Article

Information governance explained:

How it differs from records management and why it matters 

12Website hero images - edited - 3200x1482-1

In many firms, information governance did not begin as a strategic initiative. It evolved gradually — often from records management.

That origin makes sense. For decades, records teams were responsible for retention schedules, file storage, and disposition processes. As firms transitioned from paper to digital environments, those responsibilities expanded into document management systems and electronic archives.

But the information environment has changed dramatically.

Today, client information exists across document management systems, email, collaboration platforms such as Microsoft 365, File Shares, practice management tools, AI-enabled platforms, and more. Matters span offices, provinces, and sometimes borders. Data is copied, shared, exported, archived, and retained — often with limited visibility into its full lifecycle.

In that environment, records management alone is no longer sufficient.

Information governance is broader. It is the discipline of managing information across its entire lifecycle — from creation to active use, through dormancy, and ultimately to defensible disposition — across all systems in which it resides.

That distinction is not semantic. It is structural.

Records management traditionally focuses on identified records and retention compliance. Information governance encompasses all information, structured and unstructured, formal and informal, and ensures that lifecycle control is consistent across platforms.

For firms navigating increasing client scrutiny, regulatory expectations, and operational complexity, that difference matters.

Why this matters now for law firms

 

The pressure to address information governance holistically is not theoretical.

Clients — particularly in financial services, energy, healthcare, and public sector sectors — are applying increasingly rigorous standards to their outside counsel. Security questionnaires now extend beyond encryption and access controls. They ask how retention is enforced, how long closed matters remain accessible, and how disposition decisions are documented.

Cyber insurers have become more granular in their underwriting assessments. Provincial privacy obligations and federal legislation require defensible practices in the event of a breach or regulatory review. Cross-border matters introduce questions about data residency and access governance.

At the same time, firms have grown in complexity. Mergers, lateral hires, multi-office expansion, and evolving service models have expanded system footprints. Document management platforms operate alongside collaboration workspaces. Email archives persist indefinitely. Closed matters may remain administratively open because financial reconciliation and lifecycle management are not fully aligned.

None of this necessarily reflects poor management. It reflects organic growth and the risk arises when policy intent and operational reality diverge.

Many firms have strong retention schedules on paper. They have documented closure processes. They have defined security controls.

But can leadership confidently answer:

    • How many matters remain open beyond their expected lifecycle?
    • What percentage of document repositories are tied to dormant matters?
    • Is retention consistently triggered according to its retention policy?
    • Are access permissions reviewed for long-inactive files?

If those answers require investigation rather than reporting, governance is not yet fully structured.

Beyond records: Lifecycle control across systems

One of the most common misconceptions is that information governance is simply “modern records management.” It is not! Records management is a critical component — but governance operates at a broader operational level.

Consider the lifecycle of a typical matter. A matter opens. Documents are created. Emails accumulate. A collaboration workspace may be established. Financial data is recorded. Access permissions are granted across offices.

Over time, activity slows. Eventually, the legal work concludes. Financials close. The matter may be administratively marked complete.

But what happens next?

Does closure automatically trigger a retention classification confirmation or does another event trigger retention? Are triggering events consistently applied and followed?
Are collaboration workspaces aligned with the same lifecycle rules as the document management system? Are access permissions reduced when active work ceases?
Is there visibility into when the matter, or materials within the matter, become eligible for disposition?

If lifecycle control depends on periodic manual review or individual diligence, governance remains fragile.

Information governance ensures that lifecycle events are structured, consistent, and defensible — not dependent on memory.

iStock-1494747092

The cost of informal governance

 

Informal governance rarely produces immediate crisis. It produces gradual accumulation.

Data volumes grow. Dormant matters remain open. Storage costs increase incrementally. Access permissions expand quietly. Discovery burdens widen. Client audits require increasing explanation.

Over time, operational friction increases.

Lawyers may spend more time searching across outdated repositories. IT manages expanding infrastructure without clear lifecycle reduction. Records teams handle periodic clean-up initiatives rather than embedded processes. Risk teams respond to audit questionnaires with policy language rather than enforcement metrics.

