From Storage to Stewardship: Why Law Firms Must Rethink Retention and Embrace Continuous Information Governance
- Max Rapaport
- 26 minutes ago
- 4 min read
In law firms, where information is the foundation of every client relationship, case strategy, and internal process, retention policies are often treated as static tools—reviewed once, filed away, and forgotten. Yet the assumption that a long-standing policy is still effective is one of the most pervasive and damaging myths in the legal sector. As regulatory demands increase, technology evolves, and client expectations grow more exacting, the gap between written policy and daily practice becomes both wider and riskier.
The truth is, many law firm retention schedules were built for an era that no longer exists. They often predate cloud-native platforms, cross-border privacy laws, collaborative tools like Teams and Slack, and the rise of AI-generated work product. These outdated policies tend to exclude key data types, lack integration with document management systems, and fail to reflect jurisdiction-specific or client-specific requirements. Worse still, many are not operationalized—attorneys and staff remain unaware of what the policies require, and systems do little to enforce them.
Retaining information beyond its required period may seem like a harmless buffer against risk, but in practice it creates significant exposure. Over-retention increases discovery burdens, drives up storage and infrastructure costs, and elevates the potential for regulatory violations. It also complicates client file transfers, impairs data searches, and hampers firm mobility. As privacy laws like GDPR, CPRA, and a growing number of U.S. state statutes mandate explicit destruction timelines for personal data, retaining too much for too long can now be a compliance failure—not a safeguard.
Moreover, the often hidden and unaccounted-for costs of keeping ROT—redundant, obsolete, and trivial information cannot be understated! Studies show that up to 69% of the data held by organizations is ROT. Not only does ROT data increase storage expenses, it inflates discovery costs and slows legal responsiveness. Review costs for ROT alone can reach $131,000 per 1,000 boxes. Digitizing everything without applying IG principles only worsens the problem. Firms that integrate IG upfront, eliminating unnecessary data before scanning or migrating, can reduce conversion costs by more than 55%. These numbers are not theoretical—they are borne out in engagements across law firms and legal departments.
Technology, while essential, does not solve these issues on its own. Document management systems and archive tools often provide robust storage, but not governance or guidance on how to manage the information lifecycle – including deleting ROT!
Without proper configuration, these platforms fail to apply retention rules, flag legal holds, or enable defensible disposition. Retention must be embedded into the systems and processes lawyers use every day—not layered on as an afterthought. This requires collaboration between IT, Compliance, Legal Operations, and Information Governance to ensure retention is enforced consistently, regardless of platform or matter type.
Digital archives also present a growing challenge. Law firms increasingly serve as custodians of vast, long-term collections of client data—records of litigation, transactions, advice, and communications. But storing this data is not the same as preserving it. Archives without metadata, format control, or access protocols become what some refer to as “dark data”—invisible, unmanaged, and full of risk. True digital preservation requires more than a backup. It requires a defensible, intentional strategy for ensuring long-term accessibility, searchability, and compliance.
This is particularly problematic in litigation, where the presence of ROT and poorly classified data can and does increase collection, review, and production costs exponentially. RAND estimates, for example, that a typical civil litigation involves 130 gigabytes of reviewable material—about 6.5 million pages. At the conservative rate of $15,000–$25,000 per gigabyte, this equates to discovery costs exceeding $2.6 million. And yet, much of this data could be eliminated before litigation even begins if defensible IG practices were in place. The opportunity is not just cost containment—it is strategic advantage.
Information Governance, done well, is not an overhead function—it is a performance multiplier. McKinsey estimates that better data oversight and governance can recover up to 35% of total data spend, a recovery that can generate an enterprise-level impact that not only saves money but significantly strengthens resilience, responsiveness, and reputation.
As firms seek to modernize, those that treat retention and cleanup as one-off projects quickly find themselves repeating the same cycle—reacting to audits, discovery requests, or infrastructure limitations with another temporary fix. But real transformation lies in moving from episodic cleanup to continuous governance. This means implementing a framework of policies, procedures, and automated workflows that keep retention aligned with legal obligations and operational needs—on an ongoing basis.
Leading practices include developing a centralized retention schedule that accounts for all formats and jurisdictions, integrating disposition rules into the document management lifecycle, and using metadata and classification to automate file identification and prioritization. Rather than digitizing everything indiscriminately, firms should assess collections first—destroying what is no longer needed and digitizing only high-value, high-use materials. With proper classification and automation, governance becomes part of the daily workflow, not an isolated function of the Records team.
Continuous governance also requires clear ownership. Governance cannot be relegated to IT or Records alone. It must be supported at the leadership level, with defined roles across Risk, Compliance, Practice Management, and Administrative Operations. Training is essential—not just once, but on a recurring basis—to reinforce staff understanding of their responsibilities in retaining, classifying, and securely disposing of information. Firms that embed these practices into onboarding, matter closeout, and annual reviews position themselves to stay ahead of both regulatory and client expectations.
Ultimately, retention is no longer just a records issue—it is a strategic imperative. Clients are increasingly including data security and retention clauses in their engagement terms. Regulators expect documented, defensible controls. And, law firm leadership must weigh the growing costs of unmanaged data—financial, operational, and reputational. Retention done right reduces exposure, improves responsiveness, and supports firm agility.
The shift required is not just procedural, but cultural. Law firms must move from a mindset of passive storage to active stewardship—where every record is managed with purpose, governed by policy, and evaluated for ongoing value. The tools are available. The risks are clear. The time for strategic, sustained information governance is now.