Article
-2.png?width=1448&height=853&name=1448x853%20-%20Hero%20(case%20study)-2.png)
In this article, Antony Wells explains the importance of a clear shared responsibility of information governance and how ambiguity can bring delays and mistakes to the workplace.
In many Australian law firms, information governance is described as a shared responsibility.
That sounds sensible. Governance touches multiple parts of the organisation — IT manages infrastructure, Records teams maintain retention schedules, Risk oversees compliance obligations, Operations drives process consistency, and practice groups generate the information in the first place.
But “shared responsibility” without clarity can quickly become shared ambiguity.
When something goes wrong — a delayed disposal process, an inconsistent retention decision, or a client audit query — the question is rarely whether governance matters. The question is who owns the outcome.
This is where governance initiatives often stall.
The reality of distributed governance
Unlike some global firms, many Australian firms do not operate with large, standalone information governance teams. Governance capability is typically distributed across functions.
This model can work well. It avoids unnecessary centralisation and keeps decision-making close to operational realities. However, it requires clear definition of:
-
Decision rights
-
Accountability boundaries
-
Escalation processes
-
Oversight mechanisms
Without that clarity, even well-designed governance strategies struggle in practice.
For example:
-
Who has authority to approve defensible disposal?
-
Who updates retention schedules when regulatory expectations change?
-
Who ensures retention rules are consistently applied across systems?
-
Who reports governance metrics to leadership?
If the answers are vague, governance performance will be uneven.
Responsibility vs accountability
It is useful to distinguish between responsibility and accountability.
Responsibility refers to who performs tasks. Accountability refers to who is answerable for outcomes.
In governance, these are not always the same.
An IT team may be responsible for configuring retention settings within a document management system. But accountability for ensuring those settings align with legal obligations may sit with Risk or Records. If misalignment occurs, leadership will expect a clear answer as to why.
High-performing firms make these distinctions explicit.
Clarifying decision rights
One of the most common friction points in Australian firms is around disposal decisions.
Retention schedules may define disposal timelines, but applying them often requires judgment. Matters may have ongoing relevance. Client sensitivities may apply. Regulatory uncertainty may create hesitation.
Without defined decision rights, disposal reviews are delayed indefinitely.
Effective governance frameworks clarify:
-
Who initiates disposal reviews
-
Who approves disposal
-
Who can override standard timelines
-
What documentation is required
-
How decisions are recorded
Clarity reduces hesitation and builds confidence in the process.
Cross-functional governance structures
Many firms benefit from establishing a cross-functional governance forum. This need not be a large committee. It can be a structured working group with defined scope and authority.
Such groups typically:
-
Review governance metrics
-
Approve policy updates
-
Resolve cross-functional disputes
-
Oversee high-risk decisions
-
Provide reporting to leadership
The purpose is not bureaucracy. It is alignment.
When governance issues are discussed in isolation within functional silos, inconsistency emerges. Cross-functional oversight promotes shared understanding and consistent standards.
Transparency reduces friction
Shared ownership works best when transparency is high.
If IT can see retention compliance rates across practice groups, conversations become evidence-based rather than anecdotal. If Risk can review disposal metrics, regulatory confidence increases. If leadership receives regular governance reporting, the discipline becomes embedded.
Transparency also reduces personal risk perception. One reason governance initiatives slow down is fear — fear of disposing of something that may later be required, fear of regulatory criticism, fear of client dissatisfaction.
When governance decisions are structured, documented, and visible, that fear diminishes.
Aligning governance with Australian regulatory expectations
Australian firms operate under evolving regulatory expectations, particularly around privacy, data breaches, and cyber security. While legal professional privilege provides certain protections, firms are not insulated from scrutiny.
Clear accountability structures support compliance with:
-
The Privacy Act and Australian Privacy Principles
-
Data breach notification obligations
-
Client contractual data handling requirements
-
Sector-specific standards affecting client industries
Governance that is clearly owned and monitored reduces regulatory risk and strengthens defensibility.
Avoiding governance silos
While clarity is essential, over-centralisation can create its own challenges.
If governance becomes perceived as a compliance-only initiative, disconnected from operational reality, resistance increases. Practice groups may view it as administrative overhead rather than operational discipline.
Shared ownership models avoid this by ensuring that governance remains aligned to real workflows. Practice leaders retain influence. IT retains operational insight. Risk provides oversight.
The key is balance — structured accountability without unnecessary bureaucracy.
Embedding accountability through reporting
Accountability is sustained through measurement.
Governance metrics might include volume of data disposed of over defined periods, percentage of repositories aligned to retention policy, number of outstanding disposal reviews, audit findings and remediation timelines and exceptions to standard retention rules.
Regular reporting ensures governance remains visible at leadership level. It shifts governance from periodic project to ongoing operational management.
From responsibility to sustainable action
The difference between responsibility and accountability is subtle but significant.
Responsibility can be delegated. Accountability must be owned.
Australian firms that clarify governance accountability — while maintaining shared responsibility for execution — create stability. Decisions are made more confidently. Disposal processes move forward. Policy updates occur without delay. Evidence is available when required.
In the absence of accountability, governance remains fragile.
In the presence of accountability, governance becomes durable.
And once governance is durable, it becomes far easier to secure leadership approval and demonstrate impact — the focus of the next article in this series.
Click the button below to view the risk-to-readiness series.
About the author
Antony Wells is a seasoned professional committed to helping organisations optimise their information management responsibilities. In his role as Commercial Director, EMEA at LegalRM, Antony leads initiatives aimed at enhancing firms' information governance strategies, with a keen focus on compliance, risk mitigation, and cost reduction.
Before joining LegalRM, Antony amassed invaluable experience guiding firms in selecting and implementing document management solutions, throughout the legal and professional services market.
To get in touch with Antony to discuss how we could help you with your information governance strategy connect on Linkedin or visit our website.
Originally published in Australia.