Philip Favro

The push to develop an information governance (IG) program is often stonewalled by the great interrogative “why.” Questions like “why are we budgeting money to solve a problem that does not exist?” can derail promising programs even when justified by a proper use case.

The nature of a lawyer’s duty of competence has been the subject of debate ever since the ABA revised its definition of competence almost four years ago to require lawyers to understand “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Since that time, much ink has been spilled advocating the importance of technological competence for lawyers, particularly in the area of eDiscovery.

A high-profile trial involving technology titans Oracle and Google taking place in San Francisco this month spotlights the strategic importance of privilege reviews for litigation attorneys. As detailed in a recent article published by Big Law Business, arguably the most important piece of evidence in Oracle America v. Google is an internal company email that Google originally claimed as privileged.

One of the most critical issues that attorneys must address in litigation is the need to protect their work product. Despite the importance of this issue, some lawyers have forgotten the basic elements of the work product doctrine. They might remember Hickman v. Taylor[1] from law school, together with Justice Jackson’s famous injunction against preparing a case “on wits borrowed from the adversary.” Probe more deeply into nuanced issues such as the discovery of fact or opinion work product, however, and the answers may not come so readily.