Extract from Dan Levine’s article “The Hidden Risks of Relying on Microsoft Purview for Legal Holds and Discovery”
Microsoft Purview is an appealing option for in-house legal teams. It’s built into Microsoft 365, aligned with IT’s infrastructure and offers a centralized approach to legal holds and eDiscovery. For many organizations, the high cost of Microsoft licensing requires at least an evaluation before considering expensive third-party tools. But while its integration makes it a natural choice, relying on Purview alone can expose customers to substantial risk, particularly in high-stakes or time-sensitive matters.
Many legal departments assume that Purview provides complete, defensible preservation and search capabilities out of the box. In practice, however, technical and workflow limitations often introduce gaps that can undermine a discovery strategy. Understanding where those blind spots exist and how to address them in collaboration with IT is essential for mitigating risk.
The “Good Enough” Assumption (and Why It Fails Under Pressure)
Because Purview is native to Microsoft 365, legal and IT teams often default to it without much scrutiny. For internal inquiries or early-stage matters, it may meet basic needs. But the same convenience that makes it attractive can also create false confidence, particularly when assumptions go untested.
Three Common Misconceptions
- Applying a legal hold in Purview automatically captures all relevant data, including hyperlinked files and shared content.
- All Microsoft 365 data is fully indexed and searchable.
- Purview’s built-in tools can meet the rigor of regulatory investigations or complex litigation.
