First, its worth noting that perfectionism can be the opposite of professionalism, because if you’re going that extra mile for yourself (be it to satisfy your insecurities, your interest in the subject matter, your need for hours or whatever), you’re not serving your client like you should. I’m a proud member of the labour and employment bar, and as the GC’s quoted in Originate! might appreciate, we’re good at pragmatic service by necessity.

Second, I’m not sure I draw the link to e-discovery in the same way. To me, the e-discovery practice issues relate to a different pair of p-words: proportionality and professionalism. As I understand the concept of proportionality, it’s about tailoring procedure (by express rule or principle) to some measure of litigation value. And though running a file through a streamlined process may cause a perfectionist some stress, the compromise in truth-seeking is demanded by procedure rather than person. The perfectionist lawyer is just along for the ride (or better be). As for the second p-word – professionalism – my view is we’re dealing with basic competency issues and a resulting need for specialization. Sadly, our profession hardly has a clean record when it comes to e-discovery foul ups, so this may be more about hiring the right lawyer, firm or service provider than simply hiring one of us.

Thanks again. I’m enjoying your always relevant and insightful blog!

Dan