates to the number of people involved in the matter.

Before e-mail, this was done through the classification of letters and faxes into a physical matter file. In today's e-mail-centric world, this is now accomplished through CC-ing other people working on the matter. The challenge with this approach is that it simply inundates a lawyer's inbox with an overwhelming number of e-mails to review, making it difficult to track what is happening across different matters.

An alternative approach is to return to the classification of e-mail in a matter file again. This approach allows lawyers to review what is happening in the matter through reviewing a file instead of tracking content through their inbox. With multiple matters handled by a number of lawyers in different offices and/or continents, the best way to share a matter file is to transform its content to an electronic matter file, making it accessible from anywhere.

Risk Management

Risk management around e-mail can be tied to one issue: e-discovery. All litigators understand that most of the information that will either help or hurt their case is contained in e-mail. This stems from the fact that most people treat e-mail informally instead of as a lasting business record.

e-mail is the primary category of electronically stored information that drives up e-discovery costs. These costs usually include collecting locally stored e-mail, transforming the e-mail into an easily reviewable form, and the amount of time it takes for lawyers to review all of the data ' traditionally the largest cost associated with e-discovery. It is estimated that for every 20 cents in technological expenditure to collect e-mail and prepare it to review, it costs $2.00 to $5.00 in lawyer time to actually review the document.

e-Mail Archiving

A Passive End-User Strategy

e-Mail archival systems enable a firm to centralize all of its e-mail into one central repository and reduce the load on the e-mail system's infrastructure. The advantage is that the end-user does not need to do anything; all of the work is done in the background.

e-Mail archiving involves a modicum of risk management, but offers no team collaboration capabilities. The centralized repository can be leveraged to reduce collection cost and potentially reduce the total amount of e-mail that needs to be reviewed. Most systems enable full-text searching, allowing the identification of relevant custodians and some keyword filtering to occur in response to e-discovery.

With the e-mail archiving model, all content is stored and there is the capability to apply destruction and retention policies in a very gross manner. e-mails can be deleted only by the year or month, but not by the project or matter. However, this can be problematic, as different classes of e-mails may need to be retained for differing amounts of time. e-mail regarding a trust is required to be kept longer than e-mail about a lunch appointment. In essence, these systems require e-mail to be held for the longest retention period.

e-Mail Classification

An Active End-User Strategy

The classification of e-mail through associating it with a matter or engagement can provide the biggest benefits for collaboration and risk management. When e-mail has been classified, it enables a user to:

• Share the e-mail with other people working on the matter;
• Reduce e-discovery costs quickly and efficiently by identifying the potentially relevant data;
• Increase the likelihood of finding the right e-mail that defends an action and wins the lawsuit; and
• Apply granular retention and destruction policies.

If a firm sets a policy that all e-mail not classified is destroyed within a defined period (e.g., 30, 60, 90 days), e-discovery costs can be decreased significantly. Instead of lawyers having to review all of a custodian's e-mail for a year, they only examine the categorized data.

The challenge with the classification of e-mail is that it takes end-user participation. The only way that an end-user will adopt this approach is through software that enables the classification of e-mail within the flow of his or her daily work. If an end-user interprets the steps to classify e-mail as burdensome, e-mail will not get classified and the benefits of e-mail classification will not be achieved.

Picking a Strategy

All firms are not the same; the need for risk management and collaboration at each firm is different, depending on the practice areas and types of clients serviced. Some lawyers work independently while others work in larger teams, and this difference determines how important collaboration is for that particular firm. When it comes to risk management, some firms face significantly greater risk in their practice based on the clients they service or type of work they perform.

There are four strategies that a firm may use to select the right e-mail management approach. These strategies are intended to balance the needs for risk management versus collaboration.

1. Archivers. Archivers are organizations that have very little risk of litigation or investigation. The need for lawyers to work in teams and collaborate on matters is minimal. An investment in e-mail archiving will reduce collection and response costs in case of e-discovery.
2. Collaborators. These are similar to Archivers in that the organization has a low risk of litigation. However, Collaborators need the ability to share some electronic matter files, including e-mail. They may want to invest in e-mail archiving to address their limited e-discovery risk, but will also need classification technology that enables them to create an electronic matter file. When collaboration is high, it is important that the structure of the matter files be standardized.
3. Personal Filers. This is an organization that has a higher risk of litigation, but requires little team-based collaboration. What is important is that it has technology and a process for effectively and consistently classifying e-mail. However, beyond getting the e-mail to be associated with the correct matter or engagement, nothing else is needed.
4. Risk-aware Collaborators. For these firms, both risk management and collaboration is important. They need to persistently file e-mail and maintain standard organization files in their electronic matter files to enable collaboration.

This can be easily plotted on a 2×2 matrix.

[IMGCAP(1)]

With the cost of e-discovery continuing to balloon and the legal industry in general facing greater risk of litigation, most law firms will select either the Personal Filers or Risk-aware Collaborators strategies.

The fundamental difference between these two is the need for collaboration around a matter. When the need for collaboration is high, lawyers will want to share not just e-mail, but all of the content around the matter, including finished and work-in-process documents. Separating these documents in two separate repositories will require lawyers to look in multiple locations to understand the complete matter. One system for all content around a matter reduces training costs and simplifies technology needs for lawyers and staff.

To be successful, the technology solution for e-mail classification must be easily adopted and integrated into the users' daily work. While e-mail is often used as a communication tool, it also acts as a to-do list for certain users and must be available in the office and on the road. Thus, the technology needs to incorporate the variety of ways that users leverage e-mail, while still enabling them to classify it simply and easily. Ultimately, the key to success lies in the selection of the right technology.

Examples

During the 2008 Legal IT Leadership Summit, a gathering of more than 60 CIOs of large law firms organized by Interwoven, two leading AmLaw 100 law firms reported on how they approach e-mail management. Firm A was a risk-aware collaborator, while Firm B was simply a collaborator. The primary difference between Firm A and Firm B is the mandate from firm management.

Firm A reported that management, particularly general counsel, embraced the concept that all e-mails should be classified with a client-matter number, reasoning that the best way to manage risk to the organization was to have a complete matter file. Firm A has an intensive records management program, defining how all content should be organized throughout the organization. The firm is also planning to implement a policy that all e-mail not classified would be deleted within a certain time period.

In the case of Firm B, management did not feel it was important that all e-mails be classified in the organization at this time, as they believe that the risk management needs do not justify the effort. Instead, Firm B has enabled lawyers to collaborate as needed by implementing an e-mail archive system to better react to any e-discovery requests.