Increasing cloud data stores result in increased fees and add additional risk through redundant, outdated, and trivial data. These risks are amplified with the increasing use of AI tools to interrogate this data. Bad data results in poor results and these pressures compound subtly.

Information governance addresses accumulation at its source by aligning policy, systems, and workflow.

 

Governance as a firm-wide responsibility

 

Another important distinction is ownership. Records management traditionally sits within a defined function. Information governance cannot. It intersects with:

    • IT, which manages system infrastructure and access controls.

    • Records, which oversees retention schedules and disposition workflows.

    • Risk and Compliance, which interpret regulatory obligations.

    • Finance, which tracks matter lifecycle status.

    • Operations, which coordinates firm-wide process.

Governance succeeds when these functions are aligned — not when it is assigned to one of them in isolation. This is not about creating new bureaucracy. It is about clarifying responsibility for lifecycle oversight across systems. Without that clarity, governance becomes fragmented. Each function manages its component responsibly, but no one sees the full lifecycle.

 

Technology as enabler, not a starting point

 

Technology plays a critical role in modern governance. But it is not the starting point.

Firms sometimes attempt to solve governance challenges by deploying new systems or configuring retention rules without first clarifying ownership and lifecycle expectations. Technology can enforce rules, surface visibility, and document workflows. It cannot define strategy.

Governance begins with clarity around:

    • Lifecycle expectations
    • Retention intent
    • Access discipline
    • Accountability for enforcement

Once those are defined, technology becomes the mechanism that ensures consistency.

 

A strategic perspective

 

For executive leadership, the importance of governance extends beyond compliance.

It affects:

    • Risk exposure and defensibility
    • Client trust and competitive positioning
    • Operational efficiency and cost control
    • Readiness for innovation, including AI adoption

Firms increasingly market themselves around trust, resilience, and operational excellence. Those claims require infrastructure and information governance provides that infrastructure.

It ensures that when a client asks how their data is managed, the firm can answer confidently — not based on assumption, but on measurable control. It ensures that when leadership explores automation or AI initiatives, data quality and lifecycle discipline support innovation rather than introduce uncertainty. And it ensures that growth does not silently expand unmanaged risk.

 

The foundation for the series

 

Understanding the distinction between records management and information governance is the foundation.

Governance is lifecycle control across systems.
It is operational discipline, not periodic clean-up.
It is shared cross discipline responsibility, not departmental ownership.
And it is strategic infrastructure, not administrative overhead.

Once that foundation is clear, the next barrier often emerges; perception.

Many firms still view governance as restrictive — a compliance burden that slows progress.

In the next article, we will challenge that assumption and explore why strong information governance is not a constraint on innovation, but the condition that enables it.

You are welcome to register for the first session in our ‘Mastering information governance’ webinar series. During this session, Peter Lamb, will provide a practical introduction to information governance, explaining what it is, how it differs from records management, and why it has become a priority.

He will also explore the growing shift in perspective: How strong information governance supports progress rather than restricting it.

This webinar is designed for firms at the start of their information governance journey, or those without a dedicated information governance team, and will focus on clarity rather than complexity.

Attendees will gain a shared understanding of information governance, why it matters now, and how better governed information enables efficiency, reduces friction, and supports initiatives such as AI. Click here to register.

 
Frame 482
MASTERING INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

The Mastering Information Governance series

Visit our Mastering Information Governance series homepage to explore our other resources offered by Peter Lamb, our Canadian Business Development Manager at LegalRM.

HOMEPAGE
1448x853 - Hero (case study)-2
About the author

Peter Lamb brings over three decades of experience in legal technology, having served as CIO for two of Canada’s largest law firms where he advanced the use of technology to improve practice management and operational efficiency.

He has also worked as a senior account manager helping firms navigate complex technology landscapes and deliver practical solutions to operational challenges.

Throughout his career, Peter has successfully led large-scale change management initiatives and has been an active contributor to the legal technology community, including serving on ILTA’s Board of Directors and as Conference Co-Chair.

Untitled design (25)