Maybe runny-nosed attorney meant records managers cannot decide which
particular items satisfy specific legal demands for evidence. If so, that
is partly right - attorneys make judgement calls about what evidence they
prefer to use in order to meet their needs, just like any professional
decides which records count as important in their profession. However,
records managers better understand concepts of record authenticity  - both
in theory and in practice - than attorneys do. An attorney's needs for
evidence always includes the need for record authenticity.

But disputes about record authenticity are less common than disputes within
the organization about what items are important 'records' and why and who
has to decide that. Laws exist requiring many record types to be created.
Records managers mostly care about complying with those laws and about
reducing litigation risks like discovery abuse. (archivists, by comparison,
 are not so driven by laws about records of business activities, nor law
suits, that's not the near-universal nature of their work). Attorneys
direct professionals across organizations more than records managers do to
engage in certain in business activities, or change their activities, in
order to: (1) comply with laws that state what records must exist, or (2)
mitigate litigation risk even if no laws specify what records must exist.
Given all that, IMHO the attorney's opinion about which specific records in
an organization count as 'records' is more important than the records
manager's opinion. That doesn't mean attorneys have a better understanding
of the generally accepted definitions of information, records, data and
files, or of the nature of 'information' or how it gets transmitted,
accessed and controlled in the modern world and the social, political and
organizational consequences. I think records managers are more
knowledgeable about those things because they study it and practice it -
they get masters degrees in information studies and CRM certifications and
implement their knowledge at work every day. They know international
information policy and how to build relational databases.  Sociology and
computer programming. They create the infrastructure in their organizations
- the programs and policies - that enable use of the information across the
organization, especially use by attorneys.  Also judges like Judge
Scheindlin cite records management organizations as the authority on record
management practices ('records management is not the dark arts' etc.).
Attorneys have a different area of expertise.

To satisfy their goals of producing specific evidence in specific legal
proceedings, the attorneys should decide what records are important. For
compliance with specific record laws, the attorneys should direct what
records get created. In disputes about what files are junk, the attorney is
probably the best referee, depending on what laws and legal risks the
organization faces.  But an attorney is not as good as the records manager
at establishing whether a record they intend to use as evidence is
authentic, i.e. whether the many systems and processes that produced the
record have integrity.


-- 
Maureen Cusack
San Francisco, CA
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